User talk:Tom harrison/concerns

Hey Tom, I noticed that you had a say about the page move of the "allegations of state terrorism by the US" article. I think that a title such as Criticism of US Foreign Policy would fit the page much better. This would avoid the weasel words "terrorism" and "allegations." The latter being too ambiguous and wording of the current title having major semantics problems. This would also allow us to get away from arguing over the meaning of words and could focus more on supplying criticisms and counterpoints to make the article NPOV. What do you think?Wiegrajo 13:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be something to take up on the article talk page, where I have already said what I think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I see the central problem of your essay, and the reason that I think there's no resolution for it:

How much time do we spend dealing with problems around the biographies of non-notable porn stars? If we had a more balanced community, fewer of these would get kept at AfD and we would have a higher standard of notability.

You don't have to spend even one second dealing with "non-notable" porn stars.

You are saying no more, no less than "why can't we just ban everyone I don't like?" Yes, you'd probably find it more congenial if this was Tomharrisonapedia, but see, I'd like biographies of all porn stars (not that I focus on porn stars; make that schoolteachers and I'd say the same) and I don't find it problematic that they're not "notable".

In general, no one forces anyone to take part in drama here. When someone does force someone else, by harassing or upsetting them, yeah, I'm for action being taken. But if you seek out and create drama by attacking someone else's area of interest because you don't deem it suitable for your encyclopaedia, then I'm not sure that there's anything to be done. Nearly all combatants here willingly partake in the fighting, and the rules, such as they are, exist mostly as tools for playing the game. Grace Note (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also think there's no resolution for it, which is kind of the point. Some people who might contribute, or who used to contribute, see that the only way to win that game is not to play. Today there are more active editors who agree with you than with me, so rejoice and be glad. The community that writes and maintains the encyclopedia is and will continue to be made up of the people who choose to work in this environment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]