User talk:Anonymous Dissident/Why Wikipedia is not a sinking ship

Very well-said. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Julian. Your kind words are very valued. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. For me, the most salient point you make is that most content editors are happily contributing without being affected by the backstage goings-on. Even more significant, I would guess that more than 99% of our readers are even cognizant that there exists a backstage. I know many people who value Wikipedia as a source, but whose eyes glaze over when I mention anything about a content discussion in which I've participated. We all need to remember that it's not about us. Thanks for your essay. Un school 02:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We all need to remember that it's not about us." – precisely. Though many of us contribute for the personal fulfilment it provides, we must not forget that we are here for the readers. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another 'well said'. I'm pretty new to editig WP, and I pretty well confine myself to early aviation. There are a lot of realy ill-informed or badly written articles there, and also a fair number of really goood ones & all the editors I've had occasion to discuss thingswith are courteous and forgiving of a newcomers occasional ineptitudes, although looking at their talk pages there is clearly the odd whiff of sulphur. On the other hand there is a lot of rubish & over-inflated trivia, which as a grumpy old git I'd say merely reflects the world me live in. I mean things like the several screens worth article on some one single by a currentt pop star I somehow found myself looking at the other day. Imo the reverse of Greshams Law will apply to WP: the good will replace the inadequate, and the trivia will get whittled down by the odd sly copyeditTheLongTone (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]