Talk:Big Five
From RationalWikiWiki
I think SusanG is more likely than Linus, or RA even. Linus may be old school cabal and all, but he isn't active enough for this list, IMO. Not sure about Susan's "influence", though. It's almost like a b-ball team with a rotating fifth starter ;) depending on who's wasting more time on the site (BobM, Researcher, Dick Turpis, PFoster, Lyra, etc. etc.) humanbe in 17:51, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
- You are part of the Big Five and you obviously spend lots of time on the site, so which user do you think should be put on the list? --Admin 18:11, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
- I think the concept might be flawed at its root. I am sure I get to wank my chain loudly and powerfully. Trent, when he signs in as himself, likewise. AmesG is respected, but so are many others; ditto AKkeldson. Susan sometimes talks loudly, but doesn't seem to carry a big stick (see the shakespeare authorship controversy, or write it). I think this topic is well-covered in the article we have that delineates the social structure of RW, and there isn't really a "central force" that carries the weight this article implies. Hell, Doc Lipson would be on the list, but he contributes rarely these days. So if you really want to locate the "power center", just blame me (as the most tireless editor) and Trent (as the owner, de facto dictator) and leave it at that for now? humanbe in 21:52, 21 June 2008 (CDT)
- To be honest, I look at this article and cringe. I wanted to delete it, but I wasn't sure how others would react to that.
- Motion to delete article. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:19, 21 June 2008 (CDT)
- Seconded. Are there three people here? humanbe in 23:54, 21 June 2008 (CDT)
- Not at the moment. Wait until Admin or someone else comes along, or delete now? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:35, 22 June 2008 (CDT)
- I'd advise to delete, with extreme prejudice. I'm sure "Admin" won't mind. The article adds nothing to RWW, and represents no "reality" on RW. Kill or save the talk page? Hmmm. humanbe in 02:00, 22 June 2008 (CDT)
- I prefer to save talk pages of deleted articles to preserve a publicly available record of the discussion behind the deletion. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 02:39, 22 June 2008 (CDT)
- I'd advise to delete, with extreme prejudice. I'm sure "Admin" won't mind. The article adds nothing to RWW, and represents no "reality" on RW. Kill or save the talk page? Hmmm. humanbe in 02:00, 22 June 2008 (CDT)
- Not at the moment. Wait until Admin or someone else comes along, or delete now? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:35, 22 June 2008 (CDT)
- Seconded. Are there three people here? humanbe in 23:54, 21 June 2008 (CDT)
- I think the concept might be flawed at its root. I am sure I get to wank my chain loudly and powerfully. Trent, when he signs in as himself, likewise. AmesG is respected, but so are many others; ditto AKkeldson. Susan sometimes talks loudly, but doesn't seem to carry a big stick (see the shakespeare authorship controversy, or write it). I think this topic is well-covered in the article we have that delineates the social structure of RW, and there isn't really a "central force" that carries the weight this article implies. Hell, Doc Lipson would be on the list, but he contributes rarely these days. So if you really want to locate the "power center", just blame me (as the most tireless editor) and Trent (as the owner, de facto dictator) and leave it at that for now? humanbe in 21:52, 21 June 2008 (CDT)
