I'm JustaProgrammer who loves ExtremeProgramming, FreeSoftware and UserFriendly.
I am a BeautifulDreamer according to the TheFourCodersOfTheApocalypse
On DanBarlow's page I found the following text, which I like to adopt:
I (often) sign my contributions. This is to declare culpability, not to claim immutability. Edit what you want to edit, remove my signature if it's no longer appropriate. I guess, that makes me an OpenAuthor.
I even would like to urge you to edit my contribution. I know that quite often I do make mistakes (especially in spelling, punctuation and grammar, since English is not my native language) and all the other people on wiki together know so much more than I do.
Wiki would be worse without all those WikiGnomes lurking in the niches.
Sometime ago I read an article in which StevenFeuerstein explains why he started to use controversial examples including political statments in his books: http://www.ora.com/news/feuerstein_1000.html. This was a real eye-opener to me. It is an illusion, that a discussion/wiki/article can be purely technical and absolutely apolitical. It is already hard to try to stay neutral, but it is impossible to be totally apolitical.
OTOH, would people still fawn over Feuerstein's thesis if his examples had been on the other side of the spectrum?Thanks for sharing this article - it's great ! both Feuerstein's explanations, and the comments that followed. -- LaurentSteffan
Maybe the opinion that political issues should be kept totally out of (technical) texts contains its share of responsibility for why people are so sullen on politics: They are taught to keep political thinking out of their life.
I will eventually move this note to another page (if you want to do it for me: go ahead). It just came to my mind and I scribbled it down here, so that it won't get lost.CategoryHomePageCategoryGerman