User talk:Tharthan/The Fall of Wikipedia

This essay . . .

. . . is entirely devoid of specific examples or any evidence whatsoever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Seems to be a very nostalgic essay where the author is suffering from a heavy case of Rosy retrospection. Wikipedia was never this pure and holy collection of knowledge. There have always been and always will be vandals, spammers, uncivil disputes, wikilawyering and so on. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I hesitate to give specific examples, as they are still particularly timely, and I do not wish to light anyone's fuse. Nevertheless, there are some things I could still likelily link to that I have already mentioned, I suppose.

@Winner 42: Of course it was never a "pure and holy collection of knowledge". It was, however, going in a better direction--and possessing better goals--than it is at this very moment. I never mentioned vandals nor did I mention spammers particularly, by the way. Those are unavoidable, unfortunately. The things I mentioned in the essay, though, had ought to not be the case.

To speak more generally:

It seems Wikipedia's value system is changing for the worse.

If you want more specific examples, I can leave messages on your talk pages about them. But, again, I hesitate to give particular specific examples due to their timeliness. Tharthan (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]