"I just repeated the insult, I didn't insult you" hasn't been a defence since kindergarten.
---

Here's how a wiki works:
* you use it to find information
* if you find information that's missing you add it.
* if you find information that's wrong, you correct it.

In an ideal world, this'll be a totally open process where anyone can edit pages. In practice, there's more people that love to destroy things others built than who love to build things, so usually a login is needed to edit.

Just because there's other people doing the work doesn't mean you're absolved, because that leads to a sort of tragedy of the commons scenario. Many a wiki dies that way.

Tell you what, Sloth will do her best to try and make the "on alert" Article. It will say at the top, On Alert

Better hurry, there might be another epic content add-on coming. In ludicrous speed.
...

You are really into movie quotes right now...

Mel Brooks rocks BTW.

It's insulting to mention the reasons someone else doesn't like the wiki? What the heck am I reading here? I brought that up because it came from a perspective I hadn't considered before and, while I don't agree with it, I can certainly see where they're coming from. Perspective being the keyword there.

It seems that all anyone got out of that was: "I hate teh wiki, its stoopid" - Towershield

I know how a wiki works, bud.

I'm not going to edit the CO wiki because I really don't need to. The things I look for on it are already there.

I have no issues with the wiki.

Some of its editors can go play in traffic though.

No, this is insulting:
---
Could have fooled me.

Even an up-to-date attention-grabbing first-page article?

Oh would you 2 drop it already? / showers lohr with praise . Love the wiki :D

Tower, I don't see "defensiveness". I see, "Hey, you see a problem with the wiki. It's a wiki. You think fixing this is a high priority? Go to it, and thanks for the help!"

I also see you accusing Lohr of being "lazy" for not doing it herself (where she may in fact have what she considers higher priorities), then not doing it yourself, and apparently becoming angry when the cognitive disconnect is pointed out. (That is to say, if she's "lazy" for not fixing it, aren't you "lazy" for refusing to do it yourself? You can, you know - you say you know what a wiki is...)

I no longer say anything in zone chat; yes it's unreliable, and with good reason, all thanks to Cryptic amateur hour chat bans by the unidentified.

As to the debate about the wiki, anyone who refuses to contribute to its management forfeits any right to complain and be taken seriously.