Keep. I think it ought to stay. There is good information on it. It cuts to the heart of what is an encyclopedia. I truly want to know what the policy is at this encyclpaedia. It is about Policy. What is an encyclopaedia about?WHEELER 14:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Rant, rant, rant. Delete, delete, delete. Author compares those he disagrees with to Nazis. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:55, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Sure, the author uses quotes, but they don't make sense in context... -Seth Mahoney 18:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Angela. Maximus Rex 18:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Personal rant. Appropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. JRR Trollkien 19:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My question to all: Will Wikipedia be used as a platform for revisionism? Do any of you understand "the strict law of continuity' that has shaped Western culture and systems of knowledge? The *pedia* in Wikipedia is a Greek word. Take it out of its context and it means nothing. Wikipedia just becomes a platform for revisionism.WHEELER 20:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The "strict law of continuity" is not fact and the Greek origins of the Greek/geek hybrid word 'wikipedia' are irrelevant. -Seth Mahoney 20:47, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Second, point, it is the "think tank" section. That is what it's there for. To discuss Policy. It is under Wikipedia:Policy thinktank
But it doesn't discuss policy. -Seth Mahoney 20:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. He makes some reasonable points, but Wikipedia is not a debating society. I agree with Angela. Denni 04:53, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)
Delete. More personal rant than reason. Angela is right. Dandrake 19:24, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Move to Meta if anyone cares to. Lots of issues to address before it will be ready for the Wikipedia namespace. Andrewa 17:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
