Wit & Wisdom

"Almost every time I saw a substantive edit, I found the user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account... insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content... If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit." Aaron Swartz 2006

"I was not aware that reliable sources were determined by editorial value judgements on [an] individual's scholarship on the basis of religious prejudice. This is not my case but Wikipedia policy. If I have strayed in this regard, please direct me towards them as I am yet to come across these innovations." Ari89 from the Historical Jesus talk page, 19 July 2010.

"I have accepted that the only way to please you would be to find a source that states that "the view that Jesus did not exist is the bees knees, and every free-thinking rational scholar who despises Christianity knows it to be true with complete certainty" but sadly, such a consensus does not exist." Ari89 from the Historicity of Jesus talk page, 00:21, July 31 2010.

"An historian who advocates the Christ Myth Theory is like a biologist who advocates young earth creationism." Me (as far as I know).

"I could no more be angry with him that ridicules me than with a blind man who has stepped on my foot." Unknown.

Editing Help

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For a level-head and humility in a tough, contentious edit of William Lane Craig; thanks! Theowarner (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For learning that according to bigoted editors, Christian scholars cannot be trusted as sources on Wikipedia