User:Sid/WP or CP

How much alike are CP and WP? Sure, they deeply differ in their world view (what with CP claiming that the Bible is pretty much the only scientific and historic document that matters), but leaving those things out... what do we get?

I've put some key terms in HTML comments and replaced them with "[...]" or "[site name]". The omissions are telltale signs, like the site in question having a liberal agenda or having an arbitration/review panel. The remaining comments are still packed with accusations that make it hard to guess who the subject of all the accusations is.


 * From here:
 * It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, [...] and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument [...] all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc.


 * From here:
 * Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of deceit. The fact that [...] Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough.


 * From here:
 * Goodness! Time really is running out on you! Your drama and cries of threats, etc., are a real bore. Have you thought of trying [site name], where mobocracy and bullying by squashing plain talk rule?


 * From here:
 * In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on [site name] take it down. As the histories will show, Boss Man, if you care to look.


 * From here:
 * I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet many people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned.


 * From here:
 * [Site name] has voluminous vague rules that are then arbitrarily enforced by, as you say, mob rule. It reminds me of the French Revolution, frankly.


 * From here:
 * A wiki need not be a direct democracy, just as most countries are not. It is essential to avoid mob rule. [Site name] fails in this essential regard.


 * From here (bottom of page):
 * Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy. [Site name] has complex, senseless, and arbitrarily enforced rules.


 * From here:
 * I've even allowed our detractors to thumb their noses at us on their talk pages, giving it special deference.


 * From here (quoting an external article):
 * [Site name] members [...] have the power, the numbers and the seniority. They can win any argument about content, either through mob tactics or a well-placed block by a friendly administrator.