Talk:Scheler on Ressentiment

A Good Wikipedia Entry
Somebody tagged this article as needing cleanup for being "like a dissertation, rather than an encyclopedia entry." I don't know what you're talking about. Have you checked out the economics entries? Wikipedia should not be aiming to replicate the lowest common denominator level of informativeness found in commercial (so market-constrained) encyclopedias. It can be more informative. This entry is certainly not written like a dissertation. I find it really informative as is. Perhaps it could be added to or reorganized. I would not want to see it emptied of what seems to me really useful content. Somebody did a great job here. I'm removing the reproving cleanup tag. I feel the cleanup tag was motivated not by the best interests of the public, but by ressentiment. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's written neither like an encyclopedia entry nor a dissertation -- it's written like a contribution from an "independent scholar". The style is generally poor, informal and bloated. I agree with the need for cleanup. 205.208.122.147 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the shittiest article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Which is a bit ironic, given the content, I suppose. But what's interesting is that this seems to have gone untouched since 2010! The summary at Ressentiment is briefer, but much more comprehensible. Arided (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)