Charles, please try and obtain some proportion, Wikipedia is one of billions
of internet sites, changing one's name and/or concealing one's identity from
the masses who surf the internet is not a "major breach of trust" -
swindling one's Granny in real life out of a million dollars is a "major
breach of trust."
What exactly has he done that is so heinous and terrible apart from make the
Arncom/Jimbo look a little silly. Was his work on the Arbcom so terrible? -
I certainly don't recall you mentioning that it was - are his mainspace
edits so dreadful? - No. He edited David Cameron's page - that is all -
nothing more. For all we know David Cameron may be on the Arbcom himself. It
needs to be pointed out that Blacketer was assuming perfectly legitimately a
pseudonym and merely exercising his right to edit the page - even if it was
POV (and I'm not saying it was), it was not grossly so. This is what needs
publicly explaining and the projects reputation restoring.
Giano
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Giacomo M-Z wrote:
...and so your pattern of rubbishing dissenters
continues, I see,
Charles. Oh well, some things never change. In spite of the fact
Blacketer, or whatever he is calling himself, was a little devious (I
don't blame him changing from his real name), his edits to David
Cameron's page were hardly harmful or wildly inacurate. They have been
rather blown out of proportion by The Mail - if Blacketer were hell
bent on politically prejudicing the encyclopedia would hardly chose to
sit on a committee with such as you for two years discussing less
than fascinating wiki-crimes. It's quite clear to all that he was a
dedicated Wikipedian with no raging political agenda and that should
be being vociferously shouted from the roof tops - it is not.
Giano
Have you actually read the thread? I made the point about neutrality
being the criterion for editing some time ago.
What you call being "devious" was in fact a major breach of trust, bad
faith of a type no serious Wikipedian could let go by. That is why this
affair is a scandal. The Mail's representation of the scandal is
inaccurate in numerous ways, perhaps, but electoral deceit is
scandalous. Why are you saying it isn't?
Charles
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l