[WikiEN-l] More on the Ed Poor/William Connolley controversey

Sun Nov 30 03:38:30 UTC 2003

A few days ago, Gareth Owen wrote to Ed Poor:

>  > No.  You called for William Connolley's edits to be reverted.

Jimbo then responded:

>In the interests of accuracy, Ed said absolutely no such thing.  He's
>very supportive of those edits, in fact, and has additionally
>suggested that it would be appropriate to cite Connolley as a source.

Since Jimbo is interested in accuracy, he should review the revision 
history for the SEPP article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=SEPP&action=history

I think it's obvious from even a cursory review that Ed has *not* 
been supportive of Connolley's edits. I'm flabbergasted that Jimbo 
cites Ed's interest in "citing Connolley as a source" as evidence of 
how "supportive" Ed has been. Take a look, for example, at Ed's edit 
on 18:39, 24 Nov 2003, when Ed actually *did* revise the article to 
"cite Connolley as a source." Here's Ed's comment on that edit: 
"attributing your POV to you, Dr. Connolley - you've finally stepped 
over that line I warned you about."

Does that sound "supportive" to you, Jimbo?

Sheesh!
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------