Really Charles, you mentioning Greg Kohs to prove your point - you must be
truly desperate, is he not another of the many dissenters that you, Jimbo
and Co have suppressed. Anyone who does not toe the "Jimbo line" has to be
driven off or banned and shut up. I correspond with many and listen to their
views, even when I don't always agree (as I didn't with Greg on that
occasion); it's a great pity that Wikipedians are prevented by Jimbo and his
cronies from doing likewise openly and honestly on Wikipedia because then,
and only then the project may mature and grow.
Wikipedia's PR stinks because it has to know-tow to the wishes of Jimbo and
his coterie, a group of sycophants singularly lacking in judgement and
wisdom - as long as this situation is allowed to continue, Wikipedia is fair
game to all journalists as it will always appear amateurish and ,frankly,
rather silly and unreliable.
Giano
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Giacomo M-Z wrote:
Nothing of substance done to refute the
Hattersley rubbish. Jimbo claimed
to
be in conversation with the paper - in truth, the
paper dismissed him and
Wikipedia's PR trembled from the sidelines.
Giano
Let's look at what you (apparently) did. You contacted Greg Kohs, a
long-time Wikipedia critic who pops up all over the Web commenting
nastily on WP. Let's see what use he made of your outburst:
"It seems that my original concern for Giles Hattersley was that I found
it hard to believe that he would deliberately lie in print. User:Giano
corresponded with me this afternoon, and he distinctly believed that
Hattersley was "a liar", and he worked to create an article to
"prove"
this little point. I cautioned Giano to slow down and consider that this
more likely is a misunderstanding of some kind. And, it turns out that
Hattersley is assigning to a Times editor the blame for this claim that
an English Wikipedia article contained errors about him. It does all get
ironed out, thankfully. But, not before a pro-Wikipedia editor uses
Wikipedia as a revenge platform ..."
This is at a Telegraph blog comment page:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/shane_richmond/blog/2009/02/08/giles_hattersleā¦
In my interpretation you simply supplied an arch-critic of Wikipedia -
one of the small "Schadenfreude Gang" whose day is made every time that
a scandal hits WP - with good material to support the thesis that BLP is
an empty letter, and Wikipedians will create articles about people to
embarrass them.
One test for you and your competence to issue lectures on PR: rearrange
the words "productive" and "counter" into a well known hyphenated
phrase. That may be hard, so here it is in terms of architecture where
your competence is not doubted: WP people live in a glass house and
should not throw stones.
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