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