On 5/29/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote: That's an absurd statement. They're constantly trying to out Wikipedians.

On 5/29/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote: In addition to Stormfront in general being a hate site, I'm surprised that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic#External_links Isn't mentioned, as Bryan from Palatine aka Dino et al also routinely try to attack/slam/out people there, or used to. No one has rushed to remove that. Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com

Phil Sandifer wrote: Phil, drop the bullshit FUD. Nobody "conspired" to call the police in your town. Some unidentified person, who may or may not have been a Wikipedia Review user (but was almost certainly a reader) is to blame for that. And, let's be honest here, there was a slightly legitimate concern. Don't try to paint yourself as a victim.

Phil Sandifer wrote: And here we have a fine example of the problem caused by refusing to link to pages on or say the name of sites where people do things we don't like. When I went and took a brief look at Wikipedia Review, what I saw was yet another internet forum, somewhat more negative in tone and with a higher proportion of kooks, but otherwise not very different than what I'd expect in the comments section of one of Nicholas Carr's columns about Wikipedia. Undermedicated people with an internet forum? Or gibbering demons with sinister plans to destroy Wikipedia? Beats me. There's another example in Gracenotes' RFA. I saw someone concerned that he had posted on Wikipedia Review. And I saw another person suggesting we shouldn't even mention the name Wikipedia Review. Was Gracenotes' alleged post a reasonable attempt to reach out to and engage our critics, something I routinely encourage? Or was he leading a conspiracy to eat babies with grapefruit spoons? Did he post at there all? Who knows. Pretty much any other time people make an accusation of nefarious behavior on Wikipedia, we investigate it to death, with links galore, so that any reasonable person can find the truth of things. We, as a community, are *amazing* at that. I think that commitment to collaborative, reasoned judgment is one of our deepest strengths, and one of the things that has allowed us to scale so massively. So when eventually somebody tells me what the proposed policy is (despite repeated requests, nobody has yet), I still think we'll never come to lasting consensus on it because information needed to make good judgments is being actively suppressed. William