Ira,
Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable.
Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt
over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the
media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be
painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold
no responsibility for.
If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of
Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly
don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be
doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing
with media.
What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you
raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have
stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and
it will make you look in the future.
Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford
said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically
created a tense situation....hell Siko even stated on Gendergap that
New York Magazine still sucks.
Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do
realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both
Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations.
But you stayed silent on that....how quaint...how <s>Scientologist</s>
Wikipediologist-like.
It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions
about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments
Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would
likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who
dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being
attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira.
For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few
times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she
recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will
New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if
Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not
have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated
in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told
her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article,
and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people
generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system.
Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on
--- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they
have been slighted.
Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him
suing a Greek Wikipedia editor, he had a bio article on one project,
Greek Wikipedia.[2] He now has an article on 18 projects.[3] It's the
same thing with Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station,[4] which now
has articles on 33 projects.[5] On the flipside, Pine Gap,[6] has an
article on only 7 projects.[7] Interesting comparison isn't it.
So, there you have it Ira, I hope this gives you something to think
about, and if you want to comment further, then I welcome it.
Cheers
Russavia
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Katsanevas
[2]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12877939&oldid=108324487
[3]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12877939
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station
[5]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10369016
[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap
[7]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1754535
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Russavia, despite the smilie, your last comment
suggests that someone would
create a biography of a living person in retaliation for the fact that she
wrote unflatteringly and made errors in a piece about the Wikiconference.
BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the
article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor may
any suggestion of doing so be made at any time..
It is also undesirable to provide ammunition for the (sometimes,
unfortunately, accurate) perception that being the subject of a Wikipedia
article is something that people should fear, nor that we would, even
jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to
be called "revenge editing."
Please don't make this sort of comment again.
Thanks,
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
There is the option of contacting her directly, or the chief editor of
the magazine, for further comment/clarification. Or the Wikipedia way
-- create a totally neutral on-project biography. ;)
Cheers,
Russavia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>