[WikiEN-l] Metapedia - worse than Conservapedia

[George Herbert]

On 7/26/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
> > On 7/26/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 7/26/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Sure. And we get to say it sucks. Ain't free speech great?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Even though wikipedia has been soundly panned by Harlan
> >>> Ellison, I can't help but refer you to his line about people not
> >>> being entitled to their opinion, but rather being entitled to an
> >>> *informed* opinion.
> >>>
> >>> So far all the panning of metapedia has been based on pages
> >>> that had obviously been inserted there with the purpose of
> >>> disrupting the site. Saying it sucks because of such attempts
> >>> to disrupt the site in question is hardly an informed opinion.
> >>>
> >>> There may be crappy content on metapedia inserted there
> >>> by its core contributor base, but I have yet to find any myself,
> >>> and more to the point, none of the people who have expressed
> >>> distaste at the site existing in the first place, have presented
> >>> such either. Saying that one disagrees with the ideology of
> >>> some group of people, is one thing, saying that what they
> >>> write is without merit is a separate question.
> >>>
> >>> Infact what I have found so far, though often brief, compares
> >>> favourably to the content on _supposedly_ quality
> >>> oriented citizendium on the neutrality scale.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I was talking about Conservapedia. I haven't read Metapedia, so I have
> >> no informed opinion there.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, I have read (as much as I could stomach) of
> >> Conservapedia. And my (thus informed) opinion is that it sucks. Take the
> >> worst POV revisions of every article we've got, and you got Conservapedia!
> >>
> >
> > Please stop using wikien-l as a forum to bash other wikis.  We knew
> > what you thought about them some number of posts ago.  These comments
> > being made on a public mailing list don't do Wikipedia's public image
> > any good.
> >
> > I neither think your conclusions are wrong nor want to infringe your
> > freedom to have and speak your opinions, but ongoing bashing on this
> > list is bad for Wikipedias' reputation.
> >
> >
> >
> I don't believe NPOV applies to the mailing list, the last time I checked.

No, certainly not.

But writers and critics are clearly aware of the list, and though they
may not get uppity now when you're poking fun at a bunch of white
supremacists who likely karmically deserve it, they will remember.
And everything you say here is on the public record, and since it's a
Foundation list, it indirectly reflects on the Foundation.

This went beyond "take notice of" and "have obligatory round of
comments on", to "bash on site X a while".  That doesn't reflect well
on us.

Do you want David Gerard to have to defend all your comments today
live on BBC News some day?  Or Jimmy, on CNN or Larry King Live?


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com