The fact that the page is enormous doesn't mean the review was comprehensive
- it absolutely was not, in my opinion. The comparison between the Harvard
class event and this one is this: Both were coordinated attempts to
influence content on Wikipedia, and both inspired a degree of hysteria and
proposals to ban anyone related. I'm hopefully that the comparison will
continue, where in this second case cooler heads prevail and the bans are
not left in place (barring the presentation of some significant evidence of
on-wiki disruption).
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I am puzzled on multiple fronts by this email. Was the
Harvard law class
not
a randomly chosen class of law students, but a group of people who had met
in order to make waterboarding sound legal in public discourse? Because
otherwise I don't see the analogy. The only other people CM has 'banned'
are people following Zeq's instructions and who give their accounts away
in
the "evidence", or were editing, clearly disruptively, from the CAMERA
office. I'm sure the former, at least, could have their bans lifted if
they
repudiated the supposed methods and agreed to some form of mentorship. On
the contrary, the attitude has been "yes, so what. Why can't you see,
Wikipedia is biased, why aren't you worried about what the other lot are
doing, we're just trying to fix it, are you on *their* side?" which is
precisely the attitude we don't really have time for.
I wouldn't call that enormous subpage of AN/I "not much review", but
whatever.
RR