[WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Charles Matthews]

Giacomo M-Z wrote:
> Charles, please try and obtain some proportion, Wikipedia is one of 
> billions of internet sites, changing one's name and/or concealing 
> one's identity from the masses who surf the internet is not a "major 
> breach of trust" - swindling one's Granny in real life out of a 
> million dollars is a "major breach of trust."
>  
> What exactly has he done that is so heinous and terrible apart from 
> make the Arncom/Jimbo look a little silly. Was his work on the Arbcom 
> so terrible? - I certainly don't recall you mentioning that it was - 
> are his mainspace edits so dreadful? - No. He edited David Cameron's 
> page - that is all - nothing more. For all we know David Cameron may 
> be on the Arbcom himself. It needs to be pointed out that Blacketer 
> was assuming perfectly legitimately a pseudonym and merely exercising 
> his right to edit the page - even if it was POV (and I'm not saying it 
> was), it was not grossly so. This is what needs publicly explaining 
> and the projects reputation restoring.
>  
> Giano
Surprise - you and I seem to hold different ethical views.

I didn't comment on SB as Arbitrator, for the good reason that most of 
what I know of  that comes from a confidential email list. 

WP is not one of a billion websites, but one of the top 10 in the 
world.  The business is analogous to the Essjay scandal; for which I was 
asked at about 20 minutes notice to talk to an ABC reporter on the 
phone, to add our spin to a story. Back in the thread, I was saying that 
this is what can be done in these circumstances. You, on the other hand, 
are dismissive of exactly that approach. 

I do not think it helpful to argue, in relation to the SB story, that 
"Wikipedia is one of billions of internet sites, changing one's name 
and/or concealing one's identity from the masses who surf the 
internet is not a "major breach of trust" ".  This would not aid our 
cause if printed: being dismissive of issues of trust makes the person 
concerned look sleazy.  Frankly, that's the argument of a low-life, 
shrugging shoulders.

Apparently anyone who allows you to proceed with mockery is somehow not 
so bad a person. I beg to differ.

Charles