In a message dated 3/14/2007 7:39:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, richholton@gmail.com writes:
I'm troubled by the course of the conversation that took place about this on WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one should not revert Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh, because of board membership.
There have been many, many assertions of late that we on Wikipedia do not (should not) give credit to credentials, but to the content of contributions. So it's disturbing to see these arguments used. Using these sorts of arguments does Wikipedia no favors, and contributes to the notion that there is a cabal that one should not cross lest one suffer the penalty.
Note that I have no comment (and have developed no opinion) on the content of the contributions of any of the parties involved in the original dispute.
Sounds to me like those in power in Wikipedia want to define things. That shouldn't be the way either. What about truth in articles, not "out there somewhere"?
Vincent UN:John Wallace Rich
************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.