Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation. The way to combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other side of the story out more effectively. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here helps.
On Dec 7, 2007 2:18 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:19 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
Daniel;
While I feel it's fine for everyone to have their say, including Bagley, I'm somewhat dissapointed that you participated in helping a writer create a puff piece that completely dismissed Bagley's long and well documented history of dangerous stalking and harrassment activities.
What he's done online makes it completely unsuitable for him to ever edit Wikipedia again.
Cade is clearly looking for and finding controversy. The Register thrives on that. The reality is rather different. Rendering aid and comfort to people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of the project.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l