Matt wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 9:55 PM, Steve Summit
<scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
Yow. I, for one, didn't know that (though I
can't say I'm surprised).
I'd advise you to be a little more cautious
about taking everything
Alec says here at face value.
Point taken. I did mean to say, on general principles, something
along the lines of "if this is true, I can't say I'm surprised".
But having skimmed [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova]],
it appears that the relevant particulars *are* true.
(By "relevant particulars" I mean: that zeal against Wikipedia
Review and its suspected supporters and sycophants had become
excessive, and was being used to justify clearly unjust actions.)
I'm wary of believing anything at this point. But that in itself is a
bad sign, IMO. I no longer feel confident that "the system works."
There's an ArbCom election coming up, can you imagine the damage that
would be done to ArbCom's credibility if it were to come out afterward
that members that were up for election were involved in this and their
involvement was known but we weren't told about it before voting?
The secrecy is what's most toxic. Maybe we should start applying
Verifiability outside of just the encyclopedic content.