On 5/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Back in the real world, someone claimed that links to sites like WR could benefit Wikipedia. I challenged him to provide examples of how they could do so. What followed was a paucity of actual examples, but an increasingly enraged set of posts, insisting that Wikipedia was being damaged, people were being censored, babies being murdered, etc.
It has been pointed out from the very beginning of this, back in the first week of April, that one of the links that was erased was in the Expert Retention article, citing a quotation from that very site. This has been pointed out over and over and over. Perhaps you want to disparage that too-- plenty of people have been willing to, as the whole anti-credential episode made abundantly clear-- but the evidence remains.
The very beginning of this? I thought this started today.
If, on the other hand, you can't prove in a court of law that Wikipedia Review has actually done something illegal, you should just grow a thicker skin.
I think you are somehow imagining that the stuff WR writes about me actually upsets me.
Actually, I think it does bother you, or else you wouldn't attack me so for posting on it.
Why, have you been posting about me there? Have you said anything particularly nasty that you thought would upset me?
I think in the case of WR, it's more an issue of the adage being true, you can tell a man by the company he keeps.