On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
On 8/1/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
On 8/2/07, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com>
> On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:> >
> > > If they are sensible, then why are they on Wikipedia Review?
> > If I wanted to read discussion and analysis of these allegations about
> > SlimVirgin where else would I go? There's apparently nothing on
> > Wikipedia about it.
> Why should there be anything on Wikipedia about it? Why would you
> expect an encyclopedia to contain discussion and analysis of the
> absurd allegations of trolls and stalkers?
If I knew nothing about SV and her Wikipedia history, I would at least
expect my n00b question of "SV, what's this on /. about you supposedly being
some sort of spy?" or my n00b statement of fact like "SV, there's this
thing on /. about you being a secret agent" to be responded to civilly, with
at least a brief explanation, rather than having them being removed from the
talk page without a trace,
If Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a pedophile, do you
imagine you respond civilly to questions of "John, what's all this
about you being a pedophile"?
That's not the proper question. The proper question would be, if
Wikipedia Review started alleging you were a secret agent, do you
imagine you respond civilly to question of "John, what's all this
about you being a secret agent"?
If slashdot ran an article saying that I was really [name redacted], a
journalist and secret agent who infiltrated Wikipedia, I don't think
I'd get upset. Hopefully I'd even do something witty like put
up on my user page.
The allegations are far more outrageous and extensive than that;
that's why the pedophile question is indeed apt.