On 8/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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 silly 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SV-in-black.png up on my user page.
The allegations are far more outrageous and extensive than that; that's why the pedophile question is indeed apt.