The fact that the page is enormous doesn't mean the review was comprehensive - it absolutely was not, in my opinion. The comparison between the Harvard class event and this one is this: Both were coordinated attempts to influence content on Wikipedia, and both inspired a degree of hysteria and proposals to ban anyone related. I'm hopefully that the comparison will continue, where in this second case cooler heads prevail and the bans are not left in place (barring the presentation of some significant evidence of on-wiki disruption).
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
I am puzzled on multiple fronts by this email. Was the Harvard law class not a randomly chosen class of law students, but a group of people who had met in order to make waterboarding sound legal in public discourse? Because otherwise I don't see the analogy. The only other people CM has 'banned' are people following Zeq's instructions and who give their accounts away in the "evidence", or were editing, clearly disruptively, from the CAMERA office. I'm sure the former, at least, could have their bans lifted if they repudiated the supposed methods and agreed to some form of mentorship. On the contrary, the attitude has been "yes, so what. Why can't you see, Wikipedia is biased, why aren't you worried about what the other lot are doing, we're just trying to fix it, are you on *their* side?" which is precisely the attitude we don't really have time for.
I wouldn't call that enormous subpage of AN/I "not much review", but whatever.
RR