Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 10/11/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I just thought this interesting because I've used Slate as a reference
for
a
> number of articles - but following the rigid
definition of an attack
site
> which seems to be in vogue amongst a
significant few, linking to Slate
is
> now verboten.
>
>
http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
>
> "Brandt also has an interesting take on how Google props up Wikipedia
as
a
> premier information source, since more than
50 percent of Wikipedia's
> traffic comes from Google searches. If you wish to enter further into
> Brandt's matrix, read about how he uncovered a likely MI-5 agent
operating
> on Wikipedia under the alias Slimvirgin. The
winding road starts here
[link
> to Wikipedia Review post by Brandt]."
>
> I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm
mistaken
- we have
never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid
definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket
treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them
suppressed.
I'm usually a big fan of Slate, but this is disgraceful. Can someone
more articulate and who is able to make the point better try and raise
the issue in Slate's Fray, show them who Brandt is from our
perspective?
I don't read Agger's article as favorable to Brandt. I tend
to read the
phrase "interesting take" as meaning "this is fun ti read, but hard to
believe." The fact that the one "exposed" feature that he references
about Slim is the more extreme one that she is an MI-5 agent leaves me
with the impression that he considers Brandt to be a conspiracy theorist.
I got the impression that Agger takes much of Brandt's conclusions at face
value ("likely MI-5 agent").
Johnleemk