For those interested in the complexity of the issues involved when a Wiki editor is discouraged from editing their own Wikipedia article, but is facing a concerted effort to fill that article with negative and dubious material, see the arbitration case I just filed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_a nd_others_acting_in_concert
And feel free to jump in with discussion denouncing me, supporting me, or whatever. It is complicated and messy.
:-)
Cberlet
What I saw, and based my vote to accept the case on, is the posting of derogatory material on the talk page of the article which has minimal or no relationship to the subject of the article. Chip is a member of the Lawyer's Guild and someone else was or he signed a petition and someone else did, a lot of guilt by association, material that could not have been put into the article, but laid out in full on the talk page. Nob, who did this, is trying to make the point that this is what Chip does in his work. That criticism might belong in the article, but Nob is "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point."
Why they do this, I think, is so the material will show up on Google. We might consider shielding our talk pages from Google as folks are gaming us in this way.
Fred
On Nov 15, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Chip Berlet wrote:
For those interested in the complexity of the issues involved when a Wiki editor is discouraged from editing their own Wikipedia article, but is facing a concerted effort to fill that article with negative and dubious material, see the arbitration case I just filed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_a nd_others_acting_in_concert
And feel free to jump in with discussion denouncing me, supporting me, or whatever. It is complicated and messy.
:-)
Cberlet
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l