Where you say that you aren't sure that there are any Wikipedians who could write a neutral article about Brandt... I think that you are vastly overestimating the number of Wikipedians who even keep up with the whole Brandt/WR saga. Don't get me wrong, I think lots of Wikipedians know about it, I just think that most don't really care.
I frankly have no opinion one way or the other on the guy. I think that the people who attack Brandt because they think they have a right to privacy or confidentiality are deceiving themselves, since editing what is essentially a public document sort of makes each Wikipedian a public figure, if only in a microscopic way.
In any event, I am sure there are plenty of editors who could do the research, interpret the sources, and render a pretty reasonably accurate bio of Brandt. Do you really think that every Wikipedian is following this story?
DickClarkMises
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:07:00 -0400 From: Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider
<snip>
Those all seem like creative and possibly acceptable solutions, at
least so long as "consensus" in "consensus to keep" is treated more like the "supermajority" that is currently the de facto standard.
I think the problem with a bio on Brandt goes beyond the usual, though. [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] seems to apply to that biography for pretty much all active editors, which suggests that all of us should at least exercise great caution when editing the page. I'm not sure a neutral bio can possibly be written about Brandt by Wikipedians.
On 4/21/07, Dick Clark crotalus@gmail.com wrote:
Where you say that you aren't sure that there are any Wikipedians who could write a neutral article about Brandt... I think that you are vastly overestimating the number of Wikipedians who even keep up with the whole Brandt/WR saga. Don't get me wrong, I think lots of Wikipedians know about it, I just think that most don't really care.
Well, what I said was that I don't think Wikipedians [as a group] can write a neutral article about Brandt. I do think some individual Wikipedians could probably do so.
I frankly have no opinion one way or the other on the guy. I think that the people who attack Brandt because they think they have a right to privacy or confidentiality are deceiving themselves, since editing what is essentially a public document sort of makes each Wikipedian a public figure, if only in a microscopic way.
In any event, I am sure there are plenty of editors who could do the research, interpret the sources, and render a pretty reasonably accurate bio of Brandt. Do you really think that every Wikipedian is following this story?
No, I don't, but I think any bio of Brandt is going to include significant references to Wikipedia. Right now Wikipedia is mentioned in the very first line. I suppose it'd be possible to write a decent bio which didn't mention Wikipedia, but maintaining it on a wiki would be a nightmare.
Anthony
On 21/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, I don't, but I think any bio of Brandt is going to include significant references to Wikipedia. Right now Wikipedia is mentioned in the very first line. I suppose it'd be possible to write a decent bio which didn't mention Wikipedia, but maintaining it on a wiki would be a nightmare.
And would give a false impression of what he's noteworthy for, and what he works hard to become noteworthy for. Brandt actively tries to put himself forward as a media rent-a-quote on Wikipedia. Not noting this would be ridiculous. I suppose it would take the mind of a stalker given to stupendous feats of self-justification to reconcile that with his belief that he doesn't warrant an article.
- d.
On 4/21/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Brandt actively tries to put himself forward as a media rent-a-quote on Wikipedia.
This is not necessarily so; in the *New Yorker* retraction on Essjay, Brandt was not cited by name, presumably at his request. In the *Leftist Lie Factory *article Brandt was not cited by name until he was publicly identified on 2 August 2005 by another "Notable Wikipedian" who said, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-b...
and is the genesis of Wikipedia's invasion of Brandt's privacy. Brandt has consistently referred to the author of the *Wikimmunity* article as "the Harvard guy", and refrained from using his real life name despite that authors connections to* Wikimania. *This shows a pattern over an extended period of time of (a) seeking privacy and anonymity, and (b) respecting others privacy despite their reallife identity being easily available.
To blanketly say Brandt has been inconsistent or is a publicity hound, or has not respected others privacy, cannot be supported by the evidence.