In a message dated 3/4/2007 12:30:11 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, jaap.vermeulen@gmail.com writes:
I'd appreciate further feedback, since I'm not sure how I should proceed here.
Jaap Vermeulen I brought up Wikipedia on a nonprofit org list. It was after I was unfairly blocked, and I get a lot of awkward and/or inappropriate arguments from those in power at Wikipedia, but I also get ignored and see them elsewhere - or something like them. However, the subject came up regarding how corporations pay and even involve their legal teams on Wikipedia articles.
I do want to say that it's questionable to have good faith when you see a lot of stuff wrong, including using good faith like a religion. However, from what I see, at least you have ethics as an editor (and administrator no less). I think Wikipedia needs more checks on admins, and there's a lot of unfairness in the process right now.
Vincent Bartning UN: John Wallace Rich <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:43:34 EST, Bartning@aol.com wrote:
I do want to say that it's questionable to have good faith when you see a lot of stuff wrong, including using good faith like a religion. However, from what I see, at least you have ethics as an editor (and administrator no less). I think Wikipedia needs more checks on admins, and there's a lot of unfairness in the process right now.
Although to be fair you were editing with a very clear conflict of interest, adding links to your own sites, and using Wikipedia to advance your external agenda. You were also distinctly rude when called on it. So it's not *terribly* surprising that you were blocked, and not actually unfair, as such. Which is not to say there are *no* unfair cases, just that yours does not seem to be one of them.
Guy (JzG)
Bartning@aol.com wrote:
I brought up Wikipedia on a nonprofit org list. It was after I was unfairly blocked, and I get a lot of awkward and/or inappropriate arguments from those in power at Wikipedia, but I also get ignored and see them elsewhere - or something like them. However, the subject came up regarding how corporations pay and even involve their legal teams on Wikipedia articles.
Sorry, but dealing with this important issue in the context of someone being "unfairly blocked" tends to distract from the main issue.
Ec