Oskar Sigvardsson If you want free speech, use your blog. You can say whatever you want there.

In watching this incident unfold, I've been impressed regarding the way that the take-it-to-where-Jimbo-*is* strategy appears to be *right*, as a matter of effectiveness. Despite the limited perceptions of those who are quick to deem critics as trolls, I'm fascinated by the group dynamics and sociology of Wikipedia.

Now, phrases like "free speech" can lead to knee-jerking as people rush to recite cliches. Yada, yada, First-Amendment-is-government, private-legal-rights, blah, blah. Like the old joke, we should just number those arguments, so people could simply say "#17" or "#23", and get them out of the way. Been there, done that, got the flame-wars.

We're really talking about qualities like ethics and fairness in pursuit of justice (very vague words, I know). What's so interesting in specific here, is that only now has Larry Sanger's evidence reached some of the relatively tiny number of core editors who are highly influential in shaping the relevant Wikipedia articles. And apparently only because it was put in the places those editors read, over many formalistic and legalistic objections (WP:THISPOLICYMEANSWHATISAYITDOES).

That is, on his website, the "right" people *DID* *NOT* *READ* *IT*. You could link to it. You could have a _Guardian_ columnist repeatedly refer to it in articles about Wikipedia 1/2 :-). You could bring it up over and over in various comments. *DIDN'T* *MATTER*. Only a very particular setting was effective in this case.

It should be needless to say, but this is significant for building an encyclopedia. More broadly, it's a lesson in, let's say, "information flow", that has some important implications for trying to ensure accuracy.