More on the Ed Poor/William Connolley controversey - WikiEN-l

30 Nov 2003

A few days ago, Gareth Owen wrote to Ed Poor:

...
   > No.  You called for William Connolley's
edits to be reverted. 
Jimbo then responded:

...
 In the interests of accuracy, Ed said absolutely no
such thing.  He's
very supportive of those edits, in fact, and has additionally
suggested that it would be appropriate to cite Connolley as a source. 
Since Jimbo is interested in accuracy, he should review the revision 
history for the SEPP article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=SEPP&action=history

I think it's obvious from even a cursory review that Ed has *not* 
been supportive of Connolley's edits. I'm flabbergasted that Jimbo 
cites Ed's interest in "citing Connolley as a source" as evidence of 
how "supportive" Ed has been. Take a look, for example, at Ed's edit 
on 18:39, 24 Nov 2003, when Ed actually *did* revise the article to 
"cite Connolley as a source." Here's Ed's comment on that edit: 
"attributing your POV to you, Dr. Connolley - you've finally stepped 
over that line I warned you about."

Does that sound "supportive" to you, Jimbo?

Sheesh!
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------