See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C2%BFPor_qu%C3%A9_no_te_callas%3F

SandyGeorgia trying to nail this guy (User:Manning53) down on "Do you understand our reliable sources policy? Can you name some?" ... and he fails to engage her on that, simply asserting repeatedly that it's some sort of US-centric plot.

She remains polite and explains several times. He remains off handle.

Not a whole lot to see here, I think.

-george

On Feb 13, 2008 2:10 AM, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:

On Feb 13, 2008 8:32 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:

...

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Wikipedia-s-neutrality-is-a-facade...

Discuss. The opening synopsis doesn't even make sense to me.

Steve

The academic's original piece (linked from that article), is at: < http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6954%3E. The main issue is of "reliable sources" - and the insinuation that ZMag/Net was being dismissed offhand as a source. If that is being done in practice - and I haven't looked up the page in controversy, nor followed anything similar - then Mr Anderson has a point, even though I think he should have stuck it out patiently, rather than go ranting on the web when something didn't go his way immediately.

Cormac

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l