On 0, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> scribbled: That is precisely the issue with [[Essjay controversy]]: WR may not be a RS about anything else in the world - but is it a reliable source about what happens on WR? More generally, is any site with user-generated content a RS about what happens on that selfsame site? Obviously some people don't think the answer is yes. -- gwern Type I Type II VFCT VGPL WHCA WSA WSP WWABNCP ZNI1 FSK FTS2000 GOSIP GOTS SACS

G'day David Gerard, That's odd. The Mangoe was gloating in the thread over there ------> that WikiAbuse[0] is necessary because everyone In The Know knows that Wikipedia can't be trusted not to engage in widespread cover-ups of its own history. When Wikipedians do stupid shit (including supporting BADSITES), they generally do it in good faith[2], because they think (wrongly, but there you go) that their actions will help the project and their colleagues. When Wikipedia critics do stupid shit, their motives aren't nearly as pure[3]. Of course, ideally, nobody would do stupid shit, particularly Wikipedians. We're not likely to see that happen under the current system though, especially now that so many Clueless Newbies have achieved administrator status. Eternal September, anyone? [0] I don't have a problem with that site. I have yet to see anything wrong with WikiAbuse ... *yet*. I do feel a sense of vague disquiet[1] given a) Its stated purpose of keeping track of Wikipedia administrators. As a Wikipedia administrator, and further an administrator who considers his Wikipedia conduct rather honorable, I say: bring it on! But at the same time, the ghosts of Daniel Brandt and WikiTruth hover ever-so-spookily on Joe's shoulders. b) It was Joe's idea. I mean ... *dude*. If a banned Wikipedian wants to set up somewhere he can whine in public, good for him, and there's no reason why the site can't be worthwhile. It's just that we have so many examples of how this sort of thing can fail ... [1] That's right, boy, I think phrases I would never say. [2] With one Notable Exception, a lass who was attempting to abuse Wikipedia to support the cause of Animal Rights(TM). Thank God she was discovered and exposed in time! [3] That includes the Phil Sandifer thing. No, don't try lying about that again, it didn't work last time, it won't work this time either. -- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend." - P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/

On 0, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> scribbled: Fortunately, I foresaw exactly this objection and in my original edits provided links to the [[WebCite]] archive of the relevant page at the date I was citing it; unless you want to suggest their archival service is not reliable? Also note that not long ago we were discussing on this very list how newspapers quietly modified their articles, which would seem to be analogous. -- gwern Crust e95 DDR&E 3M KEDO iButton R1 erco Toffler FAS RHL K3 Visa/BCC SNT Ceridian