On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
John, I want to say -- and I suspect many others here agree -- this is absolutely an appropriate list to bring this up on, and I'm glad you did. Interacting in an open community like Wikipedia takes some getting used to. I think in a discussion like this, you'll almost always get somebody musing about whether or not you've chosen the right forum. Sometimes that's useful feedback; other times it's noise best ignored. I encourage you to go with your own judgment; an argument about the proper forum probably doesn't benefit anybody, but even if a couple folks don't feel this is the right place, the discussion can still go on (as you can see).
Have a good weekend, -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
That's all well and good, except it ignores the very good reasons why any discussion of Mr. Jackson's specific circumstances should remain on-wiki. In a list such as wikipedia-l or wikien-l etc., his comments are quite unlikely to encounter anyone with expertise in his field. Without such expertise, we might not see past the quite scientific-sounding language he uses to discover the fact that his "book" is self-published on Amazon. We might not be aware that he is the host and former host of a multitude of blogs that appear to serve as the only public forum for his theories, which seemingly have found minimal or no acceptance in academia.
Obviously Mr. Jackson is extremely intelligent and very familiar with his subject matter, and I suspect that the members of this list are ill-equipped to respond to his complaints with the appropriate context and full knowledge of the circumstances. If he were to engage these experts, as has been suggested, they might also be prompted to investigate the many cases where Mr. Jackson has cited himself for the insertion of material of dubious scientific merit into Wikipedia articles.
Nathan