[WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"Gregory Kohs" wrote

> The more excuses and explanations that the community comes up with, the more
> obvious it is that you're avoiding the real issue. 

The more often you bring up exactly the same points here, the more obvious it is how little support you have.

> Wikipedia unilaterally
> has chosen to discriminate against non-volunteer activity in the article
> space, despite the fact that the credentials and income sources of 99% of
> editors are never questioned or verified.  

Why should not Wikipedia, #12 website in the world right now, decide 'unilaterally' (i.e. on the basis of its interests, rather than yours) how to set policy?

>I would argue that if you looked at the
> original authors of the New Pages in Wikipedia, 90% had some financial or
> career "conflict of interest" that could be found if everyone was exposed to
> a background check.

Original research! Original research! Can you find a reliable source for this outrageous claim?

> People who have never purchased or sold a pet skunk are unlikely to start an
> article about [[Pet skunks]].  They don't seem to get banned, though.

You mean 'on the Internet, no one knows you're a pet skunk'? 

Even if your claim on 'some financial or career "conflict of interest"' had any foundation, you are lawyering wildly to connect ownership of a skunk with such a conflict. You'd have to be a career skunk breeder promoting skunk ownership for your woefully scant reasoning to have any traction.

Strangely enough, Wikipedians generally don't accept such chop-logic; and especially not arguments on conflict-of-interest policy from those lobbying against having any such thing.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information