-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I'm afraid your casual dismissal of the issue will not make it go away.
Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recapitulate: Jimbo receives e-mail messages /at least daily/ from outsiders wondering why "we" [the AfD gang] are so nasty and insulting as we delete easily-verified information about highly notable people. The AfD gang is actively doing damage to Wikipedia's reputation on a on-going, daily basis.
I recive (through the helpdesk) emails about this on a daily basis as well. However I also get a stunning number asking about link exchange. I also recive complaints about people reverting stuff. Should we start a comitte to regualate that?
-- geni
geni, I wish you'd drop the straw-man arguments. As you know full well, those seeking and being denied link exchange are not comparable to million-selling authors whose internationally-published works are being falsely accused of being vanity printings.
Complaints about being reverted are not so easily dismissed -- by you or me. The same nasty personalities who are delighted by calling a renowed scientist a quack or a best-selling author a hack are just as delighted by reverting well-intentioned edits with hateful personal attacks. So: yes, we should have a committee to oversee on-article personal attacks. I think we should call it something like ... the "Arbitration Committee" or something like that. I'll be one of the first to volunteer to serve on it, and I'll even accept a three-year hitch. And furthermore, I'll bet you that I'll serve one of the longest spans in office of any Arbiter.
- -- Sean Barrett | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun sean@epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter