[WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy

Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au
Wed Jul 4 09:31:36 UTC 2007

G'day David Gerard,

> On 03/07/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Well, not really. It was edited greatly after the attempt to get Phil
>  Sandifer in trouble with the police so as to cover their trail.

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 

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

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/

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list