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

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 6, 2007 06:24 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
>On 7/5/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> Simply saying no doesn't work. The role of Essjay and how he assumed it is of internal
>> value to us. We may legitimately engage in research concerning the incident. As a
>> source for an encyclopedia article, however, it's not acceptable. As to censorship, we
>> have always been limited to verifiable information from reliable published sources.
>
>If you insist on trotting out rudely mechanical reiteration of rote
>principle, I must equally insist on equally rote application of them.
>How do you know where the reporter of a free paper in Vancouver got
>his story? The cite doesn't even give a name for the author; the paper
>has no online archives that I can see. It's fairly likely that the
>paper's source is in fact that very thread. And while I'm at it,
>what's your grounds for doubting that the"Daniel Brandt" in that
>thread is not the real person?
>
>Perhaps it is better to cite an Officially Published Source-- though I
>think "24 Hours Vancouver" is a pretty poor excuse for same. Surely we
>can find better. But the claim that Brandt's entries there are so
>unreliable as to forbid linkage is specious. And as for "internal
>value", there's no distinction between internal value for participants
>in Wikipedia and external value to people who want to understand its
>processes.They are the same.

No they are not. Why not start a page: [[Wikipedia;Essjay incident]] and do some original research. I'm curious too. He suddenly appeared on the arbitrator's private mailing list. He was not an arbitrator. I didn't know who he was. Just how did he accomplish this. Are we just suckers for what someone says his qualifications and biography are? His work was never that bad, but always seemed pretty generic. Who promoted him and why to positions of trust?

As to sources for an article, of course WR was used. Any researcher will use WR archives. I post on WR myself. His account is him. I've never known them to monkey with their archives.

Fred