"Rob Smith" <nobs03(a)gmail.com> writes:
On 3/1/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:33:28 -0500
> In-Reply-To:
<52a8cf060703011842s2dca0df1qa405e56dda90650(a)mail.gmail.com>
> (Rob
> Smith's message of "Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:42:58 -0700")
> Message-ID: <86y7mgm9xj.fsf(a)elan.rh.rit.edu>
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.94
(gnu/linux)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> --text follows this line--
> "Rob Smith" <nobs03(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 3/1/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/1/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > anything you do related to Wikipedia may now
> >> > > get viewed by a potentially hostile press and outside
> community.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > it's dinged us somewhat in the
> >> press, based on the blogosphere at least.
> >
> > Actually this matter has been brewing for some time. Amazing
it
> took this
> > long to bring attention to it.
>
> True. It could've been discovered as far back as 7 January, if
I
> may recount the timeline of events. It was 7
February that
Essjay
> posted this:
> <http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Essjay&oldid=66549>>
> On an interesting side note, it apparently wasn't until 21
January
> that anyone noticed - that was when an anon user
brought it up
on
> [[User talk:Essjay]]
> <
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&oldid=102161…
.
> Given the anonymity, the name provided as a sig, and the linked
> website, I think we can conclude it was in fact Daniel Brandt
who
> first noticed it
> <http://www.whois-search.com/whois/216.60.71.100%20>.>
> It is also interesting to note that Essjay never replied as
> [[User:Shanel]] quite quickly reverted it. (A lapse of
judgement?
I suppose so,
in the same way Yanksox had a lapse of judgement
deleting [[Daniel Brandt]]).
I'm not so certain of that; Yanksox registered an account with
WR 23 Feb
2007 9:08am
<http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014>
where he presumably read the series "Navigating flame wars of
the Daniel
Brandt controversy" (two hours is ample time) and
promptly
deleted the
Brandt page on 23 Feb 2007 12:53pm. Ken Myers, author
of
*Wikimmunity:
Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia*
registered
an account a
day earlier 22 Feb 2007 and was active on that board
for several
hours at
the same time prior as well.
21st Feb 2007, 11:10pm
Yanksox deletes Daniel Brandt
Wed 21st Feb 2007, 4:10pm Ken Myers registers an account
That is interesting. I had only meant to express the sentiment
that both removed something which could be defended and would be
defended by a part of the community but which both should've known
would in the long run be generally deprecated. I had no idea that
Yanksox had deleted the article *after* joining WR, and not after
(which is what I had thought). This certainly shines a different
light on the matter, for me at least - wasn't Everyking punished
for less?
I'm afraid I don't see the Myers connection, though. I skimmed his
paper, but I didn't really understand it.
--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.