On 3/2/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
"Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com writes:
<snip> >> 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
A note: Ken Myers is a lawyer who has written about the Communications Decency Act and its relationship to Wikipedia, and who delivered a paper (and organized a panel) about that topic at last year's Wikimania. He's a bright guy with some good ideas. It's unsurprising to me that he's interested in controversies surrounding Wikipedia, but it does seem completely irrelevant to this discussion. -- phoebe