Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! ... Thus, the conclusion: for important Wikipedia articles, the content is gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources. It is more or less understandable who is behind this. Everyone must decide for himself or herself whether this is acceptable."
Apologies if I missed some irony somewhere, but: is this actually garbage? The stated conclusion is that Wikipedia's content is "gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources." That's hardly surprising, given our increasing insistence on reliable sources. But it does mean that the "extreme" views may tend to become marginalized. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a fair question, and in the excerpt presented, it's not clear to me that Professor Black is advocating one side or the other.
What *is* clear is that Professor Black is putting SlimVirgin outing theories in the same kettle as JFK assassination theories and alien spaceship theories. If you have made a decision for yourself (as Black suggests you should), and if your conclusion is that it's acceptable for all three of these theories to be marginalized, it sounds to me like the good professor agrees with you (in that three such theories ought to stand together or fall together), so it's not clear to me why he's now the reigning poster child for the policy that must not be called badsites.