[WikiEN-l] JzG's banning Private Musings regarding BADSITES debate

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:

>> Quoting Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com>:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Er again, this wasn't what Black said but what Black linked to. He
>> didn't endorse aliens etc.
>
> Here's what he says on his blog in response to my question regarding
> whether had had any evidence that the information he linked to was true:
>
> "Robert Black has left a new comment on the post "Wikipedia and Lockerbie":
>
> I have no personal knowledge about the identity of SlimVirgin. I simply
> report what is already in the public domain that might be of interest or
> concern to those following the Lockerbie tragedy.
>
> My knowledge of Linda Mack is hearsay, derived from Lockerbie dramatis
> personae who encountered her in the flesh and whose views I respect."
>
>> From a lawyer, that statement amounts to: "Yes, I am enjoying this fine
> meal of crow."
>
> He admits he knows nothing.
>
> Fred

Again Fred, how this is relevant to whether or not we should link to it 
as it is
his blog in the article about him? Humans all the time don't have first-hand
knowledge of something but say "Hey! This is an interesting claim". Are you
asserting that we can't link to any blog that contains speculation at all?