[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:

> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007  Raphael Wegman
>>> I am not interested in joining any special tribunal.
>>> Instead I focus on analyzing the underlying mechanisms.
>>>
>> Then do more analysing before pitching into this one again, eh?  For
>> example, are you aware that Amorrow was jailed?
> What does his being in jail have to do with Wikipedia?
>
> For most us, these sordid details about someone's personal life carry no
> interest whatsoever.  This kind of gossip only serves to make the
> atmosphere even poisonous.
>
> Most of us cannot be bothered to follow the detailed activities of
> Amorrow or Wikipedia Review or whoever else happens to be bullies'
> flavour of the day.  At least we realize that if these guys are such
> pigs we would do well not get down in the muck and wallow with them.
> When the combatants from both sides are so thoroughly covered in mud,
> how can anybody tell the good guys from the bad guys.  All we can see is
> an alliance of mud.
>
> So for those of us who sit here on the mailing list admitting to no
> small laziness in our distaste for the tedium of the "offending" sites,
> or the endless arbitration debates draw our views from the tone of what
> is submitted here.  Do we choose the zero-tolerant rights-fighter who
> must have his vision of justice satisfied, or do we incline to whom we
> perceive to be looking for accommodations that will save face for everyone?
>
> Surely when we read, "are you aware that ... was jailed."  the person
> named must smile and know that he has found a kindred spirit.
>
> Ec

I believe you are missing Guy's point. The point about how distasteful and
disgusting the main opponents of Wikipedia in WR are. The point is that
Amorrow, Brandt and others have gone and continue to go to do whatever it will
take to destroy Wikipedia and that they are willing to harm people in the
process. Frankly, if you think that "sides are so thoroughly covered in mud,
how can anybody tell the good guys from the bad guys" you haven't been paying
much attention. The best analogy I can think of is that if at your superficial
glance both are covered in mud, further inspection will show that Brandt,
Bagley, Amorrow etc. are covered in feces.

The bottom line is that Guy and others are not claiming that we should 
stoop to
their level. Indeed, quite the opposite, they are merely defending the
encyclopedia. To see these as the same requires either ignorance of the
situation or grotesque levels of moral relativism.