Stephanie M. Clarkson wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
If we had used Wikipedia Review for our bitching and moaning, would we now be portrayed as the good guys? It seems to me that people are being penalised for trying to sit back and think.
What have I ever said that would make you jump to that conclusion? Stop tarring everyone that things the list is a terrible, completely anti-Wiki idea with that brush. It goes beyond assuming bad faith. Indeed, I referred to WR as a bunch of cranks at one point. Neither WR nor a private list (the 'subscribe' page for cyberstalking said, after all, 'you can apply for the list, but we might not let you on.') is an appropriate place to be discussing Wikipedia business, blocks, etc.
Ironically, this controversy has resulted in me visiting Wikipedia Review for the first time that I can recall, searching for a bit of information that had been posted and then removed from Wikipedia itself. Found it, too.
Should I be admitting this in public?