On 11/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:33:27 -0500, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
This rather ignores the fact that we have articles on WikiTruth, Judd Bagley and other prominent critics.
The article on Wikitruth as been nominated for deletion six times so far, seven if you count one nom under a different name. We do not have an article on Judd Begley. The first article was deleted at the instigation of The Cabal, and the second was redirected to Overstock.com over The Cabal's objections.
Not much of a cabal, then, is it? Obviously you should stop worrying so much about it.
If the BADSITES faction is as ineffective as the WR-ites, that doesn't prevent either of them from making a real nuisance of themselves over this. The single most frustrating thing I find about editing is having to watch articles. It's one of the reasons I've taken to writing articles that, on some level, could be called trivial: nobody has much of an urge to come along and trash them. I have one article which I have to watch simply because the same person will come along every few months and revert it to his heavily POV and from what I can tell inaccurate version; when I finally grow tired of it, I have to assume that the article will revert to his version unless someone else is willing to take up watch for me.
What BADSITES means is that any article which has an external link (including citations) to something less inarguable than a major media source is vulnerable to that site putting up content to which a BADSITES proponent objects. It's just one more kind of damage to be watched for, and when it occurs, to get into a time-wasting spat about, without regard to the many occaisions on which the community has stated a consensus against it.
I don't think there is really a cabal, in spite of what we have heard about the "sooper seekrit" mailing list. But there obviously is a group of people who aren't going to let BADSITES die in spite of the repeated rejection of it, just as there is a group which repeatedly objects whenever it is brought up again. Since the community has consistently taken the side of the latter group, is there some reason we have to keep being put through the necessity of rejecting it over and over?