[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[Ray Saintonge]

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> On 10/11/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I just thought this interesting because I've used Slate as a reference for a
>> number of articles - but following the rigid definition of an attack site
>> which seems to be in vogue amongst a significant few, linking to Slate is
>> now verboten.
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
>>
>> "Brandt also has an interesting take on how Google props up Wikipedia as a
>> premier information source, since more than 50 percent of Wikipedia's
>> traffic comes from Google searches. If you wish to enter further into
>> Brandt's matrix, read about how he uncovered a likely MI-5 agent operating
>> on Wikipedia under the alias Slimvirgin. The winding road starts here [link
>> to Wikipedia Review post by Brandt]."
>>
>> I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm mistaken
>> - we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid
>> definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket
>> treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them
>> suppressed.
>>     
> I'm usually a big fan of Slate, but this is disgraceful. Can someone
> more articulate and who is able to make the point better try and raise
> the issue in Slate's Fray, show them who Brandt is from our
> perspective?
I don't read Agger's article as favorable to Brandt.  I tend to read the 
phrase "interesting take" as meaning "this is fun ti read, but hard to 
believe."  The fact that the one "exposed" feature that he references 
about Slim is the more extreme one that she is an MI-5 agent leaves me 
with the impression that he considers Brandt to be a conspiracy theorist.

Ec