[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[Anthony]

On 10/11/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
Brandt doesn't even believe that Sarah is an MI-5 agent, though.  Some
dead guy said that.