[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"David Gerard" wrote 
> On 11/10/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> 
> > What's your purpose?
> 
> 
> The purpose is, fairly obviously, to raise the unresolved issue. I
> believe you have an arbitration case in progress on the matter.
> Perhaps it's of concern to people.

The point would of course be better framed in terms of motions that have a prayer of passing in the ArbCom case.

I have made a connection between not calling sites "attack sites", and the idea of being diplomats. In other words, we can actually envisage cases where editorial policy on other sites might recognise the concept "why are we posting pieces on Wikipedia that are simply muckraking?" That concept has no traction at all, applied to what Slate has published (half a para of Brandt's scrapings, in a piece mainly about Google, not us). Anyone with half a brain can relate "privacy advocate" to "rumor monger" and see it all doesn't add up. Basically any idea of sticking an "attack site" label on Slate is nonsense. 

That being said, I imagine we'll have some near-trolling about this, every time there is a whiff of some of these well-exposed allegations in the media. 

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam