[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

Fred Bauder wrote

> We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Such irony. The absence of an article on Daniel Brandt means people are "misinformed" on him. The presence of an article is used by Brandt as a stick with which to beat Wikipedia.

It was a pretty bad idea to have an article on him in the first place. Less of the "cult of personality" would be welcome. But it is quite untrue that Wikipedia is a poor source of information on Brandt, as Anthony was saying.

[[Wikipedia Watch]] mentions Brandt, as it could hardly not. [[Daniel Brandt]] redirects to [[Public Information Research]]. [[Google Watch]] mentions Brandt. [[Chip Berlet]], also. [[NameBase]], too.

Charle

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