[WikiEN-l] Bans and online/offline reputation (was Re: Follow-up on my Ban from Wikipedia (part 3))

[Anthony]

On 9/13/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Anthony wrote:
> > > > If I wrote on my blog that you eat hobbits, my blog is a primary source for
> > > > "Ken claims Mr. Dalton eats hobbits", but an unreliable self-published
> > > > source for "Mr. Dalton actually does eat hobbits".  The former is an event
> > > > that happened on my blog.  The latter is unreliable info about a living
> > > > person.
> > >
> > > Absolutely true.
> > But isn't that where original research comes into play?  What is the
> > purpose of quoting ken's claim about Dalton eating hobbits?  If it's
> > in an article on Dalton, in an effort to show that Dalton might
> > actually eat hobbits, then the problem is it's a fringe theory,
> > because Ken isn't an authoritative source.  If it's in an article on
> > Ken, to show how dumb Ken is for thinking Dalton eats hobbits, then
> > it's original research.  Don't quote Ken to make Ken look dumb, quote
> > an expert who talks about how dumb Ken is.
>
> You're forgetting the context.
>
You're right, I was.

> The argument is that it's okay to let an administrative action taken against
> a user to come up as the #1 Google hit for the guy on the grounds that
> Wikipedia is a reliable source for information about itself.
>
All depends on what the person did.  Prank call 911?  Leave the poor
woman alone.  Try to molest a minor?  Have some respect for his human
dignity.  That's Jimbo's answer, anyway.