[WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Charles Matthews]

Giacomo M-Z wrote:
> Nothing of substance done to refute the Hattersley rubbish. Jimbo claimed to
> be in conversation with the paper - in truth, the paper dismissed him and
> Wikipedia's PR trembled from the sidelines.
>
> Giano
>   
Let's look at what you (apparently) did. You contacted Greg Kohs, a 
long-time Wikipedia critic who pops up all over the Web commenting 
nastily on WP. Let's see what use he made of your outburst:

"It seems that my original concern for Giles Hattersley was that I found 
it hard to believe that he would deliberately lie in print. User:Giano 
corresponded with me this afternoon, and he distinctly believed that 
Hattersley was "a liar", and he worked to create an article to "prove" 
this little point. I cautioned Giano to slow down and consider that this 
more likely is a misunderstanding of some kind. And, it turns out that 
Hattersley is assigning to a Times editor the blame for this claim that 
an English Wikipedia article contained errors about him. It does all get 
ironed out, thankfully. But, not before a pro-Wikipedia editor uses 
Wikipedia as a revenge platform ..."

This is at a Telegraph blog comment page: 
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/shane_richmond/blog/2009/02/08/giles_hattersleys_disappearing_wikipedia_entry?com_num=20&com_pg=2

In my interpretation you simply supplied an arch-critic of Wikipedia - 
one of the small "Schadenfreude Gang" whose day is made every time that 
a scandal hits WP - with good material to support the thesis that BLP is 
an empty letter, and Wikipedians will create articles about people to 
embarrass them.

One test for you and your competence to issue lectures on PR: rearrange 
the words "productive" and "counter" into a well known hyphenated 
phrase. That may be hard, so here it is in terms of architecture where 
your competence is not doubted: WP people live in a glass house and 
should not throw stones.

Charles