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

[Giacomo M-Z]

Really Charles, you mentioning Greg Kohs to prove your point - you must be
truly desperate, is he not another of the many dissenters that you, Jimbo
and Co have suppressed. Anyone who does not toe the "Jimbo line" has to be
driven off or banned and shut up. I correspond with many and listen to their
views, even when I don't always agree (as I didn't with Greg on that
occasion); it's a great pity that Wikipedians are prevented by Jimbo and his
cronies from doing likewise openly and honestly on Wikipedia because then,
and only then the project may mature and grow.

Wikipedia's PR stinks because it has to know-tow to the wishes of Jimbo and
his coterie, a group of sycophants singularly lacking in judgement and
wisdom - as long as this situation is allowed to continue, Wikipedia is fair
game to all journalists as it will always appear amateurish and ,frankly,
rather silly and unreliable.

Giano

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>