[WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case
Charles Matthews
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
Wed Jun 10 10:46:14 UTC 2009
Giacomo M-Z wrote:
> ...and so your pattern of rubbishing dissenters continues, I see,
> Charles. Oh well, some things never change. In spite of the fact
> Blacketer, or whatever he is calling himself, was a little devious (I
> don't blame him changing from his real name), his edits to David
> Cameron's page were hardly harmful or wildly inacurate. They have been
> rather blown out of proportion by The Mail - if Blacketer were hell
> bent on politically prejudicing the encyclopedia would hardly chose to
> sit on a committee with such as you for two years discussing less
> than fascinating wiki-crimes. It's quite clear to all that he was a
> dedicated Wikipedian with no raging political agenda and that should
> be being vociferously shouted from the roof tops - it is not.
>
> Giano
>
Have you actually read the thread? I made the point about neutrality
being the criterion for editing some time ago.
What you call being "devious" was in fact a major breach of trust, bad
faith of a type no serious Wikipedian could let go by. That is why this
affair is a scandal. The Mail's representation of the scandal is
inaccurate in numerous ways, perhaps, but electoral deceit is
scandalous. Why are you saying it isn't?
Charles
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list