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

[Charles Matthews]

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