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

[Giacomo M-Z]

Charles, please try and obtain some proportion, Wikipedia is one of billions
of internet sites, changing one's name and/or concealing one's identity from
the masses who surf the internet is not a "major breach of trust" -
swindling one's Granny in real life out of a million dollars is a "major
breach of trust."

What exactly has he done that is so heinous and terrible apart from make the
Arncom/Jimbo look a little silly. Was his work on the Arbcom so terrible? -
I certainly don't recall you mentioning that it was - are his mainspace
edits so dreadful? - No. He edited David Cameron's page - that is all -
nothing more. For all we know David Cameron may be on the Arbcom himself. It
needs to be pointed out that Blacketer was assuming perfectly legitimately a
pseudonym and merely exercising his right to edit the page - even if it was
POV (and I'm not saying it was), it was not grossly so. This is what needs
publicly explaining and the projects reputation restoring.

Giano

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>