Ira,
Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable.
Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold no responsibility for.
If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing with media.
What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and it will make you look in the future.
Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically created a tense situation....hell Siko even stated on Gendergap that New York Magazine still sucks.
Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations. But you stayed silent on that....how quaint...how <s>Scientologist</s> Wikipediologist-like.
It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira.
For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system.
Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on --- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they have been slighted.
Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him suing a Greek Wikipedia editor, he had a bio article on one project, Greek Wikipedia.[2] He now has an article on 18 projects.[3] It's the same thing with Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station,[4] which now has articles on 33 projects.[5] On the flipside, Pine Gap,[6] has an article on only 7 projects.[7] Interesting comparison isn't it.
So, there you have it Ira, I hope this gives you something to think about, and if you want to comment further, then I welcome it.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Katsanevas [2] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12877939&oldid=108324487 [3] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12877939 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station [5] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10369016 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap [7] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1754535
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia, despite the smilie, your last comment suggests that someone would create a biography of a living person in retaliation for the fact that she wrote unflatteringly and made errors in a piece about the Wikiconference.
BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor may any suggestion of doing so be made at any time..
It is also undesirable to provide ammunition for the (sometimes, unfortunately, accurate) perception that being the subject of a Wikipedia article is something that people should fear, nor that we would, even jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to be called "revenge editing."
Please don't make this sort of comment again.
Thanks, Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
There is the option of contacting her directly, or the chief editor of the magazine, for further comment/clarification. Or the Wikipedia way -- create a totally neutral on-project biography. ;)
Cheers,
Russavia
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe