User:Cyde did a nice thing for me and considered unblocking his block of my personal User:Thekohser account on Wikipedia. He thought it best to put it to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Unblock_of_Thekohser.3F, which I fully understand.
I didn't expect defamation of me with false accusations, though. Thanks, User:Durova!
Very strongly oppose. Until last month he evaded his ban through a disruptive sockpuppet and he has given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press. I doubt the community has the authority to overturn a ban by Jimbo himself. Even if it did I see absolutely no reason to reopen the door. DurovaCharge! 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Durova, could you please cite where, specifically, Kohs "has given misleading information to journalists"? Without such support, that could be construed as a defamatory comment. --18.104.22.168 13:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to double check for the exact instance, but it was linked through the Wikipedia Signpost in mid- to late- January. ... I support this siteban with every fiber of my being. DurovaCharge! 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
++++ ++++ ++++
Well, I checked the Signpost for just about all of January (and February, to boot), and I didn't see any links to evidence where I "had given misleading information to journalists".
See, this is what is so infuriating about Wikipedia. They can libel me for "giving misleading information to journalists", and they'll "have to double check for the exact instance" when called to task about it. But when someone out and out lies to journalists (I'm thinking about Essjay here, of course) and has it clearly exposed in The New Yorker (not the Wikipedia Signpost), it's perfectly fine with not only Jimbo, but the Wikia hiring committee.
Corrupt, decayed, cancerous, flawed -- I don't care what term you use. Wikipedia's got the disease.
You have just replicated one of the standard observations about the Wikipedia Idiotology.
To wit, can you really expect critters who constantly make unchecked statements of convenience in policy space to observe the advertized content policies of CITE, NOR, NPOV, RS, VER, ad nauseum?
The disease they've got is a variety of anemia -- they just don't have that fact-checking factor in their blood.
I mean, what else can you expect of invertebrates?
I think that's what's nailed it.
There are two many editors and not enough fact-checkers. In point of fact, Encyclopedia Britannica keeps these two functions separate - it is assumed that authors tend not to recognize mistakes in their own work very well. At EB there are many cycles of review, including fact and source checking before an article is released.
On Wikipedia, the fact-checkers are just other editors. But there being no division of labor, fact-checkers who find mistakes are given short shrift by editors who know they are right all along. Thus for a fact to be correctly incorporated, it must be either a) popular or b) obscure. Unpopular truths are not welcome in WikiWorld.
I've switched off avatar-viewing.
The only problem is that now I've forgotten what mine looks like.