QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Sun 25th October 2009, 5:43pm)
Did this Adam Rose person, who was an intern (not a staff writer) at CJR ever contact anybody here to find out what happened concerning Shankbone and this site? I don't remember it being discussed at the time. If Mr. Rose was so interested in doing his research thoroughly, one wonders why he didn't at least ask Somey or another mod to explain things to him.
For the record, we never received any communications from Adam Rose or anyone else about Mr. Shankers. I should also point out that during most of 2008, there was relatively little public "criticism" of Mr. Shankers here on WR - the incident which led to his activities on Encyclopedia Dramatica occurred in early May 2008, and much of the related material isn't visible to non-members, which (presumably) would include Mr. Rose.
Prior to that, he might have seen some of the earlier threads in
this subforum, but the subforum itself wasn't created until later in the year. Most of that material is
along these lines - wondering whether the models for his photographs of human genitalia actually consented to having their genitalia featured on Wikipedia, for example (and I would still assume so, personally).
To call the Columbia Journalism Review the "premiere journal of American journalism" is slightly disingenuous; there are really
only two such publications in the United States, and the other, the American Journalism Review, is probably just as respected.
Other quotes from
this entry strike me as questionable:
QUOTE
I was on a [[press junket]] with Businessweek (Stacy Perman), Slate.com (Dan Rosenthal), USA Today and others. To question my trip is to also question our sources.
I don't understand this; nobody is questioning that the trip occurred, only his "conflict of interest." It isn't logical to assume this would entail questioning of "their sources," whoever "their sources" are.
QUOTE
CJR came out January/February 2009 and if there was some problem with my work, they would have written about it.
Why would anyone assume that? Besides, the problem isn't really with "his work," particularly if you feel that pornography belongs on Wikipedia. The problem is him.
QUOTE
I spoke with the editor-in-chief.
About what? And why would this mean anything?
QUOTE
The 2009 trip was all photography in the [[Negev desert]] and of people like [[David Faiman]]. What bias is there in that?
RiskerÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
never suggested that there was "bias" in these photographs, or even in the trip itself. She was merely pointing out that in the absence of critical sources, an unbiased WP article on Mr. Shankers cannot be written. An article based entirely on an interview with Mr. Shankers cannot be considered "unbiased," even if the publication it appears in is considered "reliable." (At least in the real world.)