[[David Shankbone]], A biography appears Options

[carbuncle]

Someone seems to have created a BLP of [[David Shankbone]]. User Huckandraz formerly seemed mainly interested in New York City artist [[Judy Rifka]].

No comment, just pointing it out.

[Alison]

David has now weighed in re. Risker's comments and is offended over the Israeli junket suggestions. WR gets a good ol' mention, of course.

Hi David!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)

[the fieryangel]

David has now weighed in re. Risker's comments and is offended over the Israeli junket suggestions. WR gets a good ol' mention, of course.

Hi David!!! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)

How long before the ED articles about Risker and others who voted delete start mysteriously arriving?

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.

Furthermore, since Fordham Law School is part of Columbia University, one has to wonder if Mr. Rose and Mr. Shankbone didn't know each other from...elsewhere?


Of course, Risker's suggestion that all of those Israeli press articles were all orchestrated by the Israeli government is just her jealous reaction to Mr. Miller's Wiki-success. Never mind the photo of Saranga, Lucas and Shankbone "enjoying lunch" on Fire Island....

And how did Mr. Miller get that interview with Peres? According to his own press, Saranga set it up :

* WikiPeres, Itamar Eichner, Yedioth Aharonoth (English translation)

“For over an hour, Peres sat with one of the Wikipedia senior editors, David Shankbone. Shankbone, who came to Israel with a delegation of journalists, turned to the Israeli Consul for Media and Public Affairs in New York, David Saranga, and asked to schedule an interview with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Peres.”

And why is Becksguy fighting so hard to get the article kept?

*'''Comment''' - I believe Risker is misreading the focus of the CJR article. It's entirely about him, and not just the Peres interview. No other journalist, citizen or otherwise, is mentioned by name. And "relatively unknown" was before the RS, especially CJR, made him notable. That comment is not relevant. Was Obama relatively unknown before his 2007 bid for President? I don't agree with the term, but if he's marginally notable, that's still notable. It's like a passing grade in school. If the minimum passing score is 65 (the bright line) and you receive a 65, marginally or not, you passed. The majority of us participating here think the RS are sufficient. Personally I think three of the most significant are a slam dunk for establishing notability, especially CJR because of all the reasons already mentioned. I have often argued in the past that the only really acceptable reason, per [[WP:BEFORE]], for deleting any article is if it's intrinsically non-notable. And to repeat, if we let potential problems with articles determine what articles are kept, Wikipedia and our readers suffer. Shankbone had nothing to do with creating the article, and has not asked that it either be kept or deleted. And he has wisely and properly stayed away from the DRV and this AfD DRV (up to now). And no, his request to delete obviously is not required to nominate it. But the nomination rationale referred to "spurious sources" which frames the discussion. The nomination did later refer to news sources with "insufficient coverage". However, the six sources were in the article at nomination time. Others picked up on the "spurious" characterization very unfairly, and repeated it. And to say that's it's not possible to write a non-biased article is, again, [[WP:CRYSTAL]] and an opinion, and not a reason to delete. It's a reason to work hard on the article. It's also possible that because David is known, that some participants are bending over backwards to avoid being perceived as partial to him, and that the bar is unfairly higher than it would be otherwise. The Village Voice is a weekly freebie, and it's a reliable source, so being free doesn't invalidate the Brooklyn Rail. — [[User:Becksguy|Becksguy]] ([[User talk:Becksguy|talk]]) 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's just one out of many comments. What is the deal with this campaign to save Private Shankbone?

[Somey]

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:

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.

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.

I spoke with the editor-in-chief.

About what? And why would this mean anything?

The 2009 trip was all photography in the [[Negev desert]] and of people like [[David Faiman]]. What bias is there in that?

Risker (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.)