The Review hits the airwaves....., thanks for coming chaps..... Options Rating

[privatemusings]

well as many good folk around here will know, I've recently posted a new conversation over at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' featuring Somey (and who knew that it's pronounced summy?), Wordbomb, Wikipedia Review and Moulton...

thanks heaps for coming by guys - I hope the people who give it a listen find it interesting, and it helps promotes useful discussion etc....

it mightn't be the last of course...

cheers,

PM.

[Somey]

Here's another:

Where would it leave Wikipedia to be open to any edit by anyone who shows up and demands to write unsourced content with no references and no reliable sources, contrary to our existing sources? Where would that leave "ethics" and "standards for good journalism" and "encyclopedic content" ?

Uh, exactly where it is now...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Anyway, this rant of his about the guy with the co-author wife was a classic strawman argument, for which the "conclusions" were based on pure lies and gross distortions that didn't even have much to do with the example. It's one of the worst I've seen, in fact.

Nobody here is insisting that WP abandon its BLP strictures in favor of including things that are "contrary to reliable sources" - AFAIK that's the polar opposite of what people here are suggesting. And of course, he's conveniently ignoring the OO/NOB proposal completely, which sort of goes back to why I was unhappy about not getting a chance to explain it. Then again, just about everyone who listens to that thing should be familiar with it, I'd imagine.

[dogbiscuit]

Anyway, this rant of his about the guy with the co-author wife was a classic strawman argument, for which the "conclusions" were based on pure lies and gross distortions that didn't even have much to do with the example. It's one of the worst I've seen, in fact.

Nobody here is insisting that WP abandon its BLP strictures in favor of including things that are "contrary to reliable sources" - AFAIK that's the polar opposite of what people here are suggesting. And of course, he's conveniently ignoring the OO/NOB proposal completely, which sort of goes back to why I was unhappy about not getting a chance to explain it. Then again, just about everyone who listens to that thing should be familiar with it, I'd imagine.

The likes of Filll are so involved with their own distorted view that I am sure that they really believe they are right. I suspect they assume that they are up against a clever argument which they can't quite put their finger on the sleight of hand, but they know it is in there - hence the comments like: "You only have to listen to here it": THEY can hear it, but they can't articulate it. It is much like they cannot hear the arguments from Moulton et. al. that the petition is not as they have described, therefore their whole raison d'etre for the conflict is null and void.

Rather like a day or so ago, where the thread here on "outing" a Wikipedia user who already had publicly identified himself (I guess that is a bit like outing Tom Robinson for singing Glad to be Gay) is the worst ever attack in the world ever. Brains don't engage. Unfortunately, though we think that having these faux-pas lying around helps, most readers just seem to accept the BADSITEs theme.