QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 29th July 2011, 8:13am)
Brandt, would you feel comfortable being mentioned in Wikipedia's Encyclopedia Dramatica article?
The DailyDot article is at least as reliable as most Wikipedia articles — which is to say, I don't want my name in the article. It was clear that with the DailyDot article, my name was going in regardless of my wishes, because Garrett and Zaiger were on my case and she had already heard their side of the story. At the time, my ED.ch bio was featured in summary form on the ED.ch home page, complete with a picture of a very mean-looking old man that purported to be a picture of me. But it wasn't a picture of me. It was Zaiger's impression of how he thought I looked. I don't know whose picture it was.
(The reporter logged into the ED.ch chatroom and said she was a reporter, and asked for some quotes about the reappearance of ED. That's how it started. I didn't know she was writing something until I got her email, and it wasn't until later that I noticed the chatroom log.)
That's why I accepted her email invitation to respond to their charges. Otherwise, I would have preferred to be left out of that article too.
I must say, giving someone the right to reply is a credit the the DailyDot reporter. That's not something one sees very often when it comes to Wikipedia.