QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 27th October 2010, 7:41am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 11:48am)
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 27th October 2010, 2:14am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 27th October 2010, 4:32am)
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 26th October 2010, 10:51pm)
...and has done nothing to warrant any media attention...
How did she get onto CNN.com, then?
By being interviewed, and it looks like she was selected by the reporter because she represented what the reporter considered to be an average person in that scenario.
So, CNN reported on a common phenomenon, focusing on an average person. But, you didn't see fit to go protest CNN in 2006?
I trust that you will never again complain about Wikipedia having a biography on anyone again.
No matter how unnotable they are, if the information is verifiable online, Kohs believes that's fair game.
With that mantra, I now list you you as an associate on [[List of Wikipedia Kool-aid drinkers]].
Since when is the Examiner.com in the same position as Wikipedia simply because both appear online? This is like saying it is appropriate to feed an African elephant the same diet that would serve for a marmoset simply because both happen to be mammals. That being said, I am of the same mind as Somey here. It seems to me that Greg probably erred here in terms of emphasis, not basic propriety.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 27th October 2010, 9:12am)
The hair-pulling and breast beating about the invasion of privacy stuff is a bit much too though, because she did, after all, put this all out there herself, and while her FB photo has a youthful appearance, she's clearly not a teenager.
This is all true enough, but overlooks the fact that the Frei Kultur Kinder expect to held to a higher standard of protection than ordinary mortals because they perceive themselves engaged in a holy mission to deliver "the sum of all human knowledge" to "every single person on the planet". This is yet another manifestation of the wikipediot hypocrisy that we have been observing for years.