And for the record
Here's a post at Gwen Gale's talk concerning her involvement QUOTE
Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Wei...ruth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes, and the professor
got kittens (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
This post has been edited by mbz1: 
The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia, Chronicle of Higher Education
