QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 4th December 2008, 7:53am)
"Some 15-year-old kid from Iowa got on and manipulated the article on Martin Luther?"
Jeez, Patrick, how could you
say such a thing?
After all we've done for the, uh, crusade
Other than that, though, I guess it was pretty good.
You are 100% right. That was thoughtless and insensitive of me, and I apologize to all of you here who have been my allies in this weird fight.
That said, I do suggest that there is something unique about the battle over the naked shorting page. Many of the other wikibattles of which I have heard (e.g., the Martin Luther fight) concern people who were manipulating the discourse over the proper interpretation of a historical issue. In the case of naked short selling, however, Wikipedia has been being manipulated in the furtherance of an ongoing crime. Most literally, it has been used in the cover-up of a crime that has been implicated in the financial Chernobyl we are presently enjoying, and which is, with each passing month, being implicated further and further. I fear that story being lost among the general "Look how inaccurate Wikipedia can be" stories, because I do think it is qualitatively different.
However, I do recognize that every pet issue is especially important to someone, and I will be more sensitive to that fact in the future.