The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

> More defamation of Gregory Kohs
post Thu 1st March 2007, 6:31pm
Post #1


Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911

User:Cyde did a nice thing for me and considered unblocking his block of my personal User:Thekohser account on Wikipedia. He thought it best to put it to a Community Notice, which I fully understand.

I didn't expect defamation of me with false accusations, though. Thanks, User:Durova!

Very strongly oppose. Until last month he evaded his ban through a disruptive sockpuppet and he has given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press. I doubt the community has the authority to overturn a ban by Jimbo himself. Even if it did I see absolutely no reason to reopen the door. DurovaCharge! 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Durova, could you please cite where, specifically, Kohs "has given misleading information to journalists"? Without such support, that could be construed as a defamatory comment. -- 13:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to double check for the exact instance, but it was linked through the Wikipedia Signpost in mid- to late- January. ... I support this siteban with every fiber of my being. DurovaCharge! 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

++++ ++++ ++++

Well, I checked the Signpost for just about all of January (and February, to boot), and I didn't see any links to evidence where I "had given misleading information to journalists".

See, this is what is so infuriating about Wikipedia. They can libel me for "giving misleading information to journalists", and they'll "have to double check for the exact instance" when called to task about it. But when someone out and out lies to journalists (I'm thinking about Essjay here, of course) and has it clearly exposed in The New Yorker (not the Wikipedia Signpost), it's perfectly fine with not only Jimbo, but the Wikia hiring committee.

Corrupt, decayed, cancerous, flawed -- I don't care what term you use. Wikipedia's got the disease.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 1 18, 7:45am