Fri 3rd August 2007, 7:24am
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 3rd August 2007, 3:20am)
It was in the public domain before, though. It was an "open secret," and it will go back to being an open secret, in all probability. Is there reason to believe that a first-tier news organization would touch this story in its current state? I'm still not seeing it - all we really have is an identity and some background material, plus the fact that this person is prominent on Wikipedia. Is that enough? Maybe it is, and I'm just kidding myself.
No, it's probably not enough for a story at this point, by my layman standards anyway. That doesn't seem like an argument to keep the redactions though. There's still work that has to be done to determine exactly what is going on. Maybe it's nothing. But having the name Linda Mack on this site certainly isn't as outrageous as it once was. It's ok to take advantage of that. Previously, it was sensible to redact the name. That is, of course, in the past.
The thing is, we got no traction from the cabal folks whatsoever on anything they might have done to show that they approved of, or even cared about, our efforts to satisfy their so-called privacy concerns. That, again, suggests to me that they want SlimVirgin out of their midst as much as we do, maybe more. She's starting to draw "reflected" attention onto them, and they totally do not want that.
I don't think it changed anyone
's opinion of this site in the least, and that includes sympathetic and non sympathetic Wikipedians. I thought the redactions would help "relations" a bit, but I didn't count on the fact that the most vocal that are against this site have not read very much of it, do not understand it, and evidently finding out for theirselves goes against some personal dogma of theirs.
Personally, I would wait until they restore the Brandt bio, and then unredact the name. There's a roughly 60 percent chance that they'll do that regardless of what we do here, so it's probably just a matter of waiting a little longer. If we unredact the name now, the chance goes up to 100 percent.
That's a reactionary tactic that would seem petty, a lot like restoring the [[Daniel Brandt]] talk page. If someone went around quietly restoring the names, would anyone on WP notice ? (until of course someone made a topic about it here in all capital letters "SOMEY DROPS THE BIG ONE: MACK ATTACK") If they do notice, what are they going to do? A topic on the mailing list that says "WR is still filled assholes" followed by the superficial critique? We have seen that show too much. In the short time I've been here, my thoughts are that scenario is not new and brings no insight or revelations to WP or WR, it is just fodder. The standards that have been imposed on them by wiki bullies doesn't allow them to link to it and discuss it intelligently anyway.
We're set up to operate as much outside of WP and their norms as we can be (damn is that punk rock or what?), and a recent convenient event will help us in that endeavor, if we can proceed.
Would they restore the Brandt bio? Someone is going to try ...however, look at the outrage against SV and jayjg that is beginning to be a little bit more ok to express than it was in the past. Anyone restoring the Brandt bio will have to face shimgray like statements
from "the core" that is nearly exhausted by scandal and the threat of it.
It was a very good idea to do at the time, in my opinion, and it did acheive something. We found out that it does not matter what we do here, and in some cases, bowing to wiki etiquette can doom us.