Tue 9th October 2007, 12:24am
QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 8th October 2007, 12:00pm)
QUOTE(Nya @ Mon 8th October 2007, 4:44pm)
What always astounds me in these situations is that other editors frequently come along, read the article, and maybe even make a few edits, but it never occurs to them to question the incredibly unlikely unsourced (or, more sneakily, erroneously sourced) bit in the article, much less remove it. They go to the bar and tell their friends about the crazy thing they read on the internet, with less than zero skepticism. The whole "assume good faith" thing gets taken to a ridiculous, naive level on Wikipedia. I think the history of humanity demonstrates we have an infinite capacity for evil. Hell, just the brief history of the internet makes is abundantly clear that people, when left to their own devices and given the cloak of anonymity, are really quite awful and just plain mean. I assume better faith of my dog than I do of most anonymous internet people.
Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley are not anonymous people. They are responsible for that claim about Danan appearing on their website. I mean come on, imagine if our IP editor above wrote that on their biographies? Oh, he can't. Jimbo and Angela's biographies are locked from edits by non-registered users. Beesley had hers locked after she herself admitted that her biography had become filled with "lies and nonsense'
". Jimbo and Angela can rest safe assured that IP edits aren't going to bother them anymore as they make their fortunes from Wikia. As for Paul Danan, why should Jimbo and Beesley gives a crap about low-lifes like him, eh?
They may bear responsibility for the content of the entire website, but they probably didn't actually make the edit. It certainly would be odd if they had, since I imagine they could commit some more creative, insidious vandalism.
My point was that I, random Wikipedia admin, generally do not assume good faith of drive by anonymous editors, especially when they are adding negative information, and I find it kind of sad and naive that other people apparently do. I think the AGF policy has been taken to a ridiculous point and should be rewritten or scrapped entirely. The idea of civility already covers making totally baseless accusations against someone or calling them bad names, so AGF just becomes "don't criticize me, you need to AGF".