Sat 11th April 2009, 5:31pm
Moderator's note: Two similar threads were merged into one thread, hence the apparent redundancy of the following post. As is well-known, The Joy has a history of beating Somey to the punch by three minutes or less.
Over on User_talk:Seth Finkelstein
), a certain uber-troll and self-promoting porn-uploader of our unfortunate acquaintance seems to have taken issue with Mr. Finkelstein's "reporting on Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales," calling it a "conflict of interest" - and even semi-threatening to send a strongly worded letter
to the Guardian's "reader's editor," to see how he "handles it." (He also misuses the word "comports" when he probably means "accords," but I digress.)
Of course, the link provided by the uber-troll in question merely leads to Mr. Finkelstein's September 2006 piece
about his objections to his (now-deleted) BLP article. Apparently, at least one person wants to define the term "conflict of interest" to mean that WP once had an article about you and you objected to it!
So I guess now,
if Wikipedia wants to try and get journalists in trouble for criticizing it/them, they just have to create an article on the journalist in question, fill it with lies, innuendo, and misplaced emphasis, wait for the inevitable AfD, and call any critical stories written afterwards a "conflict of interest!" What a brilliantly clever and subtle scheme!
And yet, somehow this particular uber-troll is still allowed to abuse Wikipedia freely for his own petty, self-promotional, and ludicrously vengeful uber-trolling ends. As long as it continues, I'm afraid I'll have to remain convinced that absurdity and hypocrisy really know no bounds over there, and that any complaints about "harassment" and "COI" coming from a Wikipedia user, no matter how seemingly justified, are just empty rhetoric.