From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Umm, is that recent link change implying that you do not want an article on Wikipedia or Meta-Wikipedia here on SourceWatch?

I have no idea what "recent link change" you are referring to.
In the Consumerium article a link to an anticipated Wikipedia article was replaced by a direct link to If this is an random authorial decision and not an editorial decision, fine, forget it, it will just get changed back.
I also have no idea who you are. --Sheldon Rampton 13:53 20 Apr 2003 (EDT)
If you continue to allow anonymous contribution, you will often have no idea "who is" writing. I consider that a good thing, as every fact should stand on its own, and the most informed writers often need to remain anonymous to protect their access to inside information. Certainly the American Founding Fathers wrote that way, as do The Economist authors, and I think also the majority of wikipedia authors. So I think this is not a good thing to be implying, that it is somehow wrong to ask questions and have them answered as in an FAQ without names attached.
If you agree, you may want to write something like this Etiquette guide from Consumerium to establish what degree of interrogation of anonymous authors, or revealing of the data available to sysops, is to be tolerated around here. A policy statement on this would be useful at this early stage. Thanks - a troll.

(the following will be moved to a new Wikipedia article)

Some believe that there is a good deal of disinformation going on via the wikipedia, small cliques devoted to censorship, and especially to raising standards of evidence on claims uncomfortable to the Bush administration.

Since it seems unlikely that this behavior can be warned against *there*, that suggests there should be an article on it *here*.

Over there are some things like 'Systemic Bias of Wikipedia' but this is usually ignored even by long time users.