Ah, I see - anyone who thinks it is inappropriate for you to link to
your own blog from a Wikipedia article must be a "Freenet fanboy".
Right. You are pathetic, you won't even admit you are wrong when
numerous independent people are telling you so. I suspect you are
close to being banned from Wikipedia based on your behavior, you
certainly deserve to be.
I removed your little rant for the simple reason that it is original
research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. I was not the first
to remove it, nor, I see, am I the last.
Note that the only reason you know I made this edit was because I
chose to reveal it. You, in contrast, sought to hide your identity
when making your self-serving edits, and were angry when I
(trivially) uncovered your activities.
Your assertion that my motivation is simply to remove criticism, you
haven't looked very closely at the history of that page, unlike you,
I actually went out and found some independently written criticism,
and added it to the page. That is the appropriate way to try to
achieve balance, not to abuse Wikipedia as a soap-box as you do.
You are making a fool of yourself, and have destroyed whatever last
morsel of credibility you might have had.
Ian.
On 10 Jan 2006, at 19:55, Newsbyte wrote:
Well...someone with Ians' nick, anyway, but I thought the title of
this post
should reflect in the same way as that of Ians' about me. Equal
treatement,
after all (no doubt he will be lecturing again about off-topic posts,
neglecting his same, earlier behaviour). And besides, I think there is
little doubt; feel free to deny it if it's not true/you, Ian.
As one can see on the wikipedia, a small group of freenet-fanboys
there, and
probably Ian himself, have consistently tried to censor any form of
criticism. Now, I myself am still fond of the freenet as a concept
too, but
that doesn't mean I have to close my eyes for the things that go
wrong, and
neither should anyone else, if they are really serious with helping
the
project. But aparently, Ian and his cronies do not only not agree
with the
criticism, they even don't want any mentionning that there *is*
citicism on
the freenetproject.
Constantly new excuses are sought to justify the ongoing
revertions, even
AFTER the agreement was reached that we would abide by the
compromise a
wiki-admin had made with an edit. First, it was because it was
posted by me;
but when somebody else posts it, it's to no avail anyway. Then, in the
interest of keeping the peace on the wikipedia, I agree with the
decision of
a wiki-admin...but aparently, *I* am the only one considered to be
bound to
it, and when a very watered-down wikiadmin-edit with the
acknowledgement
that at least there IS criticism of the freenet-project, then
suddenly no-1
else feels bothered by completely ignoring the agreement. When I
revert to
that of the wikadmin-version, it is claimed there are no sources
mentionned,
when I give a wikipage where the sources *are* mentionned, it is
claimed
they are not notable, etc.
As one can see, a perfect catch-22; no criticism exists, because no
sources
can be given, and when sources are given, then they are proclaimed
to be of
trolls and lamenters and not notable, which means no sources have
to be
reckoned with, which means the mentionning of the fact that there is
criticism can be deleted, so no critcism exists...
Thus even the simple fact that there *is* criticism is conveniently
and
self-servingly kept out of the wikipedia-page, as if no such thing
exists;
but in any pragmatic sense, it is clear it is just used by Ian and
consorts
to let it appear if no such thing exists - completely in line whith
his
continuous habbit of over-optimistic claims and mispresenting, in
this case,
an article by making it less NPOV (which inherently happens, if you
censor
criticism - a fact dictators well know, as Ian should know, seen his
purported 'free-speech in china' goal).
Is this fair and honest? A rethorical question indeed, because
someone with
a grain of honesty in his bones, would at least admit that there *is*
criticism, whether you agree with it or not. But not so Ian and
consorts,
ofcourse. *They* think their ego and keeping their pet-project on a
pedestal
is more important then making a more NPOV wikipedia-article by
including
various criticisms on the Freenet Project.
I'm actually not surpised to see him&co reacting like this, because I
already encountered the hypocrisy on his own blog (free speech
proponent, my
ass)..but it still saddens me he is now using the wikipedia as his/
their
personal playground to work out his frustrated ego and bias.
I would ask anyone with a free and open mind to edit the wikipedia
freenet-article in a NPOV way, so that it may also contain the more
negative
facts and some criticism, and not only acts as if no criticism
exists. Yes,
I know, we all like freenet, at least as a concept, otherwise we
wouldn't be
here, but I would like to remind everyone that a project is *not*
helped by
optimistically misrepresenting things, neither by closing ones'
eyes for
things that are poorly managed, and certainly not denying that
there IS
criticism possible and being given. When making an NPOV article about
freenet, one should at least acknowledge that; the wikipedia
deserves such a
thing. Understand me well; I'm not asking anyone to agree with my
particular
criticism, I'm only asking that one can acknowledge that some - maybe
including you - have criticism on the project, and, of course, to
make clear
that any criticism should not be considered a threat, but rather a
wortwhile
effort to point errors out, or at least to come to a more NPOV
wikipedia-article.
friendly regards,
Newsbyte
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
Tech@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
chat@freenetproject.org
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
