Response on chat list. You have already been told that this stuff isn't appropriate for tech.
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 at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >
