They just can't seem to get enough of their homo-erotic love fest with me over there, can they?

Honestly, they really don't even know WHICH articles got into Wikipedia as a result of any entity paying me, so how can they comment on the ethics of what I was doing?

Cheap shots. Keep 'em coming. If you want to be added to my shit-list, you need only look at what I've helped do to JzG's private photo fantasies and Durova's run for ArbCom to know how to gain a spot on the list.

Sam Blacketer is going to get this one Mulligan. He's entitled to his opinion of paid editing on Wikipedia. But, if I see anything else that goes "personal" from him that rubs me the wrong way... look out.

Greg

Give 'em a break, Greg, they're just following the main Wikipediot maxim —

«The Solution To The Problem Of Defamation Is More Defamation»

Jonny

Very interesting topic. I thought "Moreschi" was just a pseudonym, but it's actually her last name. And JoshuaZ obviiously had his last initial in his username, but now it's been expanded to "Zelinsky."

My male lover knows nothing about Wikipedia and I hope to keep it that way.

Christiano Moreschi was the name of the last castrato to sing at Saint Peter's in Rome, before they stop doing that to people.

It is a pseudo and it's a "him". The only thing that I've been able to find out about him is that he's a tennis coach for children (read his Arb-com statement) and that he lives in England somewhere....

Ah ha, should have known that it was a pseudonym, just like Durova took her username from that Russian general, as stated on the user page.

I've changed my mind. What he said, characterizing my business and my clients as unethical, is not acceptable. It's libel.

It occurs to me that there are copious examples of "dissing" (perhaps rising on occasion to the tort of libel) in all directions between Wikipedians and their erstwhile critics (including critics here and elsewhere).

I don't like to be an arse, but it was Alessandro Moreschi. Here he is singing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv-S3uoeTXg

It might be regarded as a statement of opinion rather than of fact, and hence not capable of being libelous, if one regards the exact position of the line between "ethical" and "unethical" to be a matter of personal belief rather than objectively determinable fact.

Ethics is about best practices, which is an evolving target.

Is it the Wikimedia Foundation's objective to host statements of opinion that may or may not border on libel, but are certainly, without question, groundless criticism? Blacketer didn't write this on his blog. He wrote it on a mailing list that is stored on an American server paid for primarily with tax-deductible donation dollars.

I'll add that Blacketer lives in England. English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes a reasonable person to think worse of him. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. (source)

Greg

CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!