Saw this today. Something to hide?

At a suggestion that the media should be invited Ganagarra's response was

"Hopefully you havent contacted anyone yet such an action could have serious implications"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane_2

Maybe because the last time they invited the press.....

.... one of the conversations-over-pints wound up with a famous professor getting his name wiped through the mud? For an Arbcom decision that was 2 years ago? During the Durova scandal? When the Sue, Jimbo, and Gerard were all there?

And because we noticed it over here?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what are alluding to?

Last December, this reporter, Jenny Kleeman, who was famously prone to writing happy articles about Wikipedia, especially one article about how she loved to attend their London wikipedia meetups, suddenly decided to write an expose "Wikipedia Ban for Disruptive Professor" about a certain MIT professor who'd had his name smeared in the Arbcom in 2006. Talk about a non-sequitor

What made the timing "funny" (or not) was that the 5th December London meetup, with Wales, Gardiner, et al in attendance, took place during a week that a [url=http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1434221]lot of bad press was coming out about Wikipedia, and a certain admin[/url] who will remain nameless. (rhymes with murova).

Certain people on WR noticed the coincidental timing of releasing an MIT prof's name to the press, and the Murova scandal.. Of course, the Professor felt he'd been unfairly harassed by this.

Certain other people were worried this was impugning Ms. Kleeman's name, and they asked her to respond. She did, to WR, via Moulton. or Kohs. I forget.

But it didn't work. The Register kept pumping out articles, leading up to the famous Wikipedia COO was a felon story.

On that note:

Yes, she responded by e-mail to me.

Not only all of the above, but the Australian media has a particular reputation for viciousness and unethical behavior, even when compared to the UK. I cannot say how well-deserved this reputation is, though.

Oooooh, please could you tell us what she said?

Try clicking the link that you quoted, Whistle.

Reputations aren't always deserved. Australian laws on libel, slander and defamation are fairly tight, by most standards. In Australia, the general perception is that the UK tabloids are orders-of-magnitude worse.

I did- it just lead to the top of the thread- then I had to read every post by Moulton to find it- not that that isn't a joy But I must've been tired lol because RESPONSE by Jenny was in caps. and I found it just now finally

Anyway, she sounds ok, maybe now we'll have inspired her to write a more critical piece next time- you never know

Yeha I would have to agree with that.

Western Civilization has an unresolved neurosis over the issue of character assassination.

It dates back at least to the Cain and Abel Story.

I've revisited the Brisbane meet up talk page and obviously BigBlueFish has read the Wikipedia review.

Editor Thirdechelon has made a interesting comment about talking to the media. - siege mentality.

"Yeah, but Jimbo can still censure and/or ban you and/or have you eaten by a grue, and you don't want that, now do yo"

Can Wales ban or censure a editor for talking to and being quoted in the media?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane_2

All's fair in WikiLove and Vexagonistic Lunatic Scapegoat Pyschodrama.

That depends. Is the editor saying good things about Wikipedia? In that case, not only will they not be banned, they get a free 24 hours of Jimbo-support for any lies they may have told the media. Like maybe lies about being a theology professor?

If they're saying bad things about Wikipedia, though, they will probably be banned as a disruptive influence. Heaven knows there are enough complaints about non-Wikipedians who do that.