WP isn’t flawed because of “The Tragedy Of The Commons”, which is an evidence-free economic myth that nobody with any intelligence should promulgate.

WP is flawed because it is a paranoid, secretive, infighting cult.

Winer wrote pages of stories on the Russo tale. Even notes it as #14 in his Things to Revisit link list on Scripting News. He put it all on his site so Google queries on Russo would show this stuff.

There’s an example of his complaining here: http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/08/14/theEffPositionOnWikipedia.html#p4

I like this one because it also includes his paranoia that his bad photo is due to Jimmy Wales being out to get him.

This needs to be repeated.

JRT, I understand what you’re saying, but you’re simply starting from a false premise.

If Betsy Devine had her way there would be nothing negative about dave winer. She’s not leaving anything because she’s fair, she’s leaving enough so that she still has some control over the page.

Read the logs. She does that all the time. She just deleted references to the lawsuit filed by Jack Russo against Dave Winer over the Weblogs.Com sale.

We should run down all of Betsy’s edits. She’s his No. 1 protector on Wikipedia.

2) Actually, I know a few friends of bands that have updated Wikipedia with images, or friends with other celebrities. You ignore the fact that I am specifically focusing on images. See the bio guideline above. What do you find in professional biographies–a professional photo.

3) Unfortunately, it is very hard to get Neutral POV 100% from people. But as far as I know, it’s only people who have a negative opinion of Winer objecting to the picture change, not based on your concerns but the ugly things BSM and Kyle are saying.

Anyway, I not really talking about article facts so much as the fact that changing a picture to a better version should not be seen as a violation of NPOV. The Besty picture looks more professional than the candid shot. As a person concerned with WP quality, I support that, and I will for everybody. I have no problem with a famous person wanting a better picture and getting it on WP, simply because it’s treating the living person with respect. That goes for anybody not Dave Winer.

1. Appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety for Wikipedia.

2. Being someone’s friend is not the same as being a fan of a band. More apt comparison: being close friends with the lead singer.

3. If NPOV is sought, why should we pit extremes against each other and hope that “neutral” is the result? Why not just get neutral folks to do the editing?

4. If Betsy were truly behaving in a NPOV manner, then ANYONE could fill in for her. It would be just as effective and not nearly as sketchy-looking. Fact is, though, that she’s not. She’s serving as Dave’s protector.

5. I find it curious that you’re so concerned about negative spin, but seemingly unconcerned with the fellatio-level positive spin that Dave gets from certain, oft-quoted publications to which WP gives so much weight.

Bottom line: “Winer haters” shouldn’t have to troll the Winer bio to keep it neutral. It should be neutral as a matter of course. That is not the status quo.

This is your standard for objectivity? Betsy Devine camps out on that page removing negative information and never adds anything but positive stuff. She’s such a hopeless fangirl that she thinks TechJunk and NewsJunk are notable projects worthy of mention on Wikipedia! Fucking hilarious.

I see the photo issue as being the least of the concerns. If she was trying to get rid of unflattering (but factual non-trivial and non-spun information), then I’d see a concern. But Winer-haters too have tried to sabotage the articles, so people like Betsy are needed to assist. And really, if a celebrity or somebody else wanted a better photo on WP, why not use it.

Uh, JRT, we didn’t have anything to do with those pictures on Wikipedia.