Monday, October 02, 2006

Lying primadonnas

I've noticed that one of the primadonnas running amok on Wikipedia has taken to claiming that I wasn't even an editor when I was still there. I'm not sure what purpose he has to repeating this lie -- other than to evidence his own poor connection to reality -- but in the interest of setting the record straight, the following is an incomplete list of the articles I made nontrivial contributions to in the past year (that is, since October 1, 2005):

Polar exploration
Clover
Bubba (fish)
Rest area
Dallas Austin
Interstate 55
Dan Ryan Expressway
St. Louis, Missouri
Max August Zorn
Galesburg, Illinois
Bass guitar
Moustache
Vibraphone
Sideburns
Target Corporation
Public library
Galva, Illinois
U.S. Route 34
Roger Taylor (college president)
Stephen Colbert
Ear X-tacy
USASA Field Station Augsburg
September 11
Jack Ruby
Paper marbling
Chancellor (education)
Andrew Sobel (professor)
Andrew Sobel (author)
Andrew Sobel
Anime
Computer and video games
Addressing mode
Mysore
Junichi Kakizaki
Delon Dotson
Chicago
Michigan Avenue
Wright Amendment
United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries

This is in addition to contributing spelling corrections, markup corrections, or other minor adjustments to literally thousands of articles. It also does not count articles I touched in the course of handling copyright release notices, copyright infringement notices, vandalism management, or special requests from Brad or Danny.

But apparently the above list, or the over 7000 mainspace edits I'd made in the past twelve months (my critic having made barely 1000 mainspace edits in the same timeframe), were not enough to make me an editor.

And to think that the person making this claim is not only considered by many a "valued member of the Wikipedia community" but is being held forth, by himself and by others, as a paragon of virtue that others should emulate. I wasn't aware that raving on spewing forth falsehoods (which in his case I shall call "lies"; this is my blog and I am not required to be "civil" and assume that his lies flow merely from ignorance of the facts) was considered virtuous. If these are truly the moral standards of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is in far darker trouble than even I had envisioned.