Mucking
If you're not familiar with the term "mucking" it's one of those terms that has two opposing denotations. It could be (1) "to make dirty with muck" or (2) "to remove muck from" something. Tonight there has been both. I was mucked(1) and I mucked(2).
I was informed that I, and this web site, had been mucked about with and I replied. I decided to quote the original comment and my reply here. (Those bored with the Wikipedia sidetrack will want to skip this post.)
This was written on the talk page of an Administrator at Wikipedia:
* I am not interested in involving myself in the dispute. I am interested in immediately upholding WP:BLP, which states that we are to err on the side of caution at all times when dealing with articles about living people. There is no obvious reason why we should include a random bit of defamatory bloggerel written by an unknown person which cites no sources at all whatsoever. It is up to those who wish to include such material to demonstrate why Wikipedia should care that "the temple of me blog" wrote something nasty about Ms. Jardin. What makes "the temple of me blog" an authoritative source on such matters? Until such has been satisfactorily explained, it may not be included. I invite you to examine our policies and guidelines relating to biographies of living people. FCYTravis 06:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I responded there and I'm including my response below. I see no sense in letting such misinformation simply go unanswered. My wife mentioned tonight that I could be quixotic. Maybe so. Wikipedia is an 800 lb gorilla among a segment of the population that gets their information from Google searches. I am not taking on Wikipedia itself. It's the Funk & Wagnalls of the net. You can use it to get some background, but please don't write your report off one of its entries.
The paragraph above disappointed me. The author is a journalism student and reporter. If anyone should do original research it is a reporter. He could have read the original mess and found my arguments against including my editorial as a cite on Wikipedia. He could have read the original editorial and quoted what he thought was "nasty." He could have written me and asked for clarification. He could have not mentioned me or my site at all...since I and it have nothing to do with what he removed. Instead he shot from the hip.
Hello. You'll note my name signed below. I have a website. You've mentioned or alluded to my website twice seemingly without researching the facts for yourself. You wrote above: "There is no obvious reason why we should include a random bit of defamatory bloggerel (1) written by an unknown person (2) which cites no sources at all whatsoever. (3) It is up to those who wish to include such material to demonstrate why Wikipedia should care that "the temple of me blog" wrote something nasty about Ms. Jardin. (4) What makes "the temple of me blog" an authoritative source on such matters?" (5)(1) What "defamatory bloggerel" have I written on Ms Jardin? Can you point to the "harmful and often untrue" information about Ms Jardin you claim I have posted?
(2) I am not unknown. Many people know and use my full name. Because I don't use it to sign my editorials does not mean they are anonymous. As a journalist I am sure you could find me to get your information directly from a source if that is your goal.
(3) In my editorial on the actions of Ms Jardin (and others) I cited every point I discussed. Did you read the editorial?
(4) "Something nasty" about Ms Jardin? Exactly what did I write that you consider "nasty?"
(5) The Temple of Me is not an "authoritive source" by Wikipedia standards. If you read the Talk page on Ms Jardin's article you would have seen the numerous times where I argued such. As soon as I realized someone had cited (and misquoted) my editorial I joined the Talk and posted that websites are not notable. Note that I "joined the talk." I never edited the article itself.
I would welcome any questions you have about my site, my editorial, or my posts on the Talk page. domoni 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
