Reading this whole thing in the round....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... vid_Gerard
....does anyone seriously believe, if he is doing what he says and making each edit manually and with care, that David Gerard didn't know that the reason Benny Morris had chosen to write something for The American Thinker was specifically because he was replying to something already printed by them?
I mean, fuck, it's right there in the citation (both the url and the title). You just don't miss that if you're being careful.
My money is that he saw it and wanted to use his limited Wikipedia power to punish experts for gracing sources he dislikes, even when they have a really good reason to do so.
Naturally he cannot then admit that was what he was thinking when called out for it.
And if you had taken the time to consider the circumstances, seeing as you would the good reasons why that publication was chosen, and understanding what it says about their sense of responsibility (respecting right of reply speaks to reliability, and allowing academics to challenge your opinion writers speaks to neutrality), and lastly having realised what rich and useful content it provided precisely because of what it is, well, you aren't going to give the game away by commenting one way or another on all the other as it turned out quite fucking irrelevant nonsense offered up by the usual morons as some means to justify his removal.
You would keep your mouth shut, and simply repeat this idea you removed it because of the source, and claim you're open to subsequent arguments that it might be usable given who wrote it (while carefully avoiding any admission that you hadn't had the foresight to do that at the time you yanked it out).
I reckon he fired off a quick private message to an Admin to bale him out the shit, and of course, they obliged, with the standard bullshit of how David is doing nothing wrong and indeed he might even be a hero.
Anyway, just an amusing observation. Imagine being such a mug to yourself to have to pretend you buy this crap.
David Gerard is asking a lot, and the mugs of Wikipedia, they just sit back and take it.
Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 121 times
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 3901
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Has thanked: 721 times
- Been thanked: 1381 times
Re: David Gerard is asking a lot, and the mugs of Wikipedia, they just sit back and take it.
Having written a 40,000 word article about Gerard's WP history, please take my word for the following:
1) he is unreliable in just about every way--except for whatever stupid jeremiad he wants to run this week. THEN it's a laser focus. The Daily Mail thing was a good example. He is NOT a reliable supporter in any dispute.
2) he can't decide if he's a "liberal" or a "libertarian" or just a simple internet troll. And like any good internet troll, he routinely accuses his critics of being "trolls". Thus he is a hypocrite as well as a troll. And also a pathological liar, when it suits his needs.
3) sometimes I wonder just what kind of bullshit lines Gerard fed to Jimbo in 2003 in order to gain Jimbo's trust. If Wikipedia wasn't run by lying irrational scum who ALSO suck up to Jimbo, they would have kicked Gerard out permanently in 2009. But somehow he kisses certain asses, and gets back in there, and continues to fuck things up. I've given up trying to figure out how many times he's been desysopped, resysopped, had advanced rights removed/returned, etc.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1