People are forever asking me:
“Kathy! Don’t you know what people have posted under ‘Kathy Shaidle’ in ‘Wikipedia’?!?”
I don’t go to Wikipedia on a regular basis, thanks.
And I really don’t have time to keep up with the sort of vandalism that reportedly goes on there under every semi-demi-well-known person’s Wikipedia entry.
But this just came to my attention, from the Wikipedia editor’s lounge.
Seems I’m the focus of unhealthy obsession for numerous underemployed individuals! That damn recession — it just keeps claiming more and more victims.
“Paul” is an editorial higher up at Wikipedia, trying, without success, to prevent his company from looking stupid, getting sued, or being used as a weapon of mass stupidity by trolls and parasites.
He writes:
Multiple IP editors have attempted to re-introduce a “controversy” section that violates Wikipedia’s policy on original research.
It is a list of quotes from Shaidle’s own blog, used to advance the position that Shaidle is controversial.
To have a “criticism” or “controversy” section, editors will need to cite reliable sources (not examples from blogs, for example) that discuss the controversy. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
So a brave anonymous person replies:
Yes, better to create a “Charges of bigotry and racism” section and include the quotes, which demonstrate that Kathy Shaidle is a bigot and a racist.
