Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
It has nothing to do with placing faith in the media. It is about looking at the evidence and trusting the source of the evidence.
If the moderators on MR say that they have logs pointing to the users posting from an Ectaco IP address, I can say that I have a fair amount of trust in the type of evidence and trust that the moderators of MR are not deliberately misleading us.
If someone says that someone from Ectaco must be reverting the Wikipedia and writing inflamatory messages because the nature of the modifications are suspect, I'm asking: where's the concrete evidence? I don't care if it's a so-called reputable source or an independent blog making the claim, because suspicious actions and probable motive doesn't actually prove anything.
|
True. A man may sprain his ankle and someone who doesn't see it happen may see him staggering around and think he's drunk, but that doesn't prove that the man had been drinking when he sprained his ankle. Likewise we may think that someone connected with Ectaco changed the entry at Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that it is so. It could be someone who read the post here and felt the company was hard done by or it could be a customer of Ectaco who has no connection with MR or Ectaco. We don't know who it was as Wikipedia is openly editable by anyone who is signed in. To point the finger of blame without proof helps no one.