Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

20265Re: Lewis mention in Wikipedia

Expand Messages
  • marywilt
    Dec 31, 2008
      I sent this a few days ago but it apparently was not posted on the list
      (perhaps I'm being moderated for bad behavior? Grin).

      If it was moderated, can the mods just delete that previous post to
      avoid double posting? Thanks.

      I'll post it again, for what it's worth. My sole point (if I have one)
      being that perhaps there is a personal motivation for this hoax, not an
      "attack" on New College, per se.

      I'm not a Wikipedia contributor, so am not entirely sure how the
      behind-the-scenes talk goes on, but this entry has been discussed
      before. I can't really tell if the person who posted the response (which
      is noted as coming from "AlcockMarine") is or is not in reality Franck
      Alcock, who is listed as a co-author and is at New College.

      For what it's worth:

      On a "Wiki Talk" page at medlibrary (I'm not a Wiki contributor so am
      not entirely sure how that works!) there is a brief discussion of this
      entry <http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Male_prostitution#cite_note-1>
      , in which "AlcockMarine" responds to questions about the citation for
      the Lewis article: I was mistaken in the second reference- the title
      is a book chapter not a journal article. I will reinsert the section
      with the correct reference. AlcockMarine
      edlink=1> (talk
      dit&redlink=1> ) 23:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC) It still reads "Journal
      of AA of R" at the wikipedia site, though. Perhaps the AlcockMarine
      user who said he would reinsert the text with the correct citation is
      the same Frank Alcock who is listed as an author of the article (?book
      chapter?) in question--or is it? Frank Alcock is on staff at New College
      and is (or was) director of a "Marine Policy Institute".
      <> Not sure
      what I think anyone wants to do with all this "intuition" and Googling
      on my part, though. Grin. mary

      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:
      > Hi, Wendell,
      > At the risk of making a mountain out of an almost off-topic molehill,
      let me try to clarify my own earlier comments, which I think (and hope)
      will address yours as well. Others, please feel free to ignore this
      entire message, if you aren't interested in the subject.
      > > I think you all completely missed my point when I
      > > said that this hoax was obscure and pointless.
      > I don't think we're missing your point, but you did also ask
      *why* someone would bother. I was making a stab at answering that
      question – e.g., vanity, an axe to grind with those professors, the
      school, or literary theory, etc.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic