Re: Lewis mention in Wikipedia
- 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
, 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
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".
<http://220.127.116.11/PublicAffairs/Documents/Alcock.htm> Not sure
what I think anyone wants to do with all this "intuition" and Googling
on my part, though. Grin. mary
--- In email@example.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]