Wikiwatch, Round II
Let me begin with a clarification: Wikipedia does not have an editorial board. It has individual editors, a few of whom have been promoted to administrators. Apparently at least a few of these editors are Schlock readers. At least one of them is a personal friend.
Numerous Wikipedians have commented or emailed to tell me "we have a policy, it's being adhered to" and as of late last night the articles for Evil Inc. and Superosity were restored.
The policy would therefore appear to be "editors are free to act out of ignorance or even malice, until public scrutiny is trained upon them, at which time another editor may fix the damage."
Nice.
How about an apology for the mistakes? Would that kill you? Admitting you were wrong, hasty, or uninformed would go a long way toward convincing contributors that editors are not vindictive, spiteful, agenda-driven tyrants. I hear a lot about "burden of proof" from Wikipedia editors. Well, the burden of proof is now on YOU. Convince us. I'll go ahead and post the apology here, or at least link to the "talk" page.
See the eyeball, Wikipedians? Well, it sees YOU. Police yourselves more effectively, or folks like me will have to expose your folly again. Most of us don't have time to be editors, but we can tell when the editors are screwing up.
Wikipedia is too wonderful, too useful, and too full of promise to be allowed to continue to slide into the control of petty editorial fiefdoms.