Identifying bias is not the same as ad hominem. This is a man with a long history of eating Wikipedia's sour grapes and cannot be trusted as an impartial observ

Identifying bias is not the same as ad hominem. This is a man with a long history of eating Wikipedia's sour grapes and cannot be trusted as an impartial observer. That's all I'm saying. My main problem with his post is: what is the main thing he is trying to accomplish? Identify editors, yes, but to what end? He does not state the end. We would assume since he's talking about an encyclopedia that it's to produce better quality articles. But since he names a bunch of bad stuff they supposedly did, it seems he just wants them to stop doing things he objects to. "Stop doing things I object to" is not something that can be argued. "Write better quality articles" can. So let's assume this is what he meant. So would identifying editors produce better quality articles? Maybe, but he doesn't make that argument. He argues that they must be identified because otherwise they are "morally bankrupt." An empty phrase that is pure name-calling. It is, however, an argument. Are HN commenters morally bankrupt because they don't use their real names? Or any of a thousand internet sites that do the same? Are there any instances of editors using false names and not being morally bankrupt? These are the questions we must investigate to respond to his argument. As for the rest of it: > banned editors who continue to serve on various wikipedia boards Would firing them produce better articles? Maybe, but where's the argument? Otherwise it's just an attempt to smear. > hiring a convicted felon as COO Would firing him produce better articles? > a book full of similar transgressions OK, so let's see it. He seems giddy with delight over it. But will it argue for reforms in Wikipedia's structure with good reasons, or just be more dirty laundry? Sanger is supposedly a philosopher, but seems to think casting aspersions is the same as arguing a point.