Jump to content

Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 15:31, 2 April 2010 (Anonymity: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleBeck v. Eiland-Hall has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 27, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 19, 2009.
Current status: Good article

Unsourced change

[1] = this change by Roregan (talk · contribs) is not backed up by the cited source at the end of the sentence. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity

Although not directly applicable to the case, the anonymity of Eiland-Hall is worthy of more than the cursory mention here. Eiland-Hall accidentally left an electronic trail in spite of his anonymous domain registration and efforts to disguise his identity (including his web hosting service and the unmentioned but notable unsigned-but-not-anonymous Wikipedia edit). Once discovered, Hall claimed he was only hosting the website for a client, and that he was not the creator. The article gives the impression that he was initially anonymous, then discovered through legal proceedings, while the real story is more complex. I would think that all this would be worthy of mention, but if there's a reason why it's unmentioned, I'd want to hear it before making changes. Calbaer (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a WP:RS secondary source to support changes. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]