" 

  
 ==If One Can Be Allowed To Weigh In . . .== 

 I have been following this discussion over the last few days. I was directed to this entry through a colleague who has done some work with Wikipedia and asked for my thoughts. 

 There are two things that stand out in the piece as written, and those two things don't belong: the comments about the man and his character. They don't belong because they don't reflect the 
 objective of the encyclopedia: neutral, unbiased content. That the comments can be perceived as negative isn't the point. They stand out for the wrong reasons and potentially create an unfair bias.  

 Justice Laddie's remarks  the rarity and vituperativeness of same made news at the time and are still extraordinary to this day  are just the sort papers love to run with because they make good copy.  Nevertheless, the presentation of Justice Laddie's opinion of Mr. 
 Allason is just that  an opinion. It is not a fact. Nor does Justice Laddie's opinion having been splashed in the pages of the press make it true. 

 To all involved here  by definition, Wikipedia's purpose, and its benefit, is to give neutral, objective, encyclopedic coverage of a topic/subject with the core approach being neutral unbiased article writing.  It is understood there will be naturally be some degree of implicit bias. 

 While this collaborative effort is an on-going process  and particularly as the subject remains alive and productive  to divert the original purpose or use same as a platform to subjectively impose a point of view on a subject, dilutes the validity of this entry, and the source itself (see excerpt 1 from Wikipedia below). 

 Matt Crypto has asked Balliol about his relationship with Rupert Allason. Having read his increasingly impatient tone to seemingly genuine requests for compromise and dialogue over a matter of seeming irrelevance, I would ask Matt Crypto the same question. 

 I would ask if what Matt Crypto is attempting by including the quoted remarks about Mr. Allason is in good faith (see excerpt 2 from Wikipedia below)? Is there any animus behind the inclusion of the quoted material? 

 I ask becuase Matt Crypto is on record as saying of himself: ""Matt Crypto is a freaky stalker weirdo who rants on Wikipedia and he is so bad that he helped to inspire the term 'wikiling writers' as a reference to him and others of his ilk. He knowingly engages in personal attacks and deletions of and vandalism of any information (even links) that explain the connection between Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy and National Socialism. He spams screeds about his propaganda all over Wikipedia.""  

 Therefore there is cause for legitimate concern as to the nature of and reason for his desire to include the quoted material. 

 Balliol has tried in earnest, as the above Talk dialogue attests,  to reach a compromise over material the inclusion of which can only be construed to do Mr. Allason harm. 

 What value does inclusion of Justice Laddie's remarks add to the entry? They can, whether substantive or not, only be interpretted one way  as can the decision to include them.  

 The facts of the case are not included: rather links to the media's interpretation of same. Instead we read excerpts of the justice's comments and his decision. Why is it so important to Matt Crypto? I thought the revision by Balliol made the point that Allason lost 
 the case without Justice Laddie's character assasination. It was factual. 

 Certainly there are other more successful and legitimate means of promoting one's ideas on a subject, and for sharing others thoughts on an individual or subject. 

 As it stands, there are comments within that attempt to establish through bias, for whatever reasons, the personality and character of the individual which is not the purpose of the site. That is what the tabloids are for. 

 No matter how well-publicised in the local media, inclusion of a judge's comments on the subject, the judge himself rather a controversial figure, are out of place, as no counterpoint or balance to the rest of the subject's legal career is offered.  

 Anyone with interest in the subject will investigate further and make his/her own conclusions. 

 To all comers, I have never met Rupert Allason, Balliol, or Matt Crypto. 

 References: 

 1. Wikipedia is not a battleground 

 Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. 

 Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter inte