New York Brad’s deletion discussion extended

For anyone who still cares, the deletion discussion for Ira Brad Matetsky aka NewYorkBrad has been extended.  Obviously there are not quite enough “keep” votes to come up with the “right” answer yet, which is now evidently “keep”.

And sure enough, suddenly someone remembers an old essay about interviews written by Mr. Stradivarius that never got written into the policy page, and adds a “keep” vote.

The deletion  discussion was extended by one User:Randykitty.  Now where have we heard that name before?  Why, I do believe this is Headbomb’s old sidekick, the admin who tag-teamed with him against the women philosophy journals. (see Attack on women philosophers)

Randykitty’s user page has a prominent link to a blog claiming Randy kitty’s edits are being used to promote Jeffrey Beall,  a critic of the whose Wikipedia article falsely claims is “a critic of the open access publishing movement”.

Journals again.  Wonder what that’s about.
   

Pro tip: if you want more obscure page hits for NYB, google “Ira Matesky” without the second “t”, it’s a common mispelling on comment threads and even court cases. Might make a good redirect.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “New York Brad’s deletion discussion extended

  1. Jeffrey Beall is not a “a critic of the open access publishing movement” — he is an adversary of the crooks and scammers who make money under the pretext of being part of the open access movement when what they are doing is swindling people desperate to get their papers published or careless about the journals they send them to. These predatory journals are poisoning the well of knowledge at the same time as making money for their owners. Don’t confuse them with some post-modernist notion of alternative forms of authority and narrative: it’s old-fashioned lying and cheating. Well done Jefrey.

  2. Fixed.

    “Jeffrey Beall, …whose Wikipedia article falsely claims is “a critic of the open access publishing movement” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall

    Clearly Beall does not oppose all journals that do not have article processing fees, like state funded journals with peer review.

    Randykitty is all over that talk page, but they have neglected the most important part, the lede, which is what the Google search engine scrapes for the information box it generates in the upper right corner, the most valuable piece of real estate in the newspaper biz. Beall’s enemies have pulled a successful coup against both him and Wikipedia.

    There is another error in the lede, that claims “‘predatory open access publishing’, a term he coined.” if you check the source it says “Writing about them on his personal blog, he was the first to use the now widely accepted term “predatory” for the suspect publishers as he compiled a blacklist of bad titles.” Not the same, WP:SYNTH

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s