Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?
down the rabbit hole we go
In addition to the "Observer" they are talking about blanking links to The Grauniad. Amusingly, Slim has previously de-linked The Guardian, stating that they are "biased against Israel". It seems she can deem anything she does like as "not reliable". However, Slim's position on "Bios of Living Persons" is in fact supported by some here on WR, but in cases like this, I agree with you, it is another example of spin and abuse -- especially the extension of the prohibition to talk pages.
Slimey's explanation is "people keep adding links to the Observer article, which was not entirely pleasant (and the newspaper was almost certainly tipped off by a Wikipedian), and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is self-referential and unusable as a source.". So if I "tip off" a New York Times reporter, that makes anything he or she writes "self-referential". What a crock of feces.
Slimey's explanation is "people keep adding links to the Observer article, which was not entirely pleasant (and the newspaper was almost certainly tipped off by a Wikipedian), and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is self-referential and unusable as a source.". So if I "tip off" a New York Times reporter, that makes anything he or she writes "self-referential". What a crock of feces.
QUOTE(Robert Roberts @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:34pm) 
Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?
down the rabbit hole we go
This is the article in question . This is the newspaper article in question.
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:50pm)
No, it's the Observer, the Guardian's sunday newspaper. We have had previous discussions about this person here and here.
Well I think this was well done. (removing this off his talk pag and freezing the page)
Are you guys not aware that: Someone at Wikipedia obviously contacted the writer (Jenny H or something) at the Guardian Observer, and asked her to write a smear article on Professor Carl H, detailing his bad arbcom and pre-arbcom session.
It was criminal that this even happened.
If Slim wants to cover it up, more power to her. It was complete crap that the article ever happened, the author used "wikipedia vocabulary" as if it were real English (calling the professor a "disruptive editor" which goes beyond being unkind - it is professionally insulting). The man never made a rude edit on wiki, and he gets that? For arguing with people about substance?
I think that the entire Observer article should be retracted. And certainly not mentioned on his talk page for God's sake.
Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.
Are you guys not aware that: Someone at Wikipedia obviously contacted the writer (Jenny H or something) at the Guardian Observer, and asked her to write a smear article on Professor Carl H, detailing his bad arbcom and pre-arbcom session.
It was criminal that this even happened.
If Slim wants to cover it up, more power to her. It was complete crap that the article ever happened, the author used "wikipedia vocabulary" as if it were real English (calling the professor a "disruptive editor" which goes beyond being unkind - it is professionally insulting). The man never made a rude edit on wiki, and he gets that? For arguing with people about substance?
I think that the entire Observer article should be retracted. And certainly not mentioned on his talk page for God's sake.
Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:38pm)
Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. [/b] Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.
I can't speak to ancient disputes, but, in my more recent experience, Slim Virgin is not bad on BLP and privacy-related issues. Whether she's always been this way, or if it's a reaction to what's been done to her, I can't say, but I'd trust her on this kind of thing more than I would trust most editors. I can also assure that it's not the first decent thing she's done - she gave me the opportunity to argue to Jimbo and several arbitrators why Wikipedia should stop attacking my real world identity (unsuccessfully, I'm sorry to say.)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 3:52pm)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:38pm)
Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. [/b] Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.
I can't speak to ancient disputes, but, in my more recent experience, Slim Virgin is not bad on BLP and privacy-related issues. Whether she's always been this way, or if it's a reaction to what's been done to her, I can't say, but I'd trust her on this kind of thing more than I would trust most editors. I can also assure that it's not the first decent thing she's done - she gave me the opportunity to argue to Jimbo and several arbitrators why Wikipedia should stop attacking my real world identity (unsuccessfully, I'm sorry to say.)
Bringing a case where you are concerned about your identity to Arbcom was a BIG mistake.
The only way to handle that is with a nice demeanor and a BIG STICK in your back hand - ONE that they can SEE.
I don't like double standards. The WikiClique has one, and WR likes to rub its nose in it, but WR has one of its own; it seems to be the party line around here that coverups, secrecy, and censorship are bad when they're done to protect the WikiCliqueistas, but good when they're done to protect people WR likes. I don't buy this, and oppose coverups, secrecy, and censorships no matter where the chips fall.
I'm with Dan on this one. If Slim had done this same thing, but the article were about Durova instead, nobody here would say "but she was protecting her privacy, so it's okay!" Wikipedia editors don't forfeit their rights to privacy any more than banned wikipedia editors do.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 18th December 2007, 11:22pm)
I don't like double standards. The WikiClique has one, and WR likes to rub its nose in it, but WR has one of its own; it seems to be the party line around here that coverups, secrecy, and censorship are bad when they're done to protect the WikiCliqueistas, but good when they're done to protect people WR likes. I don't buy this, and oppose coverups, secrecy, and censorships no matter where the chips fall.
I sense a split in opinion of critics here, between those who feel Wikipedia is itself an "attack site" (and should quit being one,) and those who feel the concept of an "attack site" should be discarded in favor of free speech. If it's taken me awhile to respond to your essay, it's because I've been considering this issue. For my own part, I think Wikipedia should be a deadly serious scholarly project (think "encyclopedia,) not an exercise in unregulated free speech, and thus take responsibility for the content of every single word it publishes, including talk pages and links. That would put me directly at odds with both yourself and the honorable Alecmconroy, sooner or later.
*However*…unregulated free speech is preferable to a racket under which Wikipedians freely attacks others, then appeal to privacy and responsibility when they're attacked in return. And I've reluctantly concluded that, for now (and maybe forever) this is all that's on offer. I would prefer a situation where no one gets attacked, but I now wonder if that isn't very naïve of me, that the control over content which accompanies such a goal won't inevitably be hijacked in the service of an unaccountable attack-machine.
The fact is that right now, Wikipedia is attacking all sorts of people, and has no moral status to complain about anyone serving them back their own medicine. There's no hypocrisy in distinguishing between Wikipedia victimizers and their victims in this context. The double standards you allege are so only for those who advocate openness as a matter of first principle, rather than a means towards the more practical goal of checking the abuses of the leadership.
For my own part, if Wikipedia leadership played the part of a responsible publisher, I would have no trouble with their proceedings being opaque to the outside world - indeed, they would have to be. For example, when The New York Times decides what to print and what not to print, obviously this mission is defeated if these erstwhile internal proceedings themselves go to print.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 11:30pm)
I'm with Dan on this one. If Slim had done this same thing, but the article were about Durova instead, nobody here would say "but she was protecting her privacy, so it's okay!" Wikipedia editors don't forfeit their rights to privacy any more than banned wikipedia editors do.
That's a worthy standard to bear in mind - Wikipedia editors deserve as much privacy as they (ideally individually) allow to banned editors and others (e.g. anonymous IPs) without standing in the WP heirarchy. Durova was an attack machine who took pride in denouncing banned editors, outing anonymous IPs, and messing with their lives.
I agree with Dan, as well.
Consumers of Internet media may be entitled to privacy and anonymity, but producers of content that characterize or report on real people and their work need to be held to a higher standard of accountability, and that includes disclosing their identity and credentials.
Consumers of Internet media may be entitled to privacy and anonymity, but producers of content that characterize or report on real people and their work need to be held to a higher standard of accountability, and that includes disclosing their identity and credentials.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 11:39pm)
I agree with Dan, as well.
Consumers of Internet media may be entitled to privacy and anonymity, but producers of content that characterize or report on real people and their work need to be held to a higher standard of accountability, and that includes disclosing their identity and credentials.
Maybe, but only in an environment where the people around them are accountable as well, as is the publication as a whole.
I strongly support real-names only policy on Wikipedia *if and when and only if and when* 1) it applies to all editors, at the very least to all administrators 2) potentially libelous statements about editors are reliably deleted (*not* preserved on a public URL in the history!) in short order, and if this isn't done, someone is held directly responsible.
You can't expect openness about identity in a flame-war environment.
I would be satisfied if an accountable admin assumed responsibility for each article and for the content added by otherwise anonymous subordinant editors whom that admin is supervising.
Anyway, if a leading paper has no issue with publishing some information, there's no reason that an admin would be qualified to say "no, this is a WP:ATTACKPAPER". Yes, this means some people may be harmed. But an encyclopedia written such that there is no negative information given on anyone would be even more useless than Wikipedia.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 11:59pm)
I would be satisfied if an accountable admin assumed responsibility for each article and for the content added by otherwise anonymous subordinant editors whom that admin is supervising.
That would be a great start. As it is, power on Wikipedia is utterly disconnected from responsibility.
Well, I think it is rather amusing that they are being selective over the mainstream papers not being reliable sources.
I find it ironic that the powers that be in the form of Marskell objected to the qualification of reliable sources with regards to newspapers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171862774
and others here for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170953901
yet here we are with admins disqualifying a mainstream newspaper as a reliable source. What is a poor Wikipedian to do? Slim is quite keen on newspapers trumping nasty old primary sources when it suits her sourced based research, as if some disinterested editor and legal proof reader can retrofit facts into a journalist's article.
So there two different issues:
Should Wikipedia be used to besmirch characters? No, Slim is right on that issue (but it appears to me to be based on her paranoia rather than an ethical stance).
Do you implement BLP policy by disputing reliable sources - and the Guardian or Observer are no worse than most? No, you have an ethical policy in the first instance so bastardising sourcing guidelines is not an issue.
I find it ironic that the powers that be in the form of Marskell objected to the qualification of reliable sources with regards to newspapers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171862774
and others here for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170953901
yet here we are with admins disqualifying a mainstream newspaper as a reliable source. What is a poor Wikipedian to do? Slim is quite keen on newspapers trumping nasty old primary sources when it suits her sourced based research, as if some disinterested editor and legal proof reader can retrofit facts into a journalist's article.
So there two different issues:
Should Wikipedia be used to besmirch characters? No, Slim is right on that issue (but it appears to me to be based on her paranoia rather than an ethical stance).
Do you implement BLP policy by disputing reliable sources - and the Guardian or Observer are no worse than most? No, you have an ethical policy in the first instance so bastardising sourcing guidelines is not an issue.
Part of the problem is that a paper can legitimately report on some controversy where partisan figures are leveling otherwise unproven charges, without elevating those charges to the status of fact.
But then naive editors on WP will take the published report about controversy and either amplify it or (worse yet) convert some of the unproven charges to the status of fact.
But then naive editors on WP will take the published report about controversy and either amplify it or (worse yet) convert some of the unproven charges to the status of fact.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 19th December 2007, 12:00am)
Anyway, if a leading paper has no issue with publishing some information, there's no reason that an admin would be qualified to say "no, this is a WP:ATTACKPAPER". Yes, this means some people may be harmed. But an encyclopedia written such that there is no negative information given on anyone would be even more useless than Wikipedia.
I admit it's been awhile since I've checked Britannica, but I'd be extremely surprised and dismayed to see pages filled with malicious attacks on me (or on any of the people we're talking about) therein.
Of course negative information shouldn't be censored simply because it's negative, but most of the important figures in history either are no longer alive, or are public figures (not just "notable".) If Wikipedia stuck to its stated mission of being an encyclopedia, these issues would come up far less often than they would at a newspaper.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 4:12pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 19th December 2007, 12:00am)
Anyway, if a leading paper has no issue with publishing some information, there's no reason that an admin would be qualified to say "no, this is a WP:ATTACKPAPER". Yes, this means some people may be harmed. But an encyclopedia written such that there is no negative information given on anyone would be even more useless than Wikipedia.
I admit it's been awhile since I've checked Britannica, but I'd be extremely surprised and dismayed to see pages filled with malicious attacks on me (or on any of the people we're talking about) therein.
Of course negative information shouldn't be censored simply because it's negative, but most of the important figures in history either are no longer alive, or are public figures (not just "notable".) If Wikipedia stuck to its stated mission of being an encyclopedia, these issues would come up far less often than they would at a newspaper.
I don't think anyone really intended Wikipedia to be an "encyclopedia" in the traditional sense of the term. Having said that, it would probably be preferable if they started doing what the American mainstream media are (stupidly) doing, and only report what people have said instead of making judgements on what is right. They've taken some steps towards this, but the information which only needs to be "verifiable" is still printed as though it is true. If that were to stop, there would be no issue here, since what the newspaper said is unquestionable.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 18th December 2007, 5:22pm)
I don't like double standards. The WikiClique has one, and WR likes to rub its nose in it, but WR has one of its own; it seems to be the party line around here that coverups, secrecy, and censorship are bad when they're done to protect the WikiCliqueistas, but good when they're done to protect people WR likes. I don't buy this, and oppose coverups, secrecy, and censorships no matter where the chips fall.
Dan,
The only way this would be a double standard is if every person who had a community ban or Arbcom session published in the newspaper. They dont.
None of you guys read the Arbcom session. I did. I looked at his history. He tried to reason with these people in a pretty collegial fashion. He also fought for his inputs - which may have been not feasible, but THIS? DOES NOT DESERVE.
Ok, lets have a look at the article in question, and the names he's called in it.
QUOTETHE SLIMING OF AN HONEST PROFESSOR WHO USED HIS REAL NAME TO EDIT WIKIPEDIAThe author of this article: Jenny Kleeman The Observer, Sunday December 9 2007 and her other Wikipedia-love articles
- following a scandal in which a world-renowned computer scientist has been banned from editing the online collaborative encyclopaedia.
- --------------------------WHAT SCANDAL? BANNINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.)
- Senior academics in his field say the changes he made have rendered some entries in effect useless.
- --------------------------(WHAT SENIOR ACADEMICS? NAMES??)
- contribution to Wikipedia was seen as so damaging that one administrator involved in an arbitration concluded: 'I do not believe Wikipedia would be improved by allowing Carl to edit articles on computer science, physics and mathematics.'
- -------------------------- (DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW DAMAGING THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE THIS IS? TELL ME WHAT HE DID TO DESERVE IT - diffs)
- ..He has requested that his biography be deleted from the encyclopaedia, blaming 'repeated vandalism' for making it 'continually inaccurate' so that it 'significantly misrepresents both me and my work.' An arbitration committee has rejected his request, and his biography stands with Hewitt powerless to change it.
- --------------------------(SOUND FAMILIAR?? HELLO BRANDT???)
- ...The banning of Hewitt shows that the academic community is in fact actively involved in editing Wikipedia
- --------------------------(SAYS WHO? MOST OF HIS BANNING COMMITTEE DIDNT HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE)
- ....As users prepare to redraft the computer science articles without Hewitt's input, no one is sure why a world-class expert would go to such extremes to promote himself
- --------------------------(ANYONE HEAR "COI VICTIM" HERE? - the poor man should never have used his own name)
QUOTEI'M JENNY KLEEMAN, I'M A JOURNALIST AND I LOVE WIKIPEDIA
- Wikipedia braces itself for April Fools' Day ...Jenny Kleeman: The online encyclopaedia anyone can edit has been the target of joke contributions since its launch in 2001, but April Fools' Day has proved ...
- You couldn’t make it up WIKIPEDIA MEETUP LONDON- Times Online Jenny Kleeman. How can you tell when you have arrived at a Wikipedia meet-up? Any of the groups in this busy London bar could be the people I am looking for ...
- NZ Herald jumps on the anti-Wikipedia bandwagon | AssignmentZeroWikipedia fights vandalism . 5:00AM Monday April 02, 2007 By Jenny Kleeman. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learned that, ...
- ... Wikipedia fights vandalism - 02 Apr 2007 - NZ Herald: Technology ...Wikipedia fights vandalism. Page 1 of 2 View as a single page 5:00AM Monday April 02, 2007 By Jenny Kleeman. Since his death, Steve Irwin's entry in the ...
- ... Tell us all about Wales and his work. | AssignmentZeroBy Jenny Kleeman. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learned that, as well as living in tropical coastal waters and ...
- Jenny Kleeman: Wikileaks - whistleblowing made easy | Media | The ...Jenny Kleeman; The Guardian; Monday September 17 2007 ... Wikileaks uses the same wiki technology as Wikipedia, so anyone can add to it, and boasts an extra ...
- Wiki wars The Observer Jenny Kleeman Sunday March 25, 2007 The Observer. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learnt that, as well as living in ...
NOW TELL ME. Does this good man deserve this after a life spent teaching in an important area?
Wake up WR.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 7:24pm)
I don't think anyone really intended Wikipedia to be an "encyclopedia" in the traditional sense of the term. Having said that, it would probably be preferable if they started doing what the American mainstream media are (stupidly) doing, and only report what people have said instead of making judgments on what is right. They've taken some steps towards this, but the information which only needs to be "verifiable" is still printed as though it is true. If that were to stop, there would be no issue here, since what the newspaper said is unquestionable.
This was the crux of the issue that I fought. Wikipedia has no business elevating to the status of fact one person's haphazard opinion that appeared in one citation in one newspaper story and nowhere else, whilst ignoring credible evidence to the contrary.
We've got it. The person who wrote the article is biased, and much of it is either misleading or just incorrect. So what?
This does not mean that we should trust unaccountable admins to decide that part of an otherwise reliable source is terrible and should never be mentioned. If you felt in danger from a serial killer, would you hire the Mafia to protect you?
This does not mean that we should trust unaccountable admins to decide that part of an otherwise reliable source is terrible and should never be mentioned. If you felt in danger from a serial killer, would you hire the Mafia to protect you?
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:34pm)
We've got it. The person who wrote the article is biased, and much of it is either misleading or just incorrect. So what?
This does not mean that we should trust unaccountable admins to decide that part of an otherwise reliable source is terrible and should never be mentioned. If you felt in danger from a serial killer, would you hire the Mafia to protect you?
Because raising the profile of shit is raising the profile of shit.
If someone wrote an article calling you an axe murderer and you had a BLP, would it be good to put it on your talk page for dozens of 15 year olds to comment on?
This is sick.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:34pm)
We've got it. The person who wrote the article is biased, and much of it is either misleading or just incorrect. So what?
Well, then you didnt get it.
AND HELLO HELLO HELLO
This was written the week of the Register Scandals and
HELLO HELLO HELLO
The entire gang Jimbo, Sue, DGerard, etc were in London and
HELLO HELLO HELLO
No arbcom victim has ever been outed to the press before.
***********
Wikipedia Review. You have been trolled and Pwned.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 4:42pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:34pm)
We've got it. The person who wrote the article is biased, and much of it is either misleading or just incorrect. So what?
This does not mean that we should trust unaccountable admins to decide that part of an otherwise reliable source is terrible and should never be mentioned. If you felt in danger from a serial killer, would you hire the Mafia to protect you?
Because raising the profile of shit is raising the profile of shit.
If someone wrote an article calling you an axe murderer and you had a BLP, would it be good to put it on your talk page for dozens of 15 year olds to comment on?
This is sick.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:34pm)
We've got it. The person who wrote the article is biased, and much of it is either misleading or just incorrect. So what?
Well, then you didnt get it.
No, that's not my point. There most certainly needs to be some process to get rid of things like this, but anonymous people have no right to be running such a process. What assurance do I have that SlimVirgin won't decide that I am an axe murderer, and then censor articles from the Washington Post saying that I'm not?
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:33pm)
This was the crux of the issue that I fought. Wikipedia has no business elevating to the status of fact one person's haphazard opinion that appeared in one citation in one newspaper story and nowhere else, whilst ignoring credible evidence to the contrary.
God. Finally. Someone got it.
I'm probably biased about the case of Carl Hewitt since (like me) he is a semi-retired academic in the field of electrical engineering and computer science with ties to Stanford and MIT.
Notwithstanding the fact that he put up his own biography, I think he was treated shabbily by the Wikipedians. I have seen other academics similarly mistreated.
Planting that story in the UK Sunday Observer was both unprofessional and unethical, and doubly so since it was based on a sham that has become a routine practice.
Notwithstanding the fact that he put up his own biography, I think he was treated shabbily by the Wikipedians. I have seen other academics similarly mistreated.
Planting that story in the UK Sunday Observer was both unprofessional and unethical, and doubly so since it was based on a sham that has become a routine practice.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:47pm)
No, that's not my point. There most certainly needs to be some process to get rid of things like this, but anonymous people have no right to be running such a process. What assurance do I have that SlimVirgin won't decide that I am an axe murderer, and then censor articles from the Washington Post saying that I'm not?
This may come as a short sharp shock, but not everything is about YOU AMARKOV. This isn't your real name. It is HIS.
I don't care if Bozo the clown defended the article being off his page. It should be off his page. Stop being blinded by the Slimvirgin in your eyes. This article is the crudest form of smear journalism (not ONE attribution, making it an anonymous smear fest printed by a respectable publication). And it is supposed to get discussed on his talk page? Where he can't answer?
SICK.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:49pm)
Notwithstanding the fact that he put up his own biography, I think he was treated shabbily by the Wikipedians. I have seen other academics similarly mistreated.
Putting up your own bio is not clearly noted as illegal on Wikipedia. Hewitt didn't realize he was walking into a trap! (this last sentence sounds like a line from Scooby Doo, huh?)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:49pm)
I'm probably biased about the case of Carl Hewitt since (like me) he is a semi-retired academic in the field of electrical engineering and computer science with ties to Stanford and MIT.
Planting that story in the UK Sunday Observer was both unprofessional and unethical, and doubly so since it was based on a sham that has become a routine practice.
YEAH. And it is "gosh oh just so coincidental" that it was cleverly "leaked" the week of the Durova outing by the Register. PAYBACK. They were all in town in London, this woman probably was having beers with them and (winky winky between two bigshots who impressed this limpid dame) a story was born. Disgusting. They used her as a tool. They used him as a piece of cannon fodder. And his life's work is diminished by some slime job. Sick sick sick.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 19th December 2007, 12:33am)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 7:24pm)
I don't think anyone really intended Wikipedia to be an "encyclopedia" in the traditional sense of the term. Having said that, it would probably be preferable if they started doing what the American mainstream media are (stupidly) doing, and only report what people have said instead of making judgments on what is right. They've taken some steps towards this, but the information which only needs to be "verifiable" is still printed as though it is true. If that were to stop, there would be no issue here, since what the newspaper said is unquestionable.
This was the crux of the issue that I fought. Wikipedia has no business elevating to the status of fact one person's haphazard opinion that appeared in one citation in one newspaper story and nowhere else, whilst ignoring credible evidence to the contrary.
No, I think that is wrong. Even to simply quote someone as saying something gives it the ring of truth, or else why would you be quoting it? (If its verifiable it must be true?) Even a fair quote in context is editorialising simply by the editorial decision of selecting that quote. Take the whole article to try and avoid editorial bias, you have still elevated that article into it being encylopediarised for posterity, and presented the editorial decision that the article is worthy.
For example, Jimbo could be widely quoted across the mainstream press, but ultimately he is not a reliable source, and to simply delegate responsibility to the fact that the press chose to quote him on some matter in a "here today gone tomorrow" article should not mean that the quote should acquire sufficient authority to be encyclopaedic. Especially if Reuters or some other agency turned out to be the single press source for the story which then gets picked up.
Fundamentally the difference between Britannica and Wikipedia is that Britannica has no interest in drama (no doubt they would see being controversial as against their interests as being seen as an authoritative source) and has competent editors that can be seen to act in a reasonable fashion.
Rebuttal by Hewitt (which will never be as high in Google Rankings)
Censorship and Harassment by the Wikipedia
QUOTERobert Kowalski (Emeritus of Imperial College) and Hewitt have been involved in an academic dispute about various aspects of the history of Logic Programming. Evidently, Kowalski would like for this information not to be known because he promoted the censorship of the article on the History of Logic Programming by the Wikipedia. Furthermore, he adopted the tactic of attacking Hewitt in the press as follows: “Hewitt may have a legitimate complaint about the lack of recognition that his work has received. It's a pity he couldn't find a better way to achieve it.†[Kleeman 2007] This incident provides a good illustration of why the Wikipedia is in trouble when it comes to scientific articles requiring expertise. Instead of reasoned discussion, it engenders personal attacks and censorship..
For many years, Hewitt has been interested in providing online encyclopedic information in the areas of concurrency, logic, and the procedural embedding of knowledge (which is his research area). However, there did not seem to be a suitable vehicle.
In the last few years, the following changes in technology have made it more urgent to have more general understanding of this research area:
o Web Services are providing massive concurrency between applications on the Internet
o Multi-core computer systems are providing massive concurrency on server and client computers (including phones, etc.)
o Large software systems have become chock full of inconsistencies rendering classical logic inappropriate as a foundation for reasoning about them
The technoscience that has been developed to address the above developments is currently not widely understood. So Hewitt decided to write encyclopedia articles in this area. At first the Wikipedia seemed to be a reasonable place for them. So he created a number of articles and collaborated with some other editors on improving several more.
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia has severe governance problems that have led to continual scandals. Some of these governance problems seem endemic to the culture that has developed there. The Administrators of the Wikipedia do not properly distinguish between
o Providing information about a particular scientific domain
o Promoting particular scientists in a domain
Making the above distinction requires scientific expertise. And the Wikipedia has problems with expertise. To further their system of control over the Wikipedia, the Administrators have decreed that editors of highly technical scientific articles do not need to have scientific qualifications!
Another problem is that a pattern of harassment by Administrators has developed. For example, in the case of the article about Hewitt in the Wikipedia, one of the Administrators decided to deliberately denigrate him by vandalizing the article about him by depriving him of his Emeritus title. After this was protested, it was necessary for another more decent Administrator to undo the vandalism. No apology was ever offered for this or other similar ongoing vandalism on the part of the Administrators.
Administrators on the Wikipedia have absolute power. And, of course, absolute power corrupts. An example involves the list of Hewitt’s doctoral students. Dr. William Kornfeld had been omitted from the list. When Hewitt added Dr. Kornfeld to the list, in an act of vandalism he was immediately removed by an Administrator who blocked Hewitt from editing his biography on the grounds that the Administrator's censoring Dr. Kornfeld from the list was not a “serious inaccuracy.†When the Administrator’s censorship was protested, the action was quietly reversed and Dr. Kornfeld was added back on to the list of Hewitt’s doctoral students. However Dr. Gene Ciccarelli and Dr. Michael Freiling had also been omitted. When they were added to the list, the article was first locked against editing by new Wikipedia editors and then locked against editing by anyone except an Administrator. And so it goes on the Wikipedia.
In view of these circumstances, Hewitt asked for the article about him to be deleted from the Wikipedia. To date it has refused to comply with this request.
References
o Carl Hewitt (2006a) The repeated demise of logic programming and why it will be reincarnated What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications. Technical Report SS-06-08. AAAI Press. March 2006.
o Carl Hewitt (2006b) What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social COIN@AAMAS'06.
o Carl Hewitt (2007a) What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social (Revised) Pablo Noriega .et. al. editors. LNAI 4386. Springer-Verlag. 2007.
o Carl Hewitt (2007b) Large-scale Organizational Computing requires Unstratified Paraconsistency and Reflection COIN@AAMAS'07.
o Carl Hewitt (2007c) Large-scale Organizational Computing requires Unstratified Reflection and Strong Paraconsistency Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems III. Jaime Sichman, Pablo Noriega, Julian Padget and Sascha Ossowski (ed.). Springer-Verlag. 2007.
o Carl Hewitt (2007d). The downfall of mental agents in the implementation of large software systems What went wrong? AAAI Magazine. 2007.
o Carl Hewitt (2007e). ORGs (Organizations of Restricted Generality): Strong Paraconsistency and Participatory Behavioral Model Checking Discussed at MALLOW’07.
o Carl Hewitt (2007f) Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection Submitted to AI Journal special issue on common sense. Discussed at Edinburgh LFCS. 11th September 2007 and Stanford 26 September 2007.
o Carl Hewitt. The Logical Necessity of Inconsistency Edinburgh LFCS. 11th September 2007.
o Carl Hewitt. The Logical Necessity of Inconsistency Stanford Logic Group Meeting. 26 September 2007.
o Carl Hewitt. The Ultraconcurrency Revolution in Hardware and Software Berkeley Center for Hybrid and Embedded Software Systems Forum. 24 May 2005.
o Jenny Kleeman. Wikipedia ban for disruptive professor The Observer. December 2007
THE CENSORSHIP IS ON WIKIPEDIA
ALLOWING THE TALK TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE MAN BANNED FROM ADDING TO IT IS CENSORSHIP
SO THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE THERE
HIS PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN
Lest some of you censorship buffs miss the point here (elbows Tobias in the gut)
ALLOWING THE TALK TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE MAN BANNED FROM ADDING TO IT IS CENSORSHIP
SO THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE THERE
HIS PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN
Lest some of you censorship buffs miss the point here (elbows Tobias in the gut)
QUOTE“Hewitt may have a legitimate complaint about the lack of recognition that his work has received. It's a pity he couldn't find a better way to achieve it.†[Kleeman 2007] This incident provides a good illustration of why the Wikipedia is in trouble when it comes to scientific articles requiring expertise. Instead of reasoned discussion, it engenders personal attacks and censorship.
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia has severe governance problems that have led to continual scandals. Some of these governance problems seem endemic to the culture that has developed there. The Administrators of the Wikipedia do not properly distinguish between
o Providing information about a particular scientific domain
o Promoting particular scientists in a domain (note: COI issue in a nutshell)
Another problem is that a pattern of harassment by Administrators has developed. For example, in the case of the article about Hewitt in the Wikipedia, one of the Administrators decided to deliberately denigrate him by vandalizing the article about him by depriving him of his Emeritus title. After this was protested, it was necessary for another more decent Administrator to undo the vandalism. No apology was ever offered for this or other similar ongoing vandalism on the part of the Administrators.
In view of these circumstances, Hewitt asked for the article about him to be deleted from the Wikipedia. To date it has refused to comply with this request.
Look, over there! It's a cow!
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 4:52pm)
Excuse me, but who gives a crap about you?
May I butt in here to suggest that everyone take a deep breath and count to ten before posting? This is an important thread. Don't spoil it by taking it to the tar pits.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:00pm)
Anyway, if a leading paper has no issue with publishing some information, there's no reason that an admin would be qualified to say "no, this is a WP:ATTACKPAPER". Yes, this means some people may be harmed. But an encyclopedia written such that there is no negative information given on anyone would be even more useless than Wikipedia.
I'm sorry, but newspapers are supposed to write NEWS, not "negative information about people". And if they do, it must be properly sourced and attributed. Not "a lot of academics" and wide sweeping nonsense comments like that. I wrote better attribution in my 7th grade journalism class.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 18th December 2007, 7:25pm)
May I butt in here to suggest that everyone take a deep breath and count to ten before posting? This is an important thread. Don't spoil it by taking it to the tar pits.
Duly noted and all "crappy references" have been removed.
After taking a few deep breaths...
I believe that this particular article is terrible, and should not be used for anything, anywhere. I also think that a functional system needs to be developed to identify such articles, rather than having to be excited when an admin pursuing their personal agenda happens to do the right thing. I know you agree with the first, and believe you agree with the second. I am sorry if I implieda anything else.
I believe that this particular article is terrible, and should not be used for anything, anywhere. I also think that a functional system needs to be developed to identify such articles, rather than having to be excited when an admin pursuing their personal agenda happens to do the right thing. I know you agree with the first, and believe you agree with the second. I am sorry if I implieda anything else.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 18th December 2007, 7:34pm)
After taking a few deep breaths...
I believe that this particular article is terrible, and should not be used for anything, anywhere. I also think that a functional system needs to be developed to identify such articles, rather than having to be excited when an admin pursuing their personal agenda happens to do the right thing. I know you agree with the first, and believe you agree with the second. I am sorry if I implieda anything else.
Thanks for paying mind to the content. I confess that the admin-in-question has earned herself more than a bit of mistrust (and she is trying to use Crum375 to make herself look all virginal again, as her sock does all her dirty work) so I understand the suspicion, but in this case, she had a point...
.... which was duly shouted down, but the peanut gallery. His talk page remains unprotected for anyone to go take a swipe, or a leak, or whatever on it.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:09pm)
THE CENSORSHIP IS ON WIKIPEDIA
ALLOWING THE TALK TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE MAN BANNED FROM ADDING TO IT IS CENSORSHIP
SO THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE THERE
HIS PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN
Lest some of you censorship buffs miss the point here (elbows Tobias in the gut)
ALLOWING THE TALK TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE MAN BANNED FROM ADDING TO IT IS CENSORSHIP
SO THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE THERE
HIS PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN
Lest some of you censorship buffs miss the point here (elbows Tobias in the gut)
So, to end censorship, it's necessary to suppress a discussion? Sounds worthy of Orwell. (Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace... and Discussion is Censorship?)
You, and some others on your side, are sounding like looking-glass-world versions of the likes of JzG... just as those people keep going on about how some article or other is an "anti-Wikipedia bashing" that is "spreading the pernicious memes of banned users", and thus should not be linked to or discussed even if it's in a well-known newspaper, you do the same about articles that are pro-Wikipedia bashings of banned users that spread the pernicious memes of the Wikipedian elite. The two groups are two sides of the same coin, complete with an arrogant and paranoid attitude.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 18th December 2007, 5:53pm)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:09pm)
THE CENSORSHIP IS ON WIKIPEDIA
ALLOWING THE TALK TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE MAN BANNED FROM ADDING TO IT IS CENSORSHIP
SO THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE THERE
HIS PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN
Lest some of you censorship buffs miss the point here (elbows Tobias in the gut)
ALLOWING THE TALK TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE MAN BANNED FROM ADDING TO IT IS CENSORSHIP
SO THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE THERE
HIS PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN
Lest some of you censorship buffs miss the point here (elbows Tobias in the gut)
So, to end censorship, it's necessary to suppress a discussion? Sounds worthy of Orwell. (Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace... and Discussion is Censorship?)
You, and some others on your side, are sounding like looking-glass-world versions of the likes of JzG... just as those people keep going on about how some article or other is an "anti-Wikipedia bashing" that is "spreading the pernicious memes of banned users", and thus should not be linked to or discussed even if it's in a well-known newspaper, you do the same about articles that are pro-Wikipedia bashings of banned users that spread the pernicious memes of the Wikipedian elite. The two groups are two sides of the same coin, complete with an arrogant and paranoid attitude.
What I think DL is getting at is that the "discussion" isn't really a discussion without the person about whom the article is written, and who is upset about the content, being able to chime in.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 18th December 2007, 7:53pm)
So, to end censorship, it's necessary to suppress a discussion? Sounds worthy of Orwell. (Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace... and Discussion is Censorship?)
You, and some others on your side, are sounding like looking-glass-world versions of the likes of JzG... just as those people keep going on about how some article or other is an "anti-Wikipedia bashing" that is "spreading the pernicious memes of banned users", and thus should not be linked to or discussed even if it's in a well-known newspaper, you do the same about articles that are pro-Wikipedia bashings of banned users that spread the pernicious memes of the Wikipedian elite. The two groups are two sides of the same coin, complete with an arrogant and paranoid attitude.
Dan....
.... you know I love ya, but........
..... you've gotta read a bit before making these strong statements.......
If a bunch of nonsense garbage was written online --- (or unsubstantiated biased malarky) then shirking from advertising it FAR and WIDE is hardly Orwellian.
1. Did you read the article? (no)
2. Did you read the attributions therein (probably not)
3. Did you look at the history of the Professor's contributions? (uhhhh, oops) Well here they are: One login. Another login
4. What about the bogus Arbcom session, with Charles Matthews, a really non-notable Professor taking out his jealous moxie on Prof H?
The article in the UK Sunday Observer might well fall into the category of "yellow journalism" although it would take a professional review panel to make that call.
Back in mid-September, I sent a message to Mike Godwin that included this paragraph...
The next day, I received an acknowledgment from Godwin, thanking me for bringing the issue to his attention.
Back in mid-September, I sent a message to Mike Godwin that included this paragraph...
QUOTE(Excerpt of Message to Mike Godwin)
I came across the Wikipedia Intelligent Design Project (which spans some 170 articles and biographies) because they had placed their sponsorship tag on the biography of a Media Lab professor and inserted false and defamatory content into that biography (and several others), in contravention of WP:BLP. I subsequently discovered that this group of editors had engaged in a broad campaign of "yellow journalism" which failed to achieve any reasonable journalistic standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.
The next day, I received an acknowledgment from Godwin, thanking me for bringing the issue to his attention.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 4:38pm)
Well I think this was well done. (removing this off his talk pag and freezing the page)
Are you guys not aware that: Someone at Wikipedia obviously contacted the writer (Jenny H or something) at the Guardian Observer, and asked her to write a smear article on Professor Carl H, detailing his bad arbcom and pre-arbcom session.
It was criminal that this even happened.
If Slim wants to cover it up, more power to her. It was complete crap that the article ever happened, the author used "wikipedia vocabulary" as if it were real English (calling the professor a "disruptive editor" ...
I'm throwing in my chip with Dan Tobias on this, too. If it is this clear-cut that a publication or one of its staff writers was "used" by some Wikipediot to make life miserable for a university professor, then the right thing to do is to SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS, not "hide" the use of that publication as a source in Wikipedia.
When Durova defamed me, remember there was that brief moment where I had a chance to arbitrate the problem with her, in her forum? I chose not to go that route because that wouldn't have fixed the problem, it would have just erased that it happened.
So, I'm with Dan. And I'd go a step further. I'd publicize that this happened (pre-SlimVirgin's efforts to erase the pain), and showcase how rotten and far-reaching Wikipedia's sinister system can be for some people.
Greg
QUOTE(Derktar @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:05pm)
What I think DL is getting at is that the "discussion" isn't really a discussion without the person about whom the article is written, and who is upset about the content, being able to chime in.
Yes, I'm thinking "less a discussion" and "more like a gang r-pe with the person being held, tied, bound and gagged, and told to not make any noise, while it is broadcast on the internet".
Oh, and then the fact that someone disagrees with the gang rape re-broadcast for "discussion purposes" (again, without the victim's commentary) is called censorship.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:13pm)
I'm throwing in my chip with Dan Tobias on this, too. If it is this clear-cut that a publication or one of its staff writers was "used" by some Wikipediot to make life miserable for a university professor, then the right thing to do is to SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS, not "hide" the use of that publication as a source in Wikipedia.
When Durova defamed me, remember there was that brief moment where I had a chance to arbitrate the problem with her, in her forum? I chose not to go that route because that wouldn't have fixed the problem, it would have just erased that it happened.
So, I'm with Dan. And I'd go a step further. I'd publicize that this happened (pre-SlimVirgin's efforts to erase the pain), and showcase how rotten and far-reaching Wikipedia's sinister system can be for some people.
Greg
But Greg(ster)
You are a great guy.... but you weren't a notable person. At least not prior to the Wikipedia Wikibiz scandal. Your notariety is borne out of the scandal, and you like playing that role.
A Professor who has worked all his life for notariety of a substantive sort, is fun for Wikipedia to pick on, and his "advertising the situation" only makes them look correct.
What Im saying is that the dynamics are different. You chose to be a Wikipedia protestor (of a sort) because it complemented or enhanced your reputation.
It dirties his - no matter what way you slice it. They are the big kahuna, and he just looks like a whiner.
No, sorry. You are seeing it from the wrong perspective. At least in terms of this case.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:13pm)
I'm throwing in my chip with Dan Tobias on this, too. If it is this clear-cut that a publication or one of its staff writers was "used" by some Wikipediot to make life miserable for a university professor, then the right thing to do is to SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS, not "hide" the use of that publication as a source in Wikipedia.
When Durova defamed me, remember there was that brief moment where I had a chance to arbitrate the problem with her, in her forum? I chose not to go that route because that wouldn't have fixed the problem, it would have just erased that it happened.
So, I'm with Dan. And I'd go a step further. I'd publicize that this happened (pre-SlimVirgin's efforts to erase the pain), and showcase how rotten and far-reaching Wikipedia's sinister system can be for some people.
Greg
But Greg(ster)
You are a great guy.... but you weren't a notable person. At least not prior to the Wikipedia Wikibiz scandal. Your notability is borne out of the scandal, and you like playing that role. A Professor who has worked all his life for notariety of a substantive sort, is fun for Wikipedia to pick on, and his "advertising the situation" only makes them look correct.
What Im saying is that the dynamics are different. You chose to be a Wikipedia protestor (of a sort) because it complemented or enhanced your reputation. It dirties his - no matter what way you slice it. They are the big kahuna, and he just looks like a whiner. No, sorry. You are seeing it from the wrong perspective. At least in terms of this case.
AND I HASTEN TO ADD ------- that if you had taken this to Arbcom, you'd not a prayer of any sort of justice (come on, please). It would not have "gone away". You'd have had your name smeared further on the alter of "sekrit informations".
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 6:59pm)
I would be satisfied if an accountable admin assumed responsibility for each article and for the content added by otherwise anonymous subordinant editors whom that admin is supervising.
In which case, Moulton, assuming an admin couldn't possibly keep careful track of more than 100 articles, Wikipedia would have only 120,000 or so articles?
I'd be fine with that. I'm just asking if you realize the consequences. Or, do you assume that lots more people would sign up for adminship once it became an honorable responsibility at preserving honest, academic, cited scholarship?
Greg
QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 19th December 2007, 1:53am)
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:09pm)
THE CENSORSHIP IS ON WIKIPEDIA
ALLOWING THE TALK TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE MAN BANNED FROM ADDING TO IT IS CENSORSHIP
SO THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE THERE
HIS PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN
Lest some of you censorship buffs miss the point here (elbows Tobias in the gut)
ALLOWING THE TALK TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE MAN BANNED FROM ADDING TO IT IS CENSORSHIP
SO THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE THERE
HIS PAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN
Lest some of you censorship buffs miss the point here (elbows Tobias in the gut)
So, to end censorship, it's necessary to suppress a discussion? Sounds worthy of Orwell. (Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace... and Discussion is Censorship?)
You, and some others on your side, are sounding like looking-glass-world versions of the likes of JzG... just as those people keep going on about how some article or other is an "anti-Wikipedia bashing" that is "spreading the pernicious memes of banned users", and thus should not be linked to or discussed even if it's in a well-known newspaper, you do the same about articles that are pro-Wikipedia bashings of banned users that spread the pernicious memes of the Wikipedian elite. The two groups are two sides of the same coin, complete with an arrogant and paranoid attitude.
The problem isn't the existence of the newspaper article, much less the question of whether or not the newspapers have and should continue to have the legal right to go to press (yes, obviously.) The problem is that Wikipedia baselessly and gratuitously attacks its own contributors and third parties alike, behavior that is, first of all, unbecoming for what was supposed to be a serious project, and second, for which they should be every bit as accountable as is any other publication (including less reputable ones.)
In this instance, a newspaper followed up on it (very naïvely) but Wikipedia is itself a high-profile publication, whether or not anyone else repeats what WP says. The technical point here is that WP can't cite itself in mainspace - but WP doesn't need a source to libel people on talk or in project pages, which had already been done. If WP started conducting itself honorably and responsibly, there would have been nothing to report.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:13pm)
I'm throwing in my chip with Dan Tobias on this, too. If it is this clear-cut that a publication or one of its staff writers was "used" by some Wikipediot to make life miserable for a university professor, then the right thing to do is to SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS, not "hide" the use of that publication as a source in Wikipedia.
When Durova defamed me, remember there was that brief moment where I had a chance to arbitrate the problem with her, in her forum? I chose not to go that route because that wouldn't have fixed the problem, it would have just erased that it happened.
So, I'm with Dan. And I'd go a step further. I'd publicize that this happened (pre-SlimVirgin's efforts to erase the pain), and showcase how rotten and far-reaching Wikipedia's sinister system can be for some people.
Greg
But Greg(ster)
You are a great guy.... but you weren't a notable person. At least not prior to the Wikipedia Wikibiz scandal. Your notability is borne out of the scandal, and you like playing that role. A Professor who has worked all his life for notariety of a substantive sort, is fun for Wikipedia to pick on, and his "advertising the situation" only makes them look correct.
What Im saying is that the dynamics are different. You chose to be a Wikipedia protestor (of a sort) because it complemented or enhanced your reputation. It dirties his - no matter what way you slice it. They are the big kahuna, and he just looks like a whiner. No, sorry. You are seeing it from the wrong perspective. At least in terms of this case.
AND I HASTEN TO ADD ------- that if you had taken this to Arbcom, you'd not a prayer of any sort of justice (come on, please). It would not have "gone away". You'd have had your name smeared further on the alter of "sekrit informations".
NOTE: My editing ability is all screwed up here. So sorry for the repost. This is the version I wanted. Something weird on my box wont let me edit.
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 19th December 2007, 2:05am)
What I think DL is getting at is that the "discussion" isn't really a discussion without the person about whom the article is written, and who is upset about the content, being able to chime in.
It's impossible to maintain that a discussion is "uncensored" when would-be participants are banned.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:22pm)
The problem isn't the existence of the newspaper article, much less the question of whether or not the newspapers have and should continue to have the legal right to go to press (yes, obviously.) The problem is that Wikipedia baselessly and gratuitously attacks its own contributors and third parties alike, behavior that is, first of all, unbecoming for what was supposed to be a serious project, and second, for which they should be every bit as accountable as is any other publication (including less reputable ones.)
EXACTLY. Whatever Wikipedia does has credibility, because it is so well known. So while it has horrific governance problems, it gets away with murder. Another word for "not accountable".
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:22pm)
In this instance, a newspaper followed up on it (very naïvely)
And what a tool she was....
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:22pm)
but Wikipedia is itself a high-profile publication, whether or not anyone else repeats what WP says.
And therefore when it gets publicized, the person is dually victimized.
AND DESPITE WHAT KOHS-TOBIAS think, a complaint would exacerbate the victimization. If you were a private person, you dont mind the notariety maybe. A professor sure would mind being called a "disruptive editor" and "self advertising". There are blogs online calling him "going senile" as a result of this balderdash. Really!
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:22pm)
WP doesn't need a source to libel people on talk or in project pages, which had already been done.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:22pm)
If WP started conducting itself honorably and responsibly, there would have been nothing to report.
I think there is a good story to be told here, but it needs some structuring to make it coherent.
Then, it needs to be framed as an example of the kind of unprofessionalism that pervades Wikipedia, and not as some isolated one-off misadventure.
Upthread, I inserted a note that I had independently alerted Mike Godwin to similar unprofessionalism with respect to other biographies of acadamics.
What's emerging is a pervasive pattern of abuse with multiple independent examples all occurring in parallel.
Then, it needs to be framed as an example of the kind of unprofessionalism that pervades Wikipedia, and not as some isolated one-off misadventure.
Upthread, I inserted a note that I had independently alerted Mike Godwin to similar unprofessionalism with respect to other biographies of acadamics.
What's emerging is a pervasive pattern of abuse with multiple independent examples all occurring in parallel.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Wed 19th December 2007, 12:27am)
I'M JENNY KLEEMAN, I'M A JOURNALIST AND I LOVE WIKIPEDIA
- Wikipedia braces itself for April Fools' Day ...Jenny Kleeman: The online encyclopaedia anyone can edit has been the target of joke contributions since its launch in 2001, but April Fools' Day has proved ...
- You couldn’t make it up WIKIPEDIA MEETUP LONDON- Times Online Jenny Kleeman. How can you tell when you have arrived at a Wikipedia meet-up? Any of the groups in this busy London bar could be the people I am looking for ...
- NZ Herald jumps on the anti-Wikipedia bandwagon | AssignmentZeroWikipedia fights vandalism . 5:00AM Monday April 02, 2007 By Jenny Kleeman. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learned that, ...
- ... Wikipedia fights vandalism - 02 Apr 2007 - NZ Herald: Technology ...Wikipedia fights vandalism. Page 1 of 2 View as a single page 5:00AM Monday April 02, 2007 By Jenny Kleeman. Since his death, Steve Irwin's entry in the ...
- ... Tell us all about Wales and his work. | AssignmentZeroBy Jenny Kleeman. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learned that, as well as living in tropical coastal waters and ...
- Jenny Kleeman: Wikileaks - whistleblowing made easy | Media | The ...Jenny Kleeman; The Guardian; Monday September 17 2007 ... Wikileaks uses the same wiki technology as Wikipedia, so anyone can add to it, and boasts an extra ...
- Wiki wars The Observer Jenny Kleeman Sunday March 25, 2007 The Observer. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learnt that, as well as living in ...
Most of Jenny Kleeman's work has been ridiculously pro Wikipedia- I wouldn't be surprised if she was an admin herself.
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:22pm)
...A Professor who has worked all his life for notariety of a substantive sort, is fun for Wikipedia to pick on, and his "advertising the situation" only makes them look correct.
What Im saying is that the dynamics are different. You chose to be a Wikipedia protestor (of a sort) because it complemented or enhanced your reputation.
It dirties his - no matter what way you slice it. They are the big kahuna, and he just looks like a whiner.
Then, take it even further. The longer that yellow journalism stays on Wikipedia, and the longer that the newspaper doesn't critique the Journalist Jenny who wrote it and print a retraction (or at least allow the professor a rebuttal of equal length and prominence)... the better his legal case is going to look to a trial jury. He could sue the newspaper and the Foundation.
Somebody, at some point, is going to have to seek justice the old-fashioned way -- in a courtroom. And when that happens, maybe we'll see some lasting changes implemented.
Greg
At this point, I would request that someone contact Jenny Kleeman and extend to her a courtesy invitation to come here and defend herself against those who have seized this opportunity to cast her in a negative light.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:55pm)
At this point, I would request that someone contact Jenny Kleeman and extend to her a courtesy invitation to come here and defend herself against those who have seized this opportunity to cast her in a negative light.
Nice thought. I set out to do it, but I could not find an e-mail address for Ms. Kleeman anywhere, except a BBC staff address that was from 2003. I wouldn't think that's a working address any more.
If she can't publicize how to contact her, is it our responsibility to keep searching and searching?
Greg
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:53pm)
Then, take it even further. The longer that yellow journalism stays on Wikipedia, and the longer that the newspaper doesn't critique the Journalist Jenny who wrote it and print a retraction (or at least allow the professor a rebuttal of equal length and prominence)... the better his legal case is going to look to a trial jury.
Cue music track from Supertramp...... "Dreamer... nothing but a dreamer.... when you put your hands in your head oh no.... oh no....."....
Greg. Court cases don't erase damaged reputations. And they are not an evident outcome of any such situation.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:55pm)
At this point, I would request that someone contact Jenny Kleeman and extend to her a courtesy invitation to come here and defend herself against those who have seized this opportunity to cast her in a negative light.
Oh CRY me a river.
Let her read it and complain.
We'll whine about her AFTER Hewitt gets an Op-ed and retraction in the Guardian, deal?
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 18th December 2007, 8:34pm)
Upthread, I inserted a note that I had independently alerted Mike Godwin to similar unprofessionalism with respect to other biographies of acadamics.
ROFL. Mike Godwin?
Didnt you read his article in the New York Times? He thinks that anyone who gets anything printed in the newspapers about them is fair game. Tough beans.
He doesnt care about bios of academics. NOT ONE BIT.
(recues Supertramp) "Det det det det det det DREAMER..... nothing but a DREAMER...."
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:05pm)
Nice thought. I set out to do it, but I could not find an e-mail address for Ms. Kleeman anywhere, except a BBC staff address that was from 2003. I wouldn't think that's a working address any more.
Sweet Lord. Write the Editor of the Guardian and ask them to give Hewitt a voice. Not to ask this silly lassie to justify her unsourced attack.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 18th December 2007, 9:05pm)
If she can't publicize how to contact her, is it our responsibility to keep searching and searching?
Greg
You guys are suffering from a case of "nauseatingly nice and naiive" disease of AGF overdoes. And you are dealing with very, very not nice people.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.