The implications for this are so far-reaching (Rubinstein represents Time Magazine) that this needs clarification.

I wonder if dear Mr. Shankbone might perhaps clarify exactly what kind of "relationship" is being discussed here???

I'm selling my User account, FieryAngel, to the Rubenstien PR firm. What do you think?

Because Wikinews does not subscribe to a wire service, nor does it often get invited to do things that other reporters get invited to do (such as attend film festivals), I am trying to sort out a relationship with the Rubenstein (not Rubinstein) agency to allow for fun-loving, creative Wikimedians across the world to be made aware of and to be given offers to take part in their events so that they can create content for the site.

You might be surprised to learn how few people are interested in an all-access pass to something like the Tribeca Film Festival, though.

Or perhaps it is only my shameless drive at self-promotion that causes me to leave my office at 5pm after working all day, then cover three to four film premieres standing in a morass of press photographers and paparazzi over another five hours, then spend another several hours photoshopping....

I'd say the surprising thing is how long it's taken you to realize that you're just about the only person on Wikipedia who's actually doing things like this!


Well, you know *I* wasn't going to say that, though I suppose I might have been thinking it... Do you ever sleep, though? That sounds really stressful.

Well, that had crossed my mind. So, you're not denying it, then?



Yes, but what about all of the COI issues? I mean, you don't get the ticket into the festival, plus the complimentary glass of champagne (well, probably Kir Royal with lots of cassis because of the cheap mousseau that those kind of gigs usually serve...not to mention the cheap cocktail weiners..., I mean, the hors d'oeuvres, of course...) setting aside the inevitable swag that this kind of operation generates.....well, this doesn't come for free.

So, what's the deal. You scratch their back and they.....what???? Do they want to have lunch with Matt Sanchez too?

Well, I was surprised to see that several messages on various boards about the TFF went unanswered.

The TFF is a very stressful week. It's stressful because I get very little sleep, and it's stressful to deal with very aggressive professional press photographers, and stand around for hours waiting for some celebrity who I don't know to show up so that I can photograph them and then go to WireImage to find out what their name is. It's...a lot of work. I might take off some time this year to actually attend a little of the festival, see the movies, etc. Last year, all I did was show up to photograph on the red carpet, then go home tired and photoshop. It was exhausting.

I just had a 75-minute interview/conversation with David "Shankbone" that attempted to stay on topic (the definition of stalking and harassment, and one's moral obligation to confront it or not) but mostly failed in that attempt.

I also have had about 6 years of experience working with PR firms from a marketing research angle.

And, I have had almost 3 years experience with Wikipedia and wiki environments.

My conclusion?

David is a nice guy, having fun, enjoying the perks of his volunteer efforts. He's overworking himself. Personally, I wouldn't donate one minute of my free time to enhance a Wikimedia Foundation project, as long as it's being run by Jimmy Wales, Sue Gardner, and Erik Moeller -- unless I was getting something out of it for myself or my family in return. Frankly, I think David's not exploiting the Wikimedia juju enough.

Oh, and I learned that there are some unstable people in the world, and it's better to not have them fixate on you.

Greg

That's the main reason I felt it necessary to correct the calumny in those BLPs, as they were written specifically to attract sociopaths to attack dedicated scientists and academics.

Indeed it sounds a lot like Hell.

Well... not to appear unsympathetic or anything, but to me, this is the crucial point. I think we can all be fairly confident in thinking that the majority (perhaps the vast, overwhelming majority) of people who consider themselves to be "Wikipedians" are simply not that outgoing, and treat WP editing as a largely non-physical, if not passive, activity. The old saw about "15-year-old kids lurking in their parents' basements" is obviously an exaggeration, but the fact is... let me put it this way: The amazing thing to me is that there's actually one David Shankbone, not that there aren't multiple David Shankbones.

Earlier today I sat through this 48-minute documentary on WP by a certain Mr. Van Veelen:



...In which Andrew Keen makes the rather interesting claim (about, I dunno, 30 minutes in) that WP actually serves to isolate people more from their communities, presumably by replacing real social interaction with phony (and not always personally supportive) social media interaction. And yet it's commonly accepted that the web has tremendous potential to empower people who share similar-but-unusual interests, by allowing them to come together more easily over vast distances, pool their resources, and generally feel less isolated.

The usual example is a "disease support community" - people with a particular rare disease can discuss their problems and share some quite valuable information with each other over the web far more easily than they can by almost any other available means. Before the internet, people subscribed to newsletters, and maybe traveled thousands of miles to attend meetings and conferences... the latter being something that seriously ill people often can't do. Now, they start e-mail lists, web boards, blogs, and, yes, wikis, and they help each other, often just by reassuring sufferers that they aren't alone. So... the web is definitely capable of being a worthwhile medium and helping people to do useful things - I doubt anybody would really dispute that.

But the value of real-world social interaction shouldn't be underestimated either, and it should also be remembered that Wikipedia is not serving special-interest groups per se. In terms of community, Wikipedia serves Wikipedia, and anyone who happens to buy into the idea of the WP community as an end in itself - maybe a few thousand people, tops. Everyone else just isn't really all that into it. After all, nobody is getting paid, except for Jimbo, Erik, and all that lot.

So... putting aside the issue of whether or not it's surprising that more people don't want to represent WikiNews at the TFF, is Keen's point valid? Does WP actually serve to isolate and disempower people, taking them away from their very realities, by its very nature? In ways that other websites with more specific purposes don't?

My long experience of online communities is that the people I have come to like on line are far nicer in real life and the experience of meeting up for even brief periods has invigorated online conversations. Basically, you know who you are talking to.

Generally speaking, I would recommend the real world over the Internet - even for sex.

So much of what happens in the post-Web 2.0 culture that we're currently living in is that certain basic concepts such as "friend" (just look at Facebook or Myspace to get an idea about that one), "interaction", "journalism", "communication" are being completely redefined by the medium itself.

Part of why I am so "been there/done that" about Wikipedia is because I was part of the early days of mp3.com and what is happening to WP looks surprisingly similar to what happened there. Mp3.com went from an incredibly vibrant and creative community of musicians to a group of web robots who would do anything (and I do mean anything) to get hits on their songs.

The reason for this is because mp3.com started a revolutionary system called "Pay For Play", which paid musicians something like $.04 per song play, less than what they should have been getting under statutory copyright rates, but it added up to a lot of money because all a person had to do was to play your song and you got paid. It was simply amazing for some of us. (It was also really stupid that the musicians there didn't realize that what mp3.com was calling a promotion was actually a right...but we all learn from our mistakes!) It really seemed as if anything was possible because of this new technology.

At first, though it was all about the music and some really talented people were making enough money to....be able to quit their day jobs and do this fulltime. Then they added agents who could promote people. Then they added the "erotic category" which featured lots of women moaning. Then they started adding advertising that artists could pay for. I remember going to my page of Mozart piano sonatas there and seeing "These b--tches s-ck c-ck and gag!" on my page, which was sort of a defining moment of the experience for me....The whole thing because a means of generating "hits". Never mind the music: it was all about getting the traffic. The image of rats running through mazes and hitting buttons to get...what? a buzz???....seems to come to mind.

Finally, a bunch of "code monkeys" "cracked the code" and figured out how to script robots and suddenly the charts were full of really horrible techno that was getting thousands of hits a minute. People started to really smell a rat and it turned out that somebody had hooked up access to a porn site, making people listen to a song in order to get access to the pictures. The person who did this made thousands of dollars (and I don't remember if he had to pay it back), but he didn't "earn" this money based on his musical skills, he made it by generating large amount of traffic to his content. The actual "content" no longer mattered-who needs music when you can have porn? The value generated was completely artificial because it was only based on the game. And when the people fronting the game figured out that they were being had, they sold the site and the next owners then changed the rules.

The interesting thing is what happened after the "Pay for Play" promotion was stopped (it was a gradual process, actually): people continued to promote their valueless content in the same mindless way, using the same "give me hits! give me hits!" manner. It was if they were addicted to this routine that became so ingrained in their actions that they simply could not stop, even if there was no longer a carrot in front of them to run after. I could not believe that there were still people who, months after the incentive dried up, were still organizing listening groups and trying to get their songs "up the charts"...

What is mp3.com now? It was bought by download.com. It's a strictly paid content site for "label musicians". It has nothing to do with the original vision of the people who started it...and the "community" (there's that word again) that created the excitement during those early days. I never go there. And I find that incredibly sad: we (as musicians) really blew it. It could have been a defining moment for online music. But part of me thinks that this process was unavoidable, simply because of the way the web works: anybody who can code script has a serious advantage over people who cannot, so basic questions such as "can you tune your guitar?" or "can you write complete sentences?" can be avoided.

So, when I see what happens at WP (the mindless generation of content without any thought as to whether it has merit, the mindless copy-editing, the automated bots, the 1984 style administration, the glorification of the system), I can't help but draw a parallel which I personally feel is extremely valid. I also feel as if I know where this story ends.

I promise not to gloat when people who were involved with WP talk about how it was before it got "sold to"....whomever it is going to be eventually sold. So, perhaps it's for the best that this "special relationship" with Rubinstein PR. goes forward. I mean, it's just speeding up the process a bit, isn't it?

Who are you quoting when you put 'special relationship' in quotes? Are you quoting yourself?

You write a great post, and then you end it with something dumb. Too many of your arguments are comprised of innuendo that aren't based on facts. I will quote from my talk page where I talk about what we all get out of this:

I guess you must have missed my Talk page when hunting through diffs, or maybe it's just easier to write statements that wither your own credibility like, 'So you don't deny selling your account to Rubenstein?'

For someone like you, an anonymous critic, who removes their own actions from view, you'll just criticize anyone and anything, regardless of whether the criticism has merit. That's why you always come across as shrill. It doesn't matter the explanation, it doesn't matter the person, it doesn't matter how open people are being about everything they do....for the shrill, all they need to do is parrot the battle cry "Looks bad! Looks bad!"

What you are doing is questioning my character. So, this will most likely be the last of your shrill posts that receives a response from me. Feeding trolls who ask things like "You don't deny selling your account?" and "Don't you hate yourself?" is pointless, and beneath me. I came on here to address some of the serious criticism, and you appear to have run out of it.

Hey, you're simply not seeing the subtext, David. The "special relationship" was not intended to be quoting you: it was to suggest that this was something more than was being discussed. In the same respect, you're so "caught in the Matrix" (no, I'm not quoting you there either; it's a concept.) that you can't think outside of that system. Any attack to the system itself becomes an attack on you that you feel obligated to try to either destroy or dismiss. This is yet more evidence of the cult that is WP. You're simply brainwashed.

You fail to see that the parallels and the dynamics are surprising close in the situation I described . and what is currently happening at WP. Read this article from the LA weekly in 2001, just when things started to go sour over at mp3.com and substitute WP for every time mp3.com comes up and perhaps you might see the light.

I rather doubt it though, since you're too far gone to even consider that something like this is happening. And that's exactly what I saw over at mp3.com, as you can see from this article.

It's an addiction and has to do with denying reality. You're all going to get burned. And you can't say that you weren't warned.

What I think it comes down to is you're a woman who has a constant need to tell men who don't agree with you that they are "brainwashed" "lazy bums" etc. simply because....they don't think the way you think. You sound like you were burned once by a lover (mp3.com) and now "all men suck", or in this case, "all Web 2.0 sites suck. I've been hurt by one before...."

So you come here flaunting your esoteric knowledge to say, "Look how smart I am!" while throwing out innuendo (to quote you: " it was to suggest that this was something more than was being discussed") in the hopes of hurting another person's reputation. Nobody cares whether you think Marquee Moon is better than Blank Generation, and nobody gives you any credibility. You can say whatever you want...in the end, you protect yourself by being anonymous with absolutely no qualifications.

Everything you do and say is very akin to what my stalker does and says. I could do a quote by quote comparison. I know you're not him, but you should really think about the way you come across, which is very poor. I also know I'm not the only one who thinks that on this site (no, that wasn't a reference to Greg Kohs....he's not the only one I have spoken to).

You endanger your own credibility on here blindly hitting out, acting out.

I've known people like you before, and I shy away from them because they are boring and snobby. They have made up their minds about what is right and wrong in the world, so they never explore the nuance, the gray area in the world (say by having lunch with a former gay porn star who makes anti-gay remarks). That's what makes you so boring - you have little to say outside your own paradigm, and you have taken little time to explore the world and its nuance.

You're just a bore. Cheers!

Hitting out? Acting out? What credibility? I have nothing to defend, so I have nothing to lose. This isn't about my anything. I am genuinely concerned with what things like Wikipedia are doing to society and culture. That's where this starts and ends.

If you had bothered to follow the link that I sent you about "The Fiery Angel" on Wikipedia, you might have understand the symbolism behind the name. No one knows whether the Fiery Angel exists or not. The Fiery Angel might be an instrument of God or of the Devil. The woman who believes in the Fiery Angel is sent to the Inquisition and is burned at the stake. Who was right? The answer is not clear. But whether or not the Fiery Angel is real does not affect the outcome of the story.

So what is the Fiery Angel? Could it be that the Fiery Angel is....Wikipedia itself?

Now, I believe that I have said quite a bit just in the the past few posts. You are, apparently, unable to face what I've said. You can go back to cranking out the content, or you can consider what I've said.

Now, what would it change if it were possible that I might be trying to do you a favor by explaining my experience? Can you get off the koolaid long enough to consider what that might mean?

That's a great rant, TFA, and worthy of translation into an audio recording (perhaps even with a musical motif under the voice).

Which brings me back to an offer I made on another thread this morning. Anyone who has an audio recording of an opinion piece, rant, rap, ballad, poem, comic sketch, etc, is welcome to put it up on my audio server if they don't have ready access to another server.

Fiery angel; If I wasn't fairly certain about who some WRers are, I would think you're someone else. I really don't understand what lights you up so much about this. Journalists have interviewed Osama bin Laden over food. There's nothing wrong with a fake journalist having lunch.

That said, mindless content generation sounds about right. Apart from the few where David's ideology motivates him to ask good questions, most are inferior to stuff found in "non-free" press. Not a bad hobby though, and I don't understand why you scorn it scorn.

You haven't been following the Matt Sanchez business, obviously. It's not just about having lunch....

The reason that I scorn this business is explained in this post:

To put it into a nutshell, the process replaces any real creativity in a truly perverse manner.

Now, as far as who I am or who I might be, that's beside the point. Think of me as a content generator with a mind and an objective. The media is the message and all of that. Or maybe I'm Jimbeau's conscience speaking???

Why does it matter who I am?

Reliability, trustability, credibility, and reputability of a source depend on identifiability.

Yes, but I don't want anybody to believe me nor trust me.

I want them to see for themselves. If people begin to look at the evidence I'm presenting and make up their own minds, then they might figure some things out.

I don't just believe anybody myself. Why should I expect anyone else to do so?

Even second-order referrals depend on who's offering the testimonial. Otherwise we'd be susceptible to going on a lot of wild goose chases.

You mean that we're not?

Now, getting back to the subject at hand, at the time that this charming "lunch" took place, Matt Sanchez' account "Bluemarine" (nice double-entendre there!) had just been banned at Arb-com, but only that account. MS had said that this account had been hacked and that somebody was using it He was then caught using a sockpuppet and banned again on February 6, 2008, just two days before this charming luncheon date.

Are we to believe that after having been banned and then blocked as a sockpuppet, and only a few days after the close of the Arb-Com case that MS would just "have lunch" and allow his photo to be taken for his....Wikipedia article?? That's pushing it quite a bit, if you ask me....

"Friend" is a verb now... people ask others to "Friend me"!