http://www.time.com/time/business/article/...00.html?cnn=yes
Very interesting article about the Internet as a revenge platform.
And rather telling that they would mention Wikipedia specifically...
However, the writer didn't quite make that conceptual jump required to point out how much more psychologically damaging a Wiki article, and in particular a Wikipedia article, can be to a person - as opposed to something like a Youtube video or a Facebook/MySpace page or even a forum posting somewhere. The difference being that the latter forms of attack clearly emanate from one individual in each case, whereas a Wikipedia article attempts to give readers the impression that the attack emanates from a "consensus" potentially formed of the entire world, given the lack of direct content attribution and the heavily-promoted idea that "anyone can edit." In other words, you get the impression that you're being attacked not only by the person who added the defamatory content, but by everyone who comes along, reads it, and lets it stand... even if that's not how it actually "works."
However, the writer didn't quite make that conceptual jump required to point out how much more psychologically damaging a Wiki article, and in particular a Wikipedia article, can be to a person - as opposed to something like a Youtube video or a Facebook/MySpace page or even a forum posting somewhere. The difference being that the latter forms of attack clearly emanate from one individual in each case, whereas a Wikipedia article attempts to give readers the impression that the attack emanates from a "consensus" potentially formed of the entire world, given the lack of direct content attribution and the heavily-promoted idea that "anyone can edit." In other words, you get the impression that you're being attacked not only by the person who added the defamatory content, but by everyone who comes along, reads it, and lets it stand... even if that's not how it actually "works."
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 20th September 2008, 8:07am) 
And rather telling that they would mention Wikipedia specifically...
However, the writer didn't quite make that conceptual jump required to point out how much more psychologically damaging a Wiki article, and in particular a Wikipedia article, can be to a person - as opposed to something like a Youtube video or a Facebook/MySpace page or even a forum posting somewhere. The difference being that the latter forms of attack clearly emanate from one individual in each case, whereas a Wikipedia article attempts to give readers the impression that the attack emanates from a "consensus" potentially formed of the entire world, given the lack of direct content attribution and the heavily-promoted idea that "anyone can edit." In other words, you get the impression that you're being attacked not only by the person who added the defamatory content, but by everyone who comes along, reads it, and lets it stand... even if that's not how it actually "works."
Nor do they mention that Wikipedia has an RSS feed at their metasite which allows Wikipsychopaths to post attack pieces about RL indentities and then use the WikiMachine to articificially pump up their Google ratings.
And even though they claim that all of these sites are supposed to follow WP policy such as AGF and NPA, they don't. So, the Wikipedia Libel Machine continues out into the blogosphere these days
They definitely don't want the WR blog on their servers, yet they host an attackblog by a documented internet stalker.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.