Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Wikipedia Review _ Editors _ Sandifer calls "Brandt, Bagley" "nutjobs"

Posted by: Piperdown Fri 12th October 2007, 3:31am

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082715.html

Posted by: Derktar Fri 12th October 2007, 3:37am

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Thu 11th October 2007, 8:31pm) *

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082715.html


Sandifer tears into everyone in that piece. Sandifer consistently manages to baffle everyone, even on Wikipedia, which is very interesting.

Posted by: Somey Fri 12th October 2007, 4:37am

I still can't understand why they don't realize that every time they dismiss the evidence of you-know-who's identity as "nonsense" and "unfounded rumor," it simply encourages people to come here and check it out, at which point (if they're rational, sane types), they'll see that there's something in it after all.

But hey, they don't want us to be right about anything, so since they can't actually disprove any of it, and heaven forbid they might not be allowed to have what they want... there you have it. I guess they figure if they just repeat it enough times...?

Posted by: Derktar Fri 12th October 2007, 4:39am

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th October 2007, 9:37pm) *

But hey, they don't want us to be right about anything, so since they can't actually disprove any of it, and heaven forbid they might not be allowed to have what they want... there you have it. I guess they figure if they just repeat it enough times...?


MUST ASSIMILATE...ASSIMILATE...bzzt...bzzt...

Posted by: Jonny Cache Fri 12th October 2007, 4:50am

It's amazing how much of their time those wikipanderers of a "Non-Censored" site devote to discussing what to censor and what not, and not the usual things that Community Standards guardians want to censor, but whether to censor people who simply do what normal reasoning people always do, namely, (1) criticize everything in sight, and (2) demand to know who warrants the assertions they see.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Proabivouac Fri 12th October 2007, 5:17am

The underlying problem is that Wikipedia has no good way to discuss something without also publishing it.

Posted by: Jonny Cache Fri 12th October 2007, 5:26am

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 12th October 2007, 1:17am) *

The underlying problem is that Wikipedia has no good way to discuss something without also publishing it.


Maybe that's the difference between a Raving Idiot Party (RIP) and a Real Encyclopedia Publisher (REP).

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: The Joy Fri 12th October 2007, 5:29am

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 12th October 2007, 1:17am) *

The underlying problem is that Wikipedia has no good way to discuss something without also publishing it.


They usually use IRC for such things. Personally, I wish they'd publish more for transparency reasons.

Regarding Sandifer and friends: This is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: WordBomb Fri 12th October 2007, 6:09am

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 12th October 2007, 12:37am) *
I still can't understand why they don't realize that every time they dismiss the evidence of you-know-who's identity as "nonsense" and "unfounded rumor," it simply encourages people to come here and check it out, at which point (if they're rational, sane types), they'll see that there's something in it after all.
100% truth. The way I know one of these comments has been posted to the list is the amount of search traffic arriving at AntiSocialMedia.net via variations of "SlimVirgin" and "[Name Redacted]" jumps tenfold. Literally. This is bad for SV particularly because she has no opportunity to rebut. The best thing they could do to deflate ASM and WR would be to truly internalize tough, honest self-criticism on that very site. But as long as those with the most to lose are in control, it will never happen.

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 12th October 2007, 12:37am) *
But hey, they don't want us to be right about anything, so since they can't actually disprove any of it, and heaven forbid they might not be allowed to have what they want... there you have it. I guess they figure if they just repeat it enough times...?
To be fair, many of WR's most active posters don't want WP to be right about anything, either. There's ideological blindness on both sides. SlimVirgin could admit she's the mythical "Mega" and the same people would deny it. Similarly, Jimbo Wales could start fixing his little creation but get attacked on these boards like before.

As obvious an agent provocateur "Revision" is, s/he has a point when it comes to the lack of value of criticism for criticisms's sake alone.

Posted by: Jonny Cache Fri 12th October 2007, 6:25am

QUOTE(WordBomb @ Fri 12th October 2007, 2:09am) *

As obvious an agent provocateur "Revision" is, s/he has a point when it comes to the lack of value of criticism for criticism's sake alone.


Bulloné. Some of us WRdos have written whole essays on the sake for which criticism is. But our latest Rien-Visionist, who never did anything but biatch for biatch's sake, never took the trouble to look them up.

Just for a hint, the purpose of criticism is to improve the genre, not necessarily to get an individual auteur, like Jimbo Wales, to revision an individual work, like Wikipedia, especially when the auteur in question constantly proves to be one or more of the following: (1) incapable of appreciating criticism, (2) incapable of respecting critics, (3) incapable of controling the material.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: blissyu2 Fri 12th October 2007, 8:48am

I don't mind what Sandifer says. He seems to say a lot of smart things, increasingly so lately. He said that a lot of people were idiots with how they handled things.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Fri 12th October 2007, 10:48am

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 12th October 2007, 12:25am) *

[Just for a hint, the purpose of criticism is to improve the genre, not necessarily to get an individual auteur, like Jimbo Wales, to revision an individual work, like Wikipedia, especially when the auteur in question constantly proves to be one or more of the following: (1) incapable of appreciating criticism, (2) incapable of respecting critics, (3) incapable of controling the material.

Jonny cool.gif



Yes, exactly right.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt Fri 12th October 2007, 1:18pm

The ArbCom and/or Slim could have stopped all of this in its tracks long ago, and if this was the real world it would have stopped long ago.

ArbCom: Request that Slim submit her résumé since 1988, and make it available to journalists on request. I'm talking about information that any employer would insist on. It's also information that would give us a flurry of leads to check out for a few weeks, and then we would have nothing else to add. We would get bored, and start looking for something else to do.

Slim: Make a statement and respond to reporter's questions. Even email interviews are okay — she doesn't have to reveal her exact location in central Canada. But when I'm talking about an email interview, I'm assuming that she will respond honestly, and present information about herself that the reporter can verify from other sources. When I asked Slim by email in October 2005 if she owned the slimvirgin.com domain, she denied it, twice, by email, and I was pretending to be just some dude who buys cool domain names. This sort of game-playing is not what I have in mind.

This whole sorry saga would have been handled this way in the real world. Of course, it's ArbCom's option to keep yakking away about attack sites, and it's Slim's option to the tell the ArbCom to go to hell even if they do the sensible thing. It's also Slim's option to not make a statement and not answer email. But these options, as we have seen, just raise the stakes for both Slim and Wikipedia. What both ArbCom and Slim have to realize is that this is not a situation that tin-foil-hat wackos like me have imposed on them, but instead it's a situation that they have created themselves, and continue to defend.

Bottom line: It will never happen. Wikipedia is permanently stuck in a mode that rewards the occasional Essjay more than it rewards accountability, and Slim doesn't care about this or that encyclopedia. This means that Slim will continue to drag Wikipedia down with her. Sandifer is right about that.

Posted by: Kato Fri 12th October 2007, 1:28pm

I can't even begin to get a handle on the scale of ineptitude over at Wiki-EN on this matter, but http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082745.html from Sandifer caught my eye:

QUOTE(Phil Sandifer)
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt
can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source.
Where was Sandifer during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy#_note-King, or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy? When "utterly reputable news sources" were quoting Brandt verbatim? And Brandt was correct on both occasions. And the funniest thing about it is that Wikipedia itself quotes Daniel Brandt on both those matters!

So lets have a re-read of Sandifer's comments again...
QUOTE(Phil Sandifer)
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt
can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source.


Posted by: Jonny Cache Fri 12th October 2007, 1:40pm

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 12th October 2007, 9:18am) *

The ArbCom and/or Slim could have stopped all of this in its tracks long ago, and if this was the real world it would have stopped long ago.

ArbCom: Request that Slim submit her résumé since 1988, and make it available to journalists on request. I'm talking about information that any employer would insist on. It's also information that would give us a flurry of leads to check out for a few weeks, and then we would have nothing else to add. We would get bored, and start looking for something else to do.

Slim: Make a statement and respond to reporter's questions. Even email interviews are okay — she doesn't have to reveal her exact location in central Canada. But when I'm talking about an email interview, I'm assuming that she will respond honestly, and present information about herself that the reporter can verify from other sources. When I asked Slim by email in October 2005 if she owned the slimvirgin.com domain, she denied it, twice, by email, and I was pretending to be just some dude who buys cool domain names. This sort of game-playing is not what I have in mind.

This whole sorry saga would have been handled this way in the real world. Of course, it's ArbCom's option to keep yakking away about attack sites, and it's Slim's option to the tell the ArbCom to go to hell even if they do the sensible thing. It's also Slim's option to not make a statement and not answer email. But these options, as we have seen, just raise the stakes for both Slim and Wikipedia. What both ArbCom and Slim have to realize is that this is not a situation that tin-foil-hat wackos like me have imposed on them, but instead it's a situation that they have created themselves, and continue to defend.

Bottom line: It will never happen. Wikipedia is permanently stuck in a mode that rewards the occasional Essjay more than it rewards accountability, and Slim doesn't care about this or that encyclopedia. This means that Slim will continue to drag Wikipedia down with her. Sandifer is right about that.


I think that pretty much sums it up, Daniel. Folks who haven't been watching the off-scene Beehivior of the Beest will scratch their heads until a portal to their brain opens up, or not, Sandifer and his Sandinistas will continue to run about like the Unctious Uncle in The Good Earth (film), loudly proclaiming "I predicted it!" about events they insistently denied the very possibility of until they actually happened, and so it goes …

Those of us who would like to understand the outcome of this particular open-field experiment that somebody chose to try on us rats will ask the question —

Why?

Why this particular sequence of events?

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff Fri 12th October 2007, 2:02pm

Can someone please explain to me how anyone can take Fred Bauder seriously anymore? Anyone? Please?

Posted by: Kato Fri 12th October 2007, 2:14pm

QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Fri 12th October 2007, 3:02pm) *

Can someone please explain to me how anyone can take Fred Bauder seriously anymore? Anyone? Please?

I actually feel a bit sorry for Fred on Wiki-EN. Though, of course his analysis of the SV data is wilfully negligent, I know what he's trying to say to those BADSITES crows, you see. All he's saying is "don't be an arsehole". Nobody is going to get into trouble for linking to Slate.com or anything else, but don't start going around rubbing a page about a wikipedia editor in people's noses.

I have a sense that all this jabbering about BADSITES on the list is a substitute for the fact that people are too afraid to talk about the elephant in the room. Which is SV's background and online activity. The listers can sense the drama and are stoked up, but they've got no outlet in which to express it. So they're turning on Fred or anyone else there to whip up some straw man argument about BADSITES to let off steam.

Posted by: Jonny Cache Fri 12th October 2007, 2:21pm

QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:02am) *

Can someone please explain to me how anyone can take Fred Bauder seriously anymore? Anyone? Please?


Apt question.

FB serves the same function as Ronnie Raygun, Dubya, or Jimbo, that is, DOPE.

DOPE is a kind of salve that brings fast, temporary relief to the True Believer who has just been disturbed by the irksome possibility of almost having an Independent Reality-Oriented Thought (IR-OT). Its effective ingredient is a pasty white-washy wiki-washy white-noisey substance that appears to say just what the hearer wants to hear at that moment, even though it really says nothing at all.

People have been known to abandon everything they once held dear, to fight nightmarish quagmirish wars, to rat on their friends and sell out their loved ones, to sacrifice their very lives, all for one ounce of this DOPE.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Fri 12th October 2007, 2:22pm

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 12th October 2007, 7:40am) *

Beehivior


Nice one.

Posted by: badlydrawnjeff Fri 12th October 2007, 4:58pm

QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 12th October 2007, 2:14pm) *

I actually feel a bit sorry for Fred on Wiki-EN. Though, of course his analysis of the SV data is wilfully negligent, I know what he's trying to say to those BADSITES crows, you see. All he's saying is "don't be an arsehole". Nobody is going to get into trouble for linking to Slate.com or anything else, but don't start going around rubbing a page about a wikipedia editor in people's noses.


Fred can't be that dumb, though. He knows that's exactly what's going to happen.

Posted by: Piperdown Fri 12th October 2007, 5:04pm

QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Fri 12th October 2007, 4:58pm) *

Fred can't be that dumb, though.


I'm sure someone at the Col. State Bar said the same thing once.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt Fri 12th October 2007, 8:47pm

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082763.html

QUOTE
[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Oct 12 14:28:17 UTC 2007

We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Fred

I predict that they will start another bio on me. This time it's even clearer than it was when Slim started it, that the general context is a feeling among certain admins on Wikipedia that it's time for malicious payback. That means everything in the bio had better be completely NPOV and accurate, or I'll have a defamation case even if the court decides that I'm a public figure.

The important thing, however, is that restarting my bio pushes Florida's two-year statute of limitations ahead, because it has expired now for the original bio.

Oh goody, another two years to find a kick-ass Section 230 lawyer who is willing to do it pro bono.

Posted by: Derktar Fri 12th October 2007, 8:56pm

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 12th October 2007, 1:47pm) *

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082763.html
QUOTE
[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Oct 12 14:28:17 UTC 2007

We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Fred

I predict that they will start another bio on me. This time it's even clearer than it was when Slim started it, that the general context is a feeling among certain admins on Wikipedia that it's time for malicious payback. That means everything in the bio had better be completely NPOV and accurate, or I'll have a defamation case even if the court decides that I'm a public figure.

The important thing, however, is that restarting my bio pushes Florida's two-year statute of limitations ahead, because it has expired now for the original bio.

Oh goody, another two years to find a kick-ass Section 230 lawyer who is willing to do it pro bono.


Oh crap, here we go again.

I predict another 14 AFDs. Hell let's shoot for 50!

Posted by: The Joy Fri 12th October 2007, 9:16pm

Daniel still has a bio on the Spanish WP.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt


Perhaps some of the more compassionate people on WP will fight this next attempt? Too bad A Man in Black is MIA.

Posted by: jorge Fri 12th October 2007, 10:24pm

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:16pm) *

Daniel still has a bio on the Spanish WP.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt


Perhaps some of the more compassionate people on WP will fight this next attempt? Too bad A Man in Black is MIA.

But if they have a bio on Daniel, won't they have to mention that he is claimed to have stated on Slate.com that an editor on Wikipedia, SlimVirgin was a likely MI5 agent?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Fri 12th October 2007, 10:31pm

QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 4:24pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:16pm) *

Daniel still has a bio on the Spanish WP.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt


Perhaps some of the more compassionate people on WP will fight this next attempt? Too bad A Man in Black is MIA.

But if they have a bio on Daniel, won't they have to mention that he is claimed to have stated on Slate.com that an editor on Wikipedia, SlimVirgin was a likely MI5 agent?


Especially if that was the incident that "tipped the balance."

Posted by: Piperdown Fri 12th October 2007, 10:35pm

QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:24pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:16pm) *

Daniel still has a bio on the Spanish WP.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt


Perhaps some of the more compassionate people on WP will fight this next attempt? Too bad A Man in Black is MIA.

But if they have a bio on Daniel, won't they have to mention that he is claimed to have stated on Slate.com that an editor on Wikipedia, SlimVirgin was a likely MI5 agent?


Brandt claimed? I thought Brandt's sources claimed, not Brandt.

By the bye, does Sandifer, Gerard, Baudy, and the rest of the Motley Crew think that John Cooley is a "nut" ? We know that Weiss thinks Patrick Byrne is, and we know that Slim Underground thinks that her old boss Pierre went Nutty (for the Jayjg oversights tell us so!), but I just want to figure out why Brandt and Bagley are nutty. Quoting very reliable sources and showing IP logs = nutty. Hmmm.

I guess if you repeat the wikilie long enough, and threaten any dissenters with banning, you CAN get the wikinazis to salute you. Or be shipped to WR with your carcass!

Posted by: anthony Sat 13th October 2007, 1:24am

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 12th October 2007, 8:47pm) *

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082763.html
QUOTE
[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Oct 12 14:28:17 UTC 2007

We possibly erred in deleting the article on him. This latest mention in the Slate article may have tipped the balance with respect to notability. If he is taken serious by mainstream media, perhaps we ought to have an article. Or perhaps we should make an explicit exception for subjects we are too close to, and not have articles for such subjects.

Fred

I predict that they will start another bio on me. This time it's even clearer than it was when Slim started it, that the general context is a feeling among certain admins on Wikipedia that it's time for malicious payback. That means everything in the bio had better be completely NPOV and accurate, or I'll have a defamation case even if the court decides that I'm a public figure.

The important thing, however, is that restarting my bio pushes Florida's two-year statute of limitations ahead, because it has expired now for the original bio.

Oh goody, another two years to find a kick-ass Section 230 lawyer who is willing to do it pro bono.


Why not sue the editors who actually write the article, thereby bypassing the section 230 defense altogether?

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Fri 12th October 2007, 10:35pm) *

By the bye, does Sandifer, Gerard, Baudy, and the rest of the Motley Crew think that John Cooley is a "nut" ? We know that Weiss thinks Patrick Byrne is, and we know that Slim Underground thinks that her old boss Pierre went Nutty (for the Jayjg oversights tell us so!), but I just want to figure out why Brandt and Bagley are nutty. Quoting very reliable sources and showing IP logs = nutty. Hmmm.


Didn't Slim basically accuse Salinger of working for the CIA in one of her oversighted edits? That's certainly no nuttier than his accusing her of working for MI-5. Can someone point me to that edit?

UPDATE: Here it is: "In January 1989, Salinger began a three-year investigation with ABC News into the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. During this time, according to an article by Christopher Bryon in the American Spectator, Salinger passed confidential ABC News memos on the bombing to the CIA. Salinger admitted doing this to Byron, saying he was only trying to help. Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."

Posted by: Piperdown Sat 13th October 2007, 1:44am

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:24am) *

Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."


Hmmm. Didn't Slimmy "worked with Salinger"? So was this "belief" original, first-person research by a wikipedia editor? Or is there a reliable source for that?

Posted by: anthony Sat 13th October 2007, 2:20am

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:44am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:24am) *

Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."


Hmmm. Didn't Slimmy "worked with Salinger"? So was this "belief" original, first-person research by a wikipedia editor? Or is there a reliable source for that?


I always assumed she was talking about herself. It's certainly not a verifiable fact, and it's not in the current version of the article.

Posted by: Piperdown Sat 13th October 2007, 2:45am

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th October 2007, 2:20am) *

QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:44am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:24am) *

Those who worked with Salinger believe he later passed ABC News information on the bombing to Colonel Gadaffi of Libya."


Hmmm. Didn't Slimmy "worked with Salinger"? So was this "belief" original, first-person research by a wikipedia editor? Or is there a reliable source for that?


I always assumed she was talking about herself. It's certainly not a verifiable fact, and it's not in the current version of the article.


How long was that text in the Salinger article? I assume from shortly after his death, when his ex-employ decided to exact some wikirevenge until....when?

Posted by: JohnA Sat 13th October 2007, 9:03am

The Daniel Brandt bio on Spanish Wikipedia is accurate, non-invasive and non-controversial - but that's only when I read it just now.

Who knows what the future may hold? ph34r.gif