Slim decided that leading british paper is not a reliable source Options

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?

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 12:47am

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?)

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 1:34am

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

Robert 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)

“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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 1:12am

Look, over there! It's a cow!

This post has been edited by Amarkov: Wed 19th December 2007, 1:35am

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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 1:28am

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 1:37am

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)

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 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)

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.

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?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 2:13am

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 2:15am

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