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

I accept that you do not understand or appreciate my reasoning or my values.

As to the disenfranchised, no one here is stopping you from comforting the afflicted.

Moulton,

You are confusing understanding and respect with agreement.

I understand what you are doing. I respect your position.

I simply disagree that this is the most strategic tack, that's all.

Your proposed strategy may well be the best practice.

What I propose is not a strategic tack at all, since it has nothing to do with reaching any unilateral goal. I have no objection to people devising effective strategies to reach their urgent goals.

Upthread, one or more participants here levied a harsh criticism at a journalist from the UK Sunday Observer who was identified by name. Having executed that tactic (which I frankly would not have recommended), we now have an ethical obligation to offer her a chance to respond. It's just a matter of fairness.

To my mind, fairness is not a strategy.

To my mind, fairness is an ethical responsibility.

I don't think I have seen any negative coverage of Wikipedia in the Guardian as they are under the impression that it is has a liberal anti-conservative bias so they think it must be OK. All of Jenny Kleeman's articles have either talked about all the hard working editors improving Wikipedia or all those nasty people that are trying to disrupt it. My guess is she must be a rookie journalist and has bought into the Jimbo propaganda that wikipedia is some kind of paradise of freedom and truth.

EDIT: The closest to Wikipedia criticism the Guardian has got was a vague parody of WP "Ignopedia" hidden deep inside Charlie Brooker's column in the pullout section.

Doh, I forgot Seth Finkelstein ....the reason is that his column is not in the main part of the newspaper but confined to the Technology pullout that comes with the paper every Thursday. I think it is true to say that Wikipedia has only got positive press in the mainstream daily parts of the paper (G1 + G2).

What I propose is not a strategic tack at all, since it has nothing to do with reaching any unilateral goal.

Ah! There's the rub. (or where our philosophies diverge).

I take the approach that strategy is primordial and politics are a means to an end. A necessary evil if you will towards a stated or implied objective.

As for unilateral goal..... I dont follow the term unilateral here. Unilateral goal implies that I (or whoever is making it) is foisting it on the other. Alternatives would be bilateral or multilateral, which imply cooperation towards an end. The operant word being "cooperation". And this again is where we diverge. I dont assume that everyone wants to cooperate with me towards my objectives, I assume moreover that most people don't care even to know what my objectives are, let along to have my point of view foisted upon them for discussion or ponderance.

Small sidebar: From my point of view, to ask someone to cooperate with me towards my personal or group objectives is in fact using a unilateral assumption that they care. Call me a cynic, but generally, (I think that) most people don't care what I think, or what you think, or what anyone else thinks.

I believe that most people care about themselves, as a basis, above that, about things that affect people in their circle (whatever that means), and sometimes about things that provoke an emotion in them of one sort or another. That's not objectivist or anything else. It is simply my personal interpretation of how people function in the world. I usually find that for people to get involved in what I'm interested, I need to invoke a reason for them to do so. How I do that makes a difference in the response of the people. I could have the same objective with the same person, approach it five different ways and get five different responses from the same person about the same subject. One of the different way of approach is via another person or via a group.

Which is why I would have advised to go through someone in a position of power to this woman. That would give a reason for her to care. Even that would be a long-shot, but trying 1-2 people who might see the other side of things gives it a shot. As it stands, you are arguing that a well-known entity is behaving badly, and the knee-jerk response is to believe them, and not you. If I had no experience with Wikipedia, if I was a Guardian editor, I would assume that anyone contesting a Wikipedia point of view was a crank. Most people still think Wikipedia is a legitimate op. Which is why she got-away with writing as she did (sloppy, with no references, effectively libeling a man using material completely inappropriate for non-Wikipedia interpretation).

At the basis, I don't think she has any reason, or she has an anti-reason, that being that her "hero-worship" in-group thinks we as a group on this board are proverbial (apologies to Hershel) crap. If someone here contacts her, I surmise that the first thing she's going to do is contact Gerard (or whoever), and that her fears will comprise everything from strange contacts with bizarre people (that supposedly lurk here) to a fear of being listed on Brandt's page. Remember, that the little Harvard student (if it was a Harvard student) feared that of Brandt. Which was ridiculous, of course. But that's what you deal with when you get people who've already got another story in their head.

Not to mention the fact that if she does actually realize she made a mistake, she's have to go admit it to her superiors, which is not the normal reaction, and which takes courage. Most people would deny it and try to hide it. Which is another reason I think it is best to contact her ht head editor or the business editor.

Another point: The Observer is changing Editors-in-Chief. The new guy Mulholland starts this week, and another theory is "new bosses and departing bosses are easier to approach". A new boss and a departing boss often take action, and pay attention where otherwise they would not. Someone told me this early in my career, and I've found it to be true.

That's what I was getting at. It isn't a disagreement with you, really.

Because I agree that anyone deserves the right to answer back. It is just a difference in approach, that's all.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 2:16pm

Doh, I forgot Seth Finkelstein ....the reason is that his column is not in the main part of the newspaper but confined to the Technology pullout that comes with the paper every Thursday. I think it is true to say that Wikipedia has only got positive press in the mainstream daily parts of the paper (G1 + G2).

And don't forget that in the U.K. until very recently (and still, with the old-guard) technology was the domain of the blue collar world. Not so in the U.S., France, Germany, and the continent in general, where engineering (hence technology) has long been respected as a professional domain - whereas in the U.K., it was more viewed as in the same bucket as plumbing, bricklaying, and such. Pay scales still reflect this, though reality has impinged a bit on this perfect world, and IT has become better paid, and given a higher status. But there's still a sort of prejudice, or.... hm.... mental block... on the part of some in the U.K. I mean no disrepect or misapprehension to our Brit or commonwealth members here, who might argue otherwise, because they don't think like that. People who post on chat boards or hang out on Wikipedia or the web in general are very technology oriented. My point is that the general population in the UK started from a different spot than the U.S. or continent. So the locus of Seth's article in the technology section of a U.K. paper frankly guarantees that there's a larger body of the population that won't read it, if one compares to the technology section on the NY Times or LA Times or what-have-you.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 2:25pm

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.

Jenny Kleeman (jennykleeman@gmail.com) e-mailed me once, wanting to interview me, but she hasn't responded to my messages drawing her attention to various recent events. Of course, as this is Gmail, it might not really be her.

Don't forget that the managing editor of the Guardian knows Linda Mack personally from 13 years ago.

Don't forget that the managing editor of the Guardian knows Linda Mack personally from 13 years ago.

once again, SlimVirgin runs head-on into COI harm, and no one can do anything about it as she has COI-immunity on WP under the pretext of victimisation

Don't forget that the managing editor of the Guardian knows Linda Mack personally from 13 years ago.

So the article that SlimVirgin i.e. Linda Mack was a contributor/researcher for was about the Iran Contra affair? I wonder if she was regarded as CIA "contact" for journalists back in the 1990s? Wasn't there a connection between Carolyn Doran's ex husband and that scandal?

What I propose is not a strategic tack at all, since it has nothing to do with reaching any unilateral goal.

Ah! There's the rub. (or where our philosophies diverge).

I take the approach that strategy is primordial and politics are a means to an end. A necessary evil if you will towards a stated or implied objective.

As for unilateral goal..... I dont follow the term unilateral here. Unilateral goal implies that I (or whoever is making it) is foisting it on the other. Alternatives would be bilateral or multilateral, which imply cooperation towards an end. The operant word being "cooperation". And this again is where we diverge. I dont assume that everyone wants to cooperate with me towards my objectives, I assume moreover that most people don't care even to know what my objectives are, let along to have my point of view foisted upon them for discussion or ponderance.

In a game (or in a drama), each player (or character) has their own goal, which may be in direct opposition to the goal of an adversary, or even orthogonal to the goals of the other players. In a collaboration, two or more players agree to work on a common goal, in a non-interfering manner.

In our case, you have a goal that I neither oppose nor join in on.

My only concern is that anyone whose character is called into question -- be it friend or foe -- be afforded an equal opportunity to respond, if they so choose.

Don't forget that the managing editor of the Guardian knows Linda Mack personally from 13 years ago.

So the article that SlimVirgin i.e. Linda Mack was a contributor/researcher for was about the Iran Contra affair? I wonder if she was regarded as CIA "contact" for journalists back in the 1990s? Wasn't there a connection between Carolyn Doran's ex husband and that scandal?

OK, Carolyn Doran's former husband Sean H Doran who drowned on their honeymoon in 1999 served in the CIA in the mid-late 1990s, exactly the time that SlimVirgin was supposed to "hung around with the CIA crowd":

"served in the Air Force for 18 years, working in the field of weapons development and evaluation. In addition to stations in Florida, he served with the U.S. On-Site Inspection Team in Russia in support of the SALT agreements. He had served in the Washington area for the past five years and transferred to MIMA last year after being with the Central Intelligence Agency ."

Do we know the professions of Doran's former spouses Phillip Brown and ? Bothwell?

I think you should stop chewing on your aluminium foil hats. In large doses, aluminium is a neurotoxin and has been implicated in Alzheimer's dementia.

I wonder if any of Linda Mack's "friends" at Wikipedia have noticed that, without any exception that I know of, Linda has a nasty and vindictive attitude toward everyone she has ever worked or been associated with, years after the fact.

I think you should stop chewing on your aluminium foil hats. In large doses, aluminium is a neurotoxin and has been implicated in Alzheimer's dementia.

Are you denying that two people associated with the CIA have been involved in major Wikipedia scandals? If you think the intelligence agencies and governments wouldn't be interested in something that can manipulated at will then you obviously haven't thought very hard about it.

Are you guys not aware that: [/b] 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.

Lolololol Such papers wouldn't be so obliging as to write a 'smear' article if someone suggested it. They are a bit more reputable (and less lazy) than that and would have formed their own opinion based on the facts of the Hewitt person's words etc.

This is the Guardian. Even The Sun wouldn't do that- they'd mock the 'snitch' even more than the intended victim if they were more worthy of it.

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.

The bloke concerned oor his sympathisers willhave written their view of the article somewhere, and it could be included for the sake of NPOV, rather than both removed.

Lolololol Such papers wouldn't be so obliging as to write a 'smear' article if someone suggested it. They are a bit more reputable (and less lazy) than that and would have formed their own opinion based on the facts of the Hewitt person's words etc.

This is the Guardian. Even The Sun wouldn't do that- they'd mock the 'snitch' even more than the intended victim if they were more worthy of it.

Gosh. Reporters are human. And they have huge discretion over such things. The better ones use it wisely. This looks like one of the other cases. I don't think I've ever seen such a badly referenced article, and again, I hark back to journalism class in the 7th grade. As for the persons being reputable and not lazy, I suggest you show me one person's name in that article, to back up the insults she made. Not a one. Beyond this, the person suggested that Wikipedia rules were directly translatable to the real world, and extrapolated the COI provisions to presumptive "self aggrandizement", which was completely inappropriate and just.plain.wrong.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 20th December 2007, 1:13am

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.

Me too- journalists especially ones from reputable newspapers do not take kindly- and rightly so- to being accused of being that easily influenced. I will try and mail her now if no-one else will.

This is the Guardian. Even The Sun wouldn't do that- they'd mock the 'snitch' even more than the intended victim if they were more worthy of it.

You just don't get it do you. Wikipedia is not a pillory. To make matters worse the man can't answer on the page, and grown-up academic men don't send their "supporters" to go fight on chat pages - mind you, if they stooped so low, their supporters would be called "meatpuppets" and banned. You are supporting grade school bullying without right of recourse in a forum most inappropriate Madam. Are you the Jenny in question? If so, shame be upon you.

As for "what the Sun would do" or "What the Mirror would do" or "What the Guardian would do", please save that for another dicussion forum. I personally don't care much about comparative standards of practice of UK papers. We're talking about a particular case of how one man got slimed by a woman so awe-slorry by close contact with "famous people" or what have you, that she went gaga and wrote gaga.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 20th December 2007, 1:17am

[quote name='jorge' date='Wed 19th December 2007, 6:56pm' post='68415']

So the article that SlimVirgin i.e. Linda Mack was a contributor/researcher for was about the Iran Contra affair? I wonder if she was regarded as CIA "contact" for journalists back in the 1990s? Wasn't there a connection between Carolyn Doran's ex husband and that scandal?
[/quote]
OK, Carolyn Doran's former husband Sean H Doran who drowned on their honeymoon in 1999 served in the CIA in the mid-late 1990s, exactly the time that SlimVirgin was supposed to "hung around with the CIA crowd":

"served in the Air Force for 18 years, working in the field of weapons development and evaluation. In addition to stations in Florida, he served with the U.S. On-Site Inspection Team in Russia in support of the SALT agreements. He had served in the Washington area for the past five years and transferred to MIMA last year after being with the Central Intelligence Agency ."

Do we know the professions of Doran's former spouses Phillip Brown and ? Bothwell?
[/quote]

I really doubt thhat SlimVirgin is that influential in CIA circles. Wasn't she an agent that was accused of not being very good? And as her real-world identity has been uncovered, because she used her wiki name on her own university alumni page or whatever (doh!), I doubt such people will take her into their confidence or treat her as anything but a bit silly.

This thread is accusing the Guardian of being corrupt now!

Me too- journalists especially ones from reputable newspapers do not take kindly- and rightly so- to being accused of being that easily influenced. I will try and mail her now if no-one else will.

Personally, I think you might be her, or you might have met her at the Wikimeetup, so by all means, yes, inform her that she's written poorly and should retract. We all know the Guardian is reputable. That's not the point.