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

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 problem isn't the existence of the newspaper article, much less the question of whether or not the newspapers have and should continue to have the legal right to go to press (yes, obviously.) The problem is that Wikipedia baselessly and gratuitously attacks its own contributors and third parties alike, behavior that is, first of all, unbecoming for what was supposed to be a serious project, and second, for which they should be every bit as accountable as is any other publication (including less reputable ones.)

In this instance, a newspaper followed up on it (very naïvely) but Wikipedia is itself a high-profile publication, whether or not anyone else repeats what WP says. The technical point here is that WP can't cite itself in mainspace - but WP doesn't need a source to libel people on talk or in project pages, which had already been done. If WP started conducting itself honorably and responsibly, there would have been nothing to report.

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".

NOTE: My editing ability is all screwed up here. So sorry for the repost. This is the version I wanted. Something weird on my box wont let me edit.

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.

It's impossible to maintain that a discussion is "uncensored" when would-be participants are banned.

The problem isn't the existence of the newspaper article, much less the question of whether or not the newspapers have and should continue to have the legal right to go to press (yes, obviously.) The problem is that Wikipedia baselessly and gratuitously attacks its own contributors and third parties alike, behavior that is, first of all, unbecoming for what was supposed to be a serious project, and second, for which they should be every bit as accountable as is any other publication (including less reputable ones.)

EXACTLY. Whatever Wikipedia does has credibility, because it is so well known. So while it has horrific governance problems, it gets away with murder. Another word for "not accountable".

In this instance, a newspaper followed up on it (very naïvely)

And what a tool she was....

but Wikipedia is itself a high-profile publication, whether or not anyone else repeats what WP says.

And therefore when it gets publicized, the person is dually victimized.

AND DESPITE WHAT KOHS-TOBIAS think, a complaint would exacerbate the victimization. If you were a private person, you dont mind the notariety maybe. A professor sure would mind being called a "disruptive editor" and "self advertising". There are blogs online calling him "going senile" as a result of this balderdash. Really!

WP doesn't need a source to libel people on talk or in project pages, which had already been done.

EXACTLY

If WP started conducting itself honorably and responsibly, there would have been nothing to report.

EXACTLY

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 2:29am

I think there is a good story to be told here, but it needs some structuring to make it coherent.

Then, it needs to be framed as an example of the kind of unprofessionalism that pervades Wikipedia, and not as some isolated one-off misadventure.

Upthread, I inserted a note that I had independently alerted Mike Godwin to similar unprofessionalism with respect to other biographies of acadamics.

What's emerging is a pervasive pattern of abuse with multiple independent examples all occurring in parallel.

I'M JENNY KLEEMAN, I'M A JOURNALIST AND I LOVE WIKIPEDIA

• Wikipedia braces itself for April Fools' Day ...Jenny Kleeman: The online encyclopaedia anyone can edit has been the target of joke contributions since its launch in 2001, but April Fools' Day has proved ...
• You couldn’t make it up WIKIPEDIA MEETUP LONDON- Times Online Jenny Kleeman. How can you tell when you have arrived at a Wikipedia meet-up? Any of the groups in this busy London bar could be the people I am looking for ...
• NZ Herald jumps on the anti-Wikipedia bandwagon | AssignmentZeroWikipedia fights vandalism . 5:00AM Monday April 02, 2007 By Jenny Kleeman. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learned that, ...
  
• ... Wikipedia fights vandalism - 02 Apr 2007 - NZ Herald: Technology ...Wikipedia fights vandalism. Page 1 of 2 View as a single page 5:00AM Monday April 02, 2007 By Jenny Kleeman. Since his death, Steve Irwin's entry in the ...
• ... Tell us all about Wales and his work. | AssignmentZeroBy Jenny Kleeman. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learned that, as well as living in tropical coastal waters and ...
• Jenny Kleeman: Wikileaks - whistleblowing made easy | Media | The ...Jenny Kleeman; The Guardian; Monday September 17 2007 ... Wikileaks uses the same wiki technology as Wikipedia, so anyone can add to it, and boasts an extra ...
• Wiki wars The Observer Jenny Kleeman Sunday March 25, 2007 The Observer. If you looked up stingrays on Wikipedia last week, you would have learnt that, as well as living in ...

Most of Jenny Kleeman's work has been ridiculously pro Wikipedia- I wouldn't be surprised if she was an admin herself.

...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.

Then, take it even further. The longer that yellow journalism stays on Wikipedia, and the longer that the newspaper doesn't critique the Journalist Jenny who wrote it and print a retraction (or at least allow the professor a rebuttal of equal length and prominence)... the better his legal case is going to look to a trial jury. He could sue the newspaper and the Foundation.

Somebody, at some point, is going to have to seek justice the old-fashioned way -- in a courtroom. And when that happens, maybe we'll see some lasting changes implemented.

Greg

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.

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.

Nice thought. 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.

If she can't publicize how to contact her, is it our responsibility to keep searching and searching?

Greg

Then, take it even further. The longer that yellow journalism stays on Wikipedia, and the longer that the newspaper doesn't critique the Journalist Jenny who wrote it and print a retraction (or at least allow the professor a rebuttal of equal length and prominence)... the better his legal case is going to look to a trial jury.

Cue music track from Supertramp...... "Dreamer... nothing but a dreamer.... when you put your hands in your head oh no.... oh no....."....

Greg. Court cases don't erase damaged reputations. And they are not an evident outcome of any such situation.

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.

Oh CRY me a river.

Let her read it and complain.

We'll whine about her AFTER Hewitt gets an Op-ed and retraction in the Guardian, deal?

Upthread, I inserted a note that I had independently alerted Mike Godwin to similar unprofessionalism with respect to other biographies of acadamics.

ROFL. Mike Godwin?

Didnt you read his article in the New York Times? He thinks that anyone who gets anything printed in the newspapers about them is fair game. Tough beans.

He doesnt care about bios of academics. NOT ONE BIT.

(recues Supertramp) "Det det det det det det DREAMER..... nothing but a DREAMER...."

Nice thought. 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.

Sweet Lord. Write the Editor of the Guardian and ask them to give Hewitt a voice. Not to ask this silly lassie to justify her unsourced attack.

If she can't publicize how to contact her, is it our responsibility to keep searching and searching?

Greg

You guys are suffering from a case of "nauseatingly nice and naiive" disease of AGF overdoes. And you are dealing with very, very not nice people.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 3:19am

Greg, she writes for the Business Section, so you could route the message to the Business Editor, business.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk. Ultimately, they are responsible for what she writes.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 19th December 2007, 3:37am

Greg, she writes for the Business Section, so you could route the message to the Business Editor, business.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk. Ultimately, they are responsible for what she writes.

Why are you so worried about this woman? She's not going to be impressed by you guys. She is in obvious starstruck awe of Jimbo and the cabal, and she will be unimpressed.

If you want to make an impression, write a letter to the editor.

Please address your concerns to the EDITOR, and not to her. This is better politics. Someone needs to confront this woman on her lack of COI, if you will. She wont do it herself.

Please dont suffer from nicey nice. This is not good politics. Or winning politics, if you will....

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 3:48am

She may decline to respond, but given that her reputation has been called into question here, we have an ethical responsibility to offer her a chance to respond here, in the venue where her professionalism has been cast in a negative light.

She may decline to respond, but given that her reputation has been called into question here, we have an ethical responsibility to offer her a chance to respond here, in the venue where her professionalism has been cast in a negative light.

Nonsense. This is a chat board. You owe her nothing. This is drama making stuff.

And since she didnt give the Professor the benefit of the doubt sufficient to a) Looking into the matter beyond what she was told and Knowing that wikipedia terminology is not real world verbiage.... you are NOT going to get a warm reception.

Really, your efforts are better focused on getting an alternative message out, then arguing with a ... Starstruck Lackey™.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 3:46am

It doesn't matter. We have an ethical obligation to extend to her the courtesy to respond.

It doesn't matter. We have an ethical obligation to extend to her the courtesy to respond.

Write your letter to the Business Editor (Or new editor of the Observer, John Mulholland, who is replacing Roger Alton this month) if you want any sort of voice. Otherwise, Id forget it.

Roger Alton looks like he "stepped down" in some disagreement. I'd call this number and ask how to reach John Mulholland. To arrange an interview, please contact: Diane Heath 011 44 20 7239 9936


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 3:53am

I'm not interested in writing a letter to the editor for publication there.

I'm interested in making sure that we are treating other people fairly, especially people some of us may not happen to be very fond of.

I'm not interested in writing a letter to the editor for publication there.

I'm interested in making sure that we are treating other people fairly, especially people some of us may not happen to be very fond of.

Sigh.

Those people are doing just FINE. Why not worry about the disenfranchised, who are suffering?

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.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 19th December 2007, 4:07am

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.