|
Slimvirgin gets slashdotted, No place to hide... |
|
|
JohnA |
|
Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined:
Member No.: 313
|
Link to slashdot[ QUOTE "International Humanitarian Law professor Ludwig Braeckeleer thinks so. In an article published yesterday in the Korean newspaper OhMyNews, he reveals a discovery he made while researching a story on the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland. It turns out that a Wikipedia administrator named SlimVirgin is actually Linda Mack, a woman who as a young graduate in the 1980s was hired by investigative reporter Pierre Salinger of ABC News to help with the investigation. Salinger later came to believe that Mack was actually working for Britain's MI5 on a mission to investigate the bombing and to infiltrate and monitor the news agency. Shortly after her Wikipedia identity was uncovered, many of her edits to articles related to the bombing were permanently removed from the database in an attempt to conceal her identity. This discovery comes only months after another Wikipedia admin was caught lying about his credentials to the press. What can Wikipedia do about those who would use it for their own purposes?" Bring popcorn. This one could get interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sun 29th July 2007, 11:06pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 30th July 2007, 1:21pm) QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 27th July 2007, 9:44pm) Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.
Can you prove that by anything that remains on file here? Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) Prove what? That we've been linked from the main article as being the people responsible? That we've got dozens of posts about SlimVirgin? What proof do you require? The last time I searched the Wikipedia Review for "Mack" — it was a couple weeks ago — all I got was a few of my own sideways allusions to "loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through". All of the detailed legwork by DB and others on the subject had been "redacted" by our "moderators". Obviously there have been some additional 2nd hand and 3rd hand references in the mean time — for the moment — but the primary data has been disappeared so far as I can see. Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 29th July 2007, 10:22pm) All of the detailed legwork by DB and others on the subject had been "redacted" by our "moderators". ... Obviously there have been some additional 2nd hand and 3rd hand references in the mean time — for the moment — but the primary data has been disappeared so far as I can see. I disagree. Simply removing the name(s) doesn't invalidate the rest of the information presented in those posts, it only makes it harder for people to check it for accuracy, since they have to follow the same path "we" did - i.e., not track it backwards from the name to the evidence. It's quite possible that I've been wrong about this whole thing from the get-go, but my impression was that the purpose of our not respecting the privacy of anonymous Wikipedians was to show them that there's a difference - a huge difference, in fact - between being talked about negatively as a pseudonym and being talked about negatively as yourself. If that had any motivational effect at all on their decision to relax their BLP deletion policy, then it was worth it - even if we ended up being labeled a "hate site" or an "attack site" for it, or whatever they're calling us these days. In this case, we tried to follow suit as best we could when they changed their policy, ever-so-slight as the change was. I should also add that I was rather P.O.'d about the fact that Ludwig Braeckeleer chose to misquote the postings here as they stood, and currently stand - instead of leaving the words "name redacted" in there verbatim, he changed them to "name redacted but known to be..." (you-know-who, I'm just trying to make less work for myself later on). That struck me as irresponsible, if not downright rotten, especially for a supposedly bona fide academic and journalist. Ultimately though, among the many things we can't control here is the sheer degree of anger and resentment people bear towards SlimVirgin and her allies for all the things they've done on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that so many people are inspired by that anger and resentment, but it doesn't automatically make the allegations untrue or their actions unjustified. At the same time, though, the question remains: Why is it necessary to keep repeating the real name of a person when what you really should be criticizing is the system that makes it possible for that person to do bad things, and even be rewarded for them? Talking about the person to such an extent only makes it easier for everyone to blame everything specifically on the person, not the institution.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th July 2007, 11:15pm) I should also add that I was rather P.O.'d about the fact that Ludwig Braeckeleer chose to misquote the postings here as they stood, and currently stand - instead of leaving the words "name redacted" in there verbatim, he changed them to "name redacted but known to be..." (you-know-who, I'm just trying to make less work for myself later on). That struck me as irresponsible, if not downright rotten, especially for a supposedly bona fide academic and journalist.
I think it was perfectly proper of for Ludwig Braeckeleer to do this. He has his insert inside of brackets, which every literate person understands is separate from the quotation. What the hell was he supposed to do? The only alternative would have been to skip the WR information entirely. Without those two names, it is hardly worth reading. Perhaps he could have quoted the geocities page, but that doesn't have as much prestige as this site, since it is published anonymously and is apparently a one-person effort. Here is the relevant paragraph from Ludwig's article, where he is quoting John K. Cooley: QUOTE Salinger came to believe that [first name redacted but known to be Linda] was working for [name of intelligence agency redacted but known to be Britain's MI5] and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us.
If you are pissed at Ludwig for doing this, then Cooley has the right to be pissed at you for editing his quote. (That's just an abstract comment — in fact, Cooley sent me that email and I made the decision to post it. He didn't ask me not to, so I did it without asking him for permission.) This is the problem: By trying to be nice to Wikipedia, we redact names and we have been keeping search engines out of the Editors forum (the latter was happening before Somey came on board, and all of us failed to object, mostly because we weren't fully aware of it). All we end up accomplishing by doing this is to risk making ourselves irrelevant in the real world. If I didn't feel that the main purpose of this Board is to juxtapose Wikipedia against real-world ethical and informational standards, using real-world evidence, I would have lost interest a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 30th July 2007, 2:08am) QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th July 2007, 11:15pm) I should also add that I was rather P.O.'d about the fact that Ludwig Braeckeleer chose to misquote the postings here as they stood, and currently stand - instead of leaving the words "name redacted" in there verbatim, he changed them to "name redacted but known to be ..." (you-know-who, I'm just trying to make less work for myself later on). That struck me as irresponsible, if not downright rotten, especially for a supposedly bona fide academic and journalist.
I think it was perfectly proper of for Ludwig Braeckeleer to do this. He has his insert inside of brackets, which every literate person understands is separate from the quotation. What the hell was he supposed to do? The only alternative would have been to skip the WR information entirely. Without those two names, it is hardly worth reading. Perhaps he could have quoted the geocities page, but that doesn't have as much prestige as this site, since it is published anonymously and is apparently a one-person effort. Here is the relevant paragraph from Ludwig's article, where he is quoting John K. Cooley: QUOTE Salinger came to believe that [first name redacted but known to be Linda] was working for [name of intelligence agency redacted but known to be Britain's MI5] and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us.
If you are pissed at Ludwig for doing this, then Cooley has the right to be pissed at you for editing his quote. (That's just an abstract comment — in fact, Cooley sent me that email and I made the decision to post it. He didn't ask me not to, so I did it without asking him for permission.) This is the problem: By trying to be nice to Wikipedia, we redact names and we have been keeping search engines out of the Editors forum (the latter was happening before Somey came on board, and all of us failed to object, mostly because we weren't fully aware of it). All we end up accomplishing by doing this is to risk making ourselves irrelevant in the real world. If I didn't feel that the main purpose of this Board is to juxtapose Wikipedia against real-world ethical and informational standards, using real-world evidence, I would have lost interest a long time ago. Good example. The no-wake plodders of the Podunk Picayune Presses who we ridicule for being so slow off the mark about the facts of Wikipediot life neverthless follow the rules of real world journalism — of saying what they know and how well they know it — and so they are bound to overtake any Ace Achilles who heels to the hare-brained infantasies of Wikipediot Arbnormality. My question is: Should I censor my references to "loopholes big enough to drive a [name redacted] truck through" by substituting "Peterbilt" for [name redacted] or would it be better to say "Dickbilt" intead? Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 30th July 2007, 6:50am) Should I censor my references to "loopholes big enough to drive a [name redacted] truck through" by substituting "Peterbilt" for [name redacted] or would it be better to say "Dickbilt" intead? If you really think the Peterbilt Corporation would be seriously harmed by your reference to their company name, and you feel that there are people who might be associated with the Peterbilt Corporation who might be harmed as a result, then why not? After all, the truck manufacturer isn't all that important to the context of that sentence, is it? Look, Jon, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we should follow WP's rules or allow ourselves to be guilt-tripped into treating their higher-ups like fragile little flowers who will blow away at the slightest breeze of criticism. Redacting the names was a moral decision, but it was also an experiment. And regardless of the tangible results of the experiment (i.e., nada), we nevertheless learned something from it - namely, that Wikipedia isn't going to publicly acknowledge or support any efforts we make on their behalf as regards privacy. For the most part, they either don't care, or are secretly cheering us on. The fact that they didn't support us is suggestive not only of their enmity for us, but of their enmity for SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and the rest of their crew. I suspect the number of people who would like to see those people leave Wikipedia forever is vastly greater than we thought. Meanwhile, there's plenty of nasty and speculative stuff here that doesn't get censored, if you know where to look for it. But as for the stuff that does, I understand that I'm going to be seen as the Mean Old Censorship Lady in certain cases, and I accept that... Just remember that on some level, bringing down Wikipedia -- which some of us would love to see happen, as unrealistic a goal as that is -- could in some ways be the single greatest act of censorship in human history. Seen from that perspective, a few real names aren't really that big a deal, are they?
|
|
|
|
Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 30th July 2007, 12:21pm) Look, Jon, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we should follow WP's rules or allow ourselves to be guilt-tripped into treating their higher-ups like fragile little flowers who will blow away at the slightest breeze of criticism. Redacting the names was a moral decision, but it was also an experiment. And regardless of the tangible results of the experiment (i.e., nada), we nevertheless learned something from it - namely, that Wikipedia isn't going to acknowledge or support any efforts we make on their behalf as regards privacy. For the most part, they either don't care, or are secretly cheering us on. The fact that they didn't support us is suggestive not only of their enmity for us, but of their enmity for SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and the rest of their crew. I suspect the number of people who would like to see those people leave Wikipedia forever is vastly greater than we thought.
Meanwhile, there's plenty of nasty and speculative stuff here that doesn't get censored, if you know where to look for it. But as for the stuff that does, I understand that I'm going to be seen as the Mean Old Censorship Lady in certain cases, and I accept that. Just remember that on some level, bringing down Wikipedia -- which some of us would love to see happen, as unrealistic a goal as that is — could in some ways be the single greatest act of censorship in human history. Seen from that perspective, a few real names aren't really that big a deal, are they?
What has happened is that "moderators" of The Wikipedia Review have overstepped the bounds of "moderation". They have done this in a way that violates one of the principles that made the Review what it was, namely, a place where contributors took personal reponsibility for what they wrote. This means that The Wikipedia Review, unlike Wikipedia, had no Editorial Point Of View (EPOV). This means that The Wikipedia Review, unlike Wikipedia, was free of the dogmatic distortion that requires Wikipediots to disguise their EPOV as the one and only NPOV. The minute that we abandon this principle, the minute that "moderators" arrogate to themselves the role of Editors In Chief, we become nothing more than Yet Another King/Queen Of The Hill Soapbox (YAK/QOTHS), like Wikipedia. Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
JohnA Slimvirgin gets slashdotted GlassBeadGame
Link to slashdot[
Bring popcorn. This one could g... Infoboy ATTACK SITE AIR RAID!
Wow. GoodFaith
ATTACK SITE AIR RAID!
Wow.
File an RFC -NO... Kato Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist name... JohnA
Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist nam... GoodFaith
Here we see the full fruits of Slimvirgin's ... CrazyGameOfPoker
Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist nam... JohnA We have our first winner!
B) Infoboy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid... Infoboy How long until we see an article called [[SlimVirg... Daniel Brandt
How long until we see an article called [[SlimVir... Kato
Either that, or sometime between 1994 and 2005 sh... dtobias
A new low for Slashdot
(Score:2)
by jwales (97533... GoodFaith Why are these people so obsessed with Lyndon Larou... Kato According to WP's own article on Slashdot (whi... GlassBeadGame
According to WP's own article on Slashdot (wh... BobbyBombastic JUST A PARANOID ANNOUNCEMENT:
Save everything tha... FNORD23 LOL ! I knew this was going to spread like wil... LamontStormstar
I disagree. Simply removing the name(s) doesn... Somey Doesn't it violate GDFL?
I suppose it might, i... LamontStormstar
Doesn't it violate GDFL?
I suppose it might, ... Jonny Cache
[quote name='Jonny Cache' post='39357' date='Sun ... Somey Since I have myself recited the standard cautions ... Somey What has happened is that "moderators" o... GlassBeadGame
Meanwhile, there's plenty of nasty and spec... Somey Still, to the degree that redaction is a burden on... blissyu2 This is my post here. My first ever post to Slash... everyking Doesn't look like she's going to be able t... badlydrawnjeff
Doesn't look like she's going to be able ... Nathan And now, I've blogged it too under the subject... Daniel Brandt On the Wikipedia mailing list, they are arguing ab... blissyu2 Selina kept a lot of information, but Selina sadly... Daniel Brandt
Selina kept a lot of information, but Selina sadl... WordBomb If anyone has an old dump of Wikipedia, they might... Daniel Brandt
I'll try to find some way to make a manageabl... LamontStormstar
I'll try to find some way to make a manageab... Daniel Brandt
What about her two main meatpuppets (that some ha... BobbyBombastic Hmm, well wikien-l should be required reading here... blissyu2 Well, if it is Wikipedia Review's fault, then ... Daniel Brandt
Actually, there is a law in many countries that t... BobbyBombastic
We did put out an awful lot of information which ... Infoboy 92 Blogs and counting:
http://blogsearch.google.c... Disillusioned Lackey Regular Wikipedians are mocking her
== Guess who... everyking
92 Blogs and counting:
http://blogsearch.google.... Nathan
92 Blogs and counting:
[url=http://blogsearch.go... Infoboy http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781...ed... Cedric
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781...ed... WordBomb
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781...ed... Somey I remember the MC5, led by guitarist Wayne Kramer,... Daniel Brandt
We all have to remember that this has occurred as... blissyu2 It's still relatively slow going. It is yet t... WordBomb This would explain why, though the world sleeps, a... Nathan I couldn't resist.
I probably could've sa... WordBomb
I couldn't resist.
I probably could've s... JohnA RE: Slimvirgin gets slashdotted groody Oh my word. SlimVirgin had an agenda to push? Bu... blissyu2 Perhaps someone will write a book on SlimVirgin on... badlydrawnjeff See, I feel like that's the most damning part ... Daniel Brandt
I mean, there are far, far worse administrators a... blissyu2 Here's some problems with SlimVirgin's use... JohnA
Quite frankly, who gives a shit if Snowspinner is... A Man In Black
Here's some problems with SlimVirgin's us... LamontStormstar
[quote name='blissyu2' post='39114' date='Sat 28t... guy
Outside of the accusations of cabalism and articl... badlydrawnjeff So, I mean, what's the point, then? That she ... BobbyBombastic now on digg 856 diggs right now
ElinorD doesn... LamontStormstar
[url=http://digg.com/tech_news/Are_Intelligence_A... guy
Jayjg or somebody will claim something like sayin... Poetlister
Clearly Oleg (who is a mathematician) is in fact ... LamontStormstar
Clearly Oleg (who is a mathematician) is in fact... blissyu2
now on digg 856 diggs right now
ElinorD doesn... Infoboy
[quote name='BobbyBombastic' post='39186' date='S... Infoboy What we really, really need are the oversighted ed... blissyu2
What we really, really need are the oversighted e... everyking Have any of the higher-ups been spotted acknowledg... LamontStormstar
Have any of the higher-ups been spotted acknowled... Nathan Oh, no, of course not, Voldemort isn't alive... blissyu2 We've only redacted her real name, not the con... Jonny Cache
We've only redacted her real name, not the co... Somey
I think it was perfectly proper of for Ludwig Bra... LamontStormstar
I meant Wikipedia hiding several months of contri... The Adversary On another note: shouldn´t we do some more rese... blissyu2
On another note: shouldn´t we do some more res... BobbyBombastic here is something interesting
http://lists.wiki... Jonny Cache To the best of my recollection, we are talking abo... Somey [i]To the best of my recollection, we are talking ... Jonny Cache Let me explain it this way.
I am simply not going... GlassBeadGame
Let me explain it this way.
I am simply not goin... Jonny Cache
[quote name='Jonny Cache' post='39458' date='Mon ... Somey I am simply not going to waste my time contributin... LamontStormstar
And no, it wouldn't invalidate the license ju... Daniel Brandt Two reprints of the Ohmynews piece appeared today ... Jonny Cache If the moderators, custodians, whatever of this Fo... JohnA
If the moderators, custodians, [i]whatever of thi... Robster From Dictionary.com - and I refer you to #8:
Th... Jonny Cache
From Dictionary.com — and I refer you to #... Nathan I'd agree, we're all a community in the se... blissyu2 Awww but I feel like this is my home on the intern... Infoboy If everyone here says its a community, but one per... Nathan 1,724 Diggs and counting. Joseph100 All of this make me recall a poem from my
much you... Infoboy Check the first link here:
http://news.google.com... blissyu2
Check the first link here:
[url=http://news.goog... dtobias
And perhaps specifically this letter to the edito... Viridae
I'll try to find some way to make a manageab... blissyu2 What posts were edited? I think its only ever don... BobbyBombastic it seems like this thread has veered a little and ... blissyu2
it seems like this thread has veered a little and... Jonny Cache Though it sounds very likely from what I've re... blissyu2 And that's the thing. If they created an arti... blissyu2 These are all my replies:
http://yro.slashdot.org... guy If anyome writes an article on Linda Mack, they... Infoboy
If anyome writes an article on Linda Mack, they... blissyu2 I just noticed this post to the mailing list:
htt... blissyu2 I still think that the best way to do it is to put...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |