An uncharacteristic blunder, in the heat of the moment, Slim drops her guard Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The normal ownership of the LaRouche articles by Slim and Will Beback has undergone an unusual degree of scrutiny lately. Slim 'n' Will did manage to ban two interlopers, but others remain who are editing their articles and it is making them very cranky.

One of the controversies is whether LaRouche should be called an "economist" in the lede of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Both sides of this argument consider it to be a no-brainer. In hope of tilting things her way, Slim launched a RfC, which produced no consensus, and looked like this after a week. Then, suddenly, a flood of new "oppose" votes came in. Why? Well, it appears that SV posted a notice here, and here, and here, and last but not least, here -- obviously, if you want a neutral assessment of LaRouche as an economist, the very first place you would go would be the Fringe Theories Noticeboard.

Now, here we see Jayen drawing the conclusion from the above posts that Slim could be canvassing. This is complicated by the fact that each and every one of her multiply-posted solicitations contains a serious misstatement of the facts, what crude and uncouth persons might refer to as a "lie": she asserts that LaRouche "has never been employed or independently published as [an economist]." Now, Slim does this sort of thing a lot, but normally on matters that can't be checked for veracity. This one was an exception. Has she lost her touch?

BTW, this is adorable.

[Emperor]

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend to much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs like Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

SlimVirgin should be commended for taking on this thankless task.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend so much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs who spell the word “lead” as “lede”.

I don't know where SlimVirgin stands on this issue, so I'll just let that go till I do.

Seriously, folks, get the “lede” out.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[thekohser]

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend too much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs like Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

SlimVirgin should be commended for taking on this thankless task.

How do you know Slim is a "volunteer"? Someone who spends that much time -- fervently -- on Wikipedia, defending laser-focused agendas, is likely a paid editor.

[Emperor]

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend so much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs who spell the word “lead” as “lede”.

I don't know where SlimVirgin stands on this issue, so I'll just let that go till I do.

Seriously, folks, get the “lede” out.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Good job.

[Emperor]

I think it's really sad that Wikipedia's volunteer editors have to spend too much of their time defending their encyclopedia against nutjobs like Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

SlimVirgin should be commended for taking on this thankless task.

How do you know Slim is a "volunteer"? Someone who spends that much time -- fervently -- on Wikipedia, defending laser-focused agendas, is likely a paid editor.

Could be.,

[Sxeptomaniac]

How do you know Slim is a "volunteer"? Someone who spends that much time -- fervently -- on Wikipedia, defending laser-focused agendas, is likely a paid editor.

Must be, because it's so incredibly rare for people to spend massive amounts of time on the internet unless they get paid for that purpose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[dtobias]

"Lede" is actually a term used in journalism, with that spelling, though it does derive from "lead". Supposedly the spelling was changed in the old days to avoid confusion with the metal "lead" of which movable type was made.

[thekohser]

How do you know Slim is a "volunteer"? Someone who spends that much time -- fervently -- on Wikipedia, defending laser-focused agendas, is likely a paid editor.

Must be, because it's so incredibly rare for people to spend massive amounts of time on the internet unless they get paid for that purpose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Touché!

.........Me...........................................You............
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

How do you know Slim is a "volunteer"? Someone who spends that much time -- fervently -- on Wikipedia, defending laser-focused agendas, is likely a paid editor.

Must be, because it's so incredibly rare for people to spend massive amounts of time on the internet unless they get paid for that purpose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

For paid editors, I think union regulations prohibit 72-hour editing stints. There must be some other motivation at work.

[Sxeptomaniac]

How do you know Slim is a "volunteer"? Someone who spends that much time -- fervently -- on Wikipedia, defending laser-focused agendas, is likely a paid editor.

Must be, because it's so incredibly rare for people to spend massive amounts of time on the internet unless they get paid for that purpose. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

For paid editors, I think union regulations prohibit 72-hour editing stints. There must be some other motivation at work.

While it's entirely possible that she received money for editing, it seems unlikely that anyone would subject themselves to that just for a job. Also, I would imagine any editor actually paid to do so would probably keep a lower profile.

Really, it all goes far more towards the WP-as-MMO theory, as her behavior is much more in line with a WOW addict than a paid shill.

[Milton Roe]

"Lede" is actually a term used in journalism, with that spelling, though it does derive from "lead". Supposedly the spelling was changed in the old days to avoid confusion with the metal "lead" of which movable type was made.

Yep. Lede is one of those words where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, spell it in the journalistic shibboleth way. I've taken to writing it "lede/lead" to avoid just the kind of supercillious (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) argument we just had.

[radek]

The normal ownership of the LaRouche articles by Slim and Will Beback has undergone an unusual degree of scrutiny lately. Slim 'n' Will did manage to ban two interlopers, but others remain who are editing their articles and it is making them very cranky.

One of the controversies is whether LaRouche should be called an "economist" in the lede of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Both sides of this argument consider it to be a no-brainer. In hope of tilting things her way, Slim launched a RfC, which produced no consensus, and looked like this after a week. Then, suddenly, a flood of new "oppose" votes came in. Why? Well, it appears that SV posted a notice here, and here, and here, and last but not least, here -- obviously, if you want a neutral assessment of LaRouche as an economist, the very first place you would go would be the Fringe Theories Noticeboard.

Now, here we see Jayen drawing the conclusion from the above posts that Slim could be canvassing. This is complicated by the fact that each and every one of her multiply-posted solicitations contains a serious misstatement of the facts, what crude and uncouth persons might refer to as a "lie": she asserts that LaRouche "has never been employed or independently published as [an economist]." Now, Slim does this sort of thing a lot, but normally on matters that can't be checked for veracity. This one was an exception. Has she lost her touch?

BTW, this is adorable.

I saw Slim's post at WikiProject:Economics and commented. Then Jayen posted on my talk page arguing for me to reconsider - he also posted on other people's talk pages. Both are canvassing. But as I said before, there's nothing wrong with canvassing (WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest wikipedia policies in existence, as I've argued before) - and in fact, in real world one is usually commended for helping to inform potentially interested parties. I'm an interested party. I appreciated Slim making me aware of the discussion. I also appreciated Jayen providing the additional information on my talk - I am about to go get that AER book review article and will check up on it. This kind of "canvassing" just makes for better decision making. I see no problem with either.

As to the merits of the matter, as an economist I'm naturally going to be extremely skeptical of calling LaRouche "an economist" and so far I have not seen any sufficient sources to do that - the AER thing may be different though. My only encounter with the economics of the guy was when I read a column of his in that newspaper of his once while bored at a bus stop or something and it did seem like nonsense, AFAICR. My sense of it is that something like that is better discussed in the text rather featured prominently in the lede. There, "economic commentator" should suffice. I'm trying to keep an open mind though.

(Edit: Just checked AER. It's not a book review but rather just an advertisement in the "Back matter" section, nothing more)

This post has been edited by radek:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

But as I said before, there's nothing wrong with canvassing (WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest wikipedia policies in existence, as I've argued before) - and in fact, in real world one is usually commended for helping to inform potentially interested parties.

I think the objectionable part is surreptitious canvassing intended to pad the consensus with one's own partisans.

[radek]

But as I said before, there's nothing wrong with canvassing (WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest wikipedia policies in existence, as I've argued before) - and in fact, in real world one is usually commended for helping to inform potentially interested parties.

I think the objectionable part is surreptitious canvassing intended to pad the consensus with one's own partisans.

Yeah well, that means that either
1. The other side is lazy - i.e. they don't really care that much about the issue in question or
2. One side has a lot more "partisans" than the other, hence they are the majority.

Same as in real world. Since when do we object to, say, political parties trying to motivate their supporters to go out and vote in elections? Since when do we object to interested parties making community members aware of an important town meeting? If somebody's building a waste dump a few blocks from my house, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the anti-waste dumping people to make me aware of that fact.

This post has been edited by radek:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If somebody's building a waste dump a few blocks from my house, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the anti-waste dumping people to make me aware of that fact.

How would you feel about the people who are building the dump stacking a hearing with pro-dumping people, without letting people in your neighborhood know about the hearing? Just asking.

[radek]

If somebody's building a waste dump a few blocks from my house, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the anti-waste dumping people to make me aware of that fact.

How would you feel about the people who are building the dump stacking a hearing with pro-dumping people, without letting people in your neighborhood know about the hearing? Just asking.

Well, I wouldn't like it, but I would want to know why the anti-dumping people dropped the ball on that one. Arguing for one's opinion is called "persuasion". Provided that there was no legal limits to participation or other shenanigans of that type (say, tearing down posters of the anti-dumping people announcing the meeting) I'd probably lay the blame on the anti-dumping folks here - the problem would be not one of too much canvassing but too little of it.

What usually happens in real world situations of this type is that the other side says "we waz shut out we need to have another meeting", another meeting is called and now both sides do the canvassing. I think it should be the same way on Wikipedia. If someone thinks only one side got canvassed they should raise the point of discussion again, and canvass the editors they feel are appropriate. That's not applicable in this instance since both sides WERE already canvassing.

This post has been edited by radek:

[Milton Roe]

But as I said before, there's nothing wrong with canvassing (WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest wikipedia policies in existence, as I've argued before) - and in fact, in real world one is usually commended for helping to inform potentially interested parties.

I think the objectionable part is surreptitious canvassing intended to pad the consensus with one's own partisans.

Yeah well, that means that either
1. The other side is lazy - i.e. they don't really care that much about the issue in question or
2. One side has a lot more "partisans" than the other, hence they are the majority.

Same as in real world. Since when do we object to, say, political parties trying to motivate their supporters to go out and vote in elections? Since when do we object to interested parties making community members aware of an important town meeting? If somebody's building a waste dump a few blocks from my house, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the anti-waste dumping people to make me aware of that fact.

Yes, let's just agree that WP:CANVASS is one more "mad belief" that WP'ians are supposed to beleive, when it's clearly nuts. As also WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and so on. In all political and social systems there are clearly mad beliefs that you're not supposed to question. WP simply has as many as most religions, but not quite as many as most governments.

Example: here in the US, it's considered not unethical, and indeed expected and part of the job, for a prison guard to shoot a prisoner who is trying to escape and won't stop running. Even if the person is in prison for burglary or marijuana possession or a number of crimes where even a policeman wouldn't allowed to shoot an escaping criminal when caught in the very act that landed them in prison in the first place!

So why is this? Well, it's because we're mad. If you argue that it's because the prison guard can't tell the violent from the non-violent felons, that only argues that the two types shouldn't be housed together in the first place in prison, not that they should so that it creates additional problems in dealing with them when they try to escape. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) It' just crazy, and yet we do not question it. There are dozens of other examples, often not seen, unless a person travels from one society to another. Old-timers get so used to this stuff that they no longer even question it.

[EricBarbour]

Yes, let's just agree that WP:CANVASS is one more "mad belief" that WP'ians are supposed to beleive, when it's clearly nuts. As also WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and so on. In all political and social systems there are clearly mad beliefs that you're not supposed to question. WP simply has as many as most religions, but not quite as many as most governments.

Don't quite agree. Wikipedia shows beliefs that go far beyond mere madness---it has beliefs that
are clearly paranoid, violently hostile to outsiders, completely irrational and unjustified by evidence,
and engraved in stone. Try reading some of the crap posted on SPI on a regular basis. It's not there
to "improve" the "encyclopedia", it's there to sniff out and expose witches and demons. Using tools
that are no more accurate or reliable than a ducking stool.

If that's not a "cult", the word has no real meaning.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Sticking to her normal MO, Slim stayed out of all the discussions over the article, waited until they died down, and then spent a couple of hours today reverting it back to the way she likes it, with the usual misleading edit summaries. However, Jayen is an intelligent and persistent opponent. He is raising the BLP issues in an insightful way. Slim, of course, does not give a rat's ass about BLP (except when the policy aligns with her POV.) Slim's view is that the article should reflect and amplify the views of LaRouche's critics, because they represent the correct POV. It's simple enough.

Here's a beautiful example of POV-drenched writing:

Mexican journalist Sergio Sarmiento wrote in the ''Wall Street Journal'' in 1989 that LaRouche's Labor Party in Mexico was used to attack the country's opposition; LaRouche members alleged that the National Action Party (PAN) were agents of the KGB, and later produced a pamphlet that "a vote for PAN is a vote for Nazism." When leaders of the Mexico Oil Workers' Union were jailed—corrupt leaders, according to Sarmiento—LaRouche said the union had been attacked by the Anglo-American Liberal Establishment, controlled by Scottish Rite Freemasonry. According to Jose I. Blandon, an adviser to [[Manuel Noriega]]—the military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989—LaRouche had ties to Noriega, and according to Sarmiento, LaRouche members had harassed the opposition in Lima, Peru, in support of President [[Alan García]].

Translation: LaRouche-affiliated organizations reportedly supported the the PRI and the labor movement in Mexico, Noriega in Panama, and Garcia in Peru. That's what an encyclopedia would say. One amusing touch is since it isn't credible to call Alan Garcia a "military dictator," then it is not sufficient to say that the LaRouche activists "supported" him -- they must be said to be "harassing the opposition."