Joshua Zelinsky: The Video, How the heck did we miss this? Options

I think he has a point, actually, in that when somebody intentionally involves themself in the public sphere, they inherently become, to some extent, fair game for commentary and criticism. I believe this in an evenhanded manner, meaning that it applies to Wikipedia bigshots and their critics alike.

Isn't that one of the Wikipedia problems though, they enjoy confusing commentary and criticism with privacy. As a simple example, challenging Slim on her editing on Wikipedia becomes stalking; challenge her ownership of Wikipedia, that is a personal attack. By confusing these issues, there is little ability for reasoned debate.

Is it possible that this video is meant as a joke? No offense to Josh if this is what he's really like, but it seems like a very over the top nerd portrayal.

The references to obscure mathematics like the cardinality of infinity seem to be coming from direct personal familiarity, not a memorized script.

The references to obscure mathematics like the cardinality of infinity seem to be coming from direct personal familiarity, not a memorized script.

I agree. He mumbles the arcane stuff rather than calls deliberate attention to it. Plus that generalized motor agitation looks real to me, but maybe he just had to pee.

I think he has a point, actually, in that when somebody intentionally involves themself in the public sphere, they inherently become, to some extent, fair game for commentary and criticism.

Commentary and criticism are one thing - a biography, written without the person's knowledge or consent, and claiming to be "neutral" but nevertheless subject to administrative caprice and anonymous public editing in general... is quite another. Not to mention the Google rankings!

I believe this in an evenhanded manner, meaning that it applies to Wikipedia bigshots and their critics alike.

Okay, but this second sentence doesn't seem to follow from the first...? Are you saying the WP big shots and critics themselves are fair game? If so, then that may be well be the case - but someone has to actually write the article first, and then convince them not to delete it.

I think he has a point, actually, in that when somebody intentionally involves themself in the public sphere, they inherently become, to some extent, fair game for commentary and criticism. I believe this in an evenhanded manner, meaning that it applies to Wikipedia bigshots and their critics alike.

He does have a point, but with a critical flaw: the trouble here is that WF is playing a legal game to avoid responsibility for what it publishes, and correspondingly hasn't developed any reliable mechanism for the quality control which would accompany this responsibility.

You may recall that the American tabloids got themselves in a heap of trouble (countable in dollars) for libelous coverage of entertainment figures. But even at their worst, the best-known tabloids are far more reliable than Wikipedia (a few are even downright trustworthy, even if their subject matter seems lowbrow.)

It's not that public figures have a generic right not to be written about - they don't. It's that Wikipedia's approach is uniquely heinous in its contempt for established principles of journalistic responsibility.

For example, if someone decides to create a giant billboard above the Hollywood freeway, upon which any random person may write in appropriately large letters anything they wish about Barbra Streisand, and the billboard owner denies responsibility for anything which appears there, however libelous, while dutifully maintaining the billboard itself, the law may well decide that it ought to be taken down. That's not equivalent to saying that one don't have the right to publish things about Barbra Streisand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=176902386

I'd rather not have this DRV now but if we're going to have it now overturn. I continue to maintain my position that courtesy deletion for people who are ''willing public figures'' is uncalled for and almost ridiculous. I understand cases like Brian Peppers where the person in question has become notable in a completely unwilling fashion,

Yeah, cause someone forced Brian Peppers to commit attempted gross sexual imposition on a minor. Please.

For example, if someone decides to create a giant billboard above the Hollywood freeway, upon which any random person may write in appropriately large letters anything they wish about Barbra Streisand, and the billboard owner denies responsibility for anything which appears there, however libelous, while dutifully maintaining the billboard itself, the law may well decide that it ought to be taken down. That's not equivalent to saying that one don't have the right to publish things about Barbra Streisand.

Sounds sensible. There is "contributory infringement" of copyright (federal case law). How about "contributory defamation" or "contributory invasion of privacy" under state laws? That will take some time, but Wikipedia will bring this to pass eventually, at the rate it's going. In the meantime, that billboard is an "attractive nuisance." For example, if you don't have a fence around your swimming pool, and some neighborhood kid wanders into it and drowns, that might be an "attractive nuisance" because it was attractive to children and a nuisance in an otherwise safe neighborhood. If your horse and buggy is parked and no one is watching it, and some two-year-old runs up and says, "Horsey!" and gets kicked in the head by the horse, that was an "attractive nuisance."

In the same way, Wikipedia is attractive to children of all ages, including Joshua, who want to edit biographies. These biographies get widely dispersed and are labeled "encyclopedic" by Wikimedia Foundation, and the servers are owned and maintained by the Foundation.

WF is playing a legal game to avoid responsibility for what it publishes, and correspondingly hasn't developed any reliable mechanism for the quality control which would accompany this responsibility.

Wikipedia's approach is uniquely heinous in its contempt for established principles of journalistic responsibility.

I tried, with notable lack of success, to inject into the Wikipedia culture a semblance of attention to normative standards for accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially with respect to biographies of living people.

Wikipedia rejected that as anathema to their community values.

Joshua and Lise need to get together and do a song-and-dance routine, a la Sonny and Cher.

Which song

I'm a little bit country, Im a little bit rock and roll (oops wrong couple.....)

I got you babe? (no, not that one either)



Or they could spawn some awfully weird children. Attack clones, without remorse.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sat 22nd December 2007, 10:42am

Is it possible that this video is meant as a joke? No offense to Josh if this is what he's really like, but it seems like a very over the top nerd portrayal.

No, to me it looks as if someone picked him for a reason. Didn't you know weird people in school that you would have picked for something like this?

Apparently this was Joshua.

Poor guy got held back a year in school for a reason. But unfortunately, he's taking out all his weird twisted aggression on people at Wikipedia. With a special focus on Daniel Brandt.

It gets worse. His fraternal brother is not only taller, smarter and clearly has social skills and popularity, but he's a handsome devil



No wonder poor Joshua is so mean.

Life dealt him an unfair blow.

Under different circumstances, Joshua and I might have had a more congenial, cordial, and functional relationship.

This thread is the #2 google result for Joshua Zelinsky.


Good luck to him whenever he tries to find a job.

I'd be willing to be a character reference for him.

I can vouch for his character as a dedicated policeman on Wikipedia.

I'd be willing to be a character reference for him.

I can vouch for his character as a dedicated policeman on Wikipedia.

You can say that about a lot of people. Are they fair and competent?

I'd be willing to be a character reference for him.

I can vouch for his character as a dedicated policeman on Wikipedia.

You can say that about a lot of people. Are they fair and competent?

That's a separable issue. It is customary to separate the police function from the judicial function.

More to the point, the police function is separable from the academic function of crafting encyclopedic articles that rise to a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

Are they fair and competent?

It is customary to separate the police function from the judicial function.

True, but I would hesitate to give a good character reference to any policeman who was neither fair nor competent, however dedicated he was.

I didn't say 'good' or 'bad'; I just said 'dedicated'.

That is to say, I leave it up to the reader to adjudge whether Machiavellianism is good or bad.

Under different circumstances, Joshua and I might have had a more congenial, cordial, and functional relationship.

Different circumstances? You mean if he were a decent person?

Under different circumstances (different gender, timing, etc), I might have met and married Jackie Kennedy. Or Albert Einstein. Or Laura Bush.

Is it possible that this video is meant as a joke? No offense to Josh if this is what he's really like, but it seems like a very over the top nerd portrayal.

Um. I think it was a joke. But of the unintentional kind, per Josh's point of view, and of the intentional kind by the video-maker's point of view. Didn't you see the guy cover his face up with Josh started lecturing him on animism vs. other forms of religion? This must be a daily life occurance for Joshua, that they've memorialized on cam.

Josh's brave attempt to claim he's making fun of them by being ironic does NOT wash.

Wikipedia must be the one place in the world he can take revenge on it (the world).

Apologies to Daniel, but you are the unfortunate target of this weird scenario.