Slate.com calls Slim a 'likely MI5 agent', Article links to Wikipedia Review Options Rating

[Daniel Brandt]

http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/

Our favorite virgin is mentioned in connection with our favorite spooky agency!

[GlassBeadGame]

http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/

Our favorite virgin is mentioned in connection with our favorite spooky agency!

Agger doesn't just attribute the notion to Daniel, as you might expect, but endorses it by labeling SV "a likely agent."

[jorge]

http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/

Our favorite virgin is mentioned in connection with our favorite spooky agency!

Agger doesn't just attribute the notion to Daniel, as you might expect, but endorses it by labeling SV "a likely agent."

bump////

[Jonny Cache]

http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/

Our favorite virgin is mentioned in connection with our favorite spooky agency!

Agger doesn't just attribute the notion to Daniel, as you might expect, but endorses it by labeling SV "a likely agent".

bump////

What the hell is this bump and ping stuff lately ???

Have attention spans suddenly shrunk to nil ???

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 11th October 2007, 1:48am

[Daniel Brandt]

True words written by John Lee Ming Keong. I nominate him as the smartest and most articulate teenager on Wikipedia. (Sorry, John, I realize that this sounds like faint praise. Consider it an accident, because my nomination is truly meant as a compliment.)

I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm mistaken - we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them suppressed.

Johnleemk

[jorge]

bump////

What the hell is this bump and ping stuff lately ???

Have attention spans suddenly shrunk to nil ???

Jonny

Sorry Jonny I was about to fall into the land of nod so felt unable to elaborate.. I'm not sure why this thread hasn't received much attention as Slate.com is a lot higher profile than Ohmynews and similar...

EDIT: I think the thread title doesn't make clear the significance...requested title change

[Jonny Cache]

bump////

What the hell is this bump and ping stuff lately ???

Have attention spans suddenly shrunk to nil ???

Jonny

Sorry Jonny I was about to fall into the land of nod so felt unable to elaborate … I'm not sure why this thread hasn't received much attention as Slate.com is a lot higher profile than Ohmynews and similar …

EDIT: I think the thread title doesn't make clear the significance … requested title change.

Here's an H₀ — folks coming here from Tabula Rasa Land, unlike most Wikipediots, already know where they're coming from, so they hardly need to hit this thread. What they are hitting is the Skinny On Slimmy (SOS) thread that brought them here from the Wild Blank Yonder (no, the other WBY).

∂'Ôh! — I see you fooled me with the title change …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 11th October 2007, 6:34pm

[Daniel Brandt]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/082642.html

Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb at gmail.com
Thu Oct 11 17:11:59 UTC 2007

On 10/11/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm usually a big fan of Slate, but this is disgraceful. Can someone
> more articulate and who is able to make the point better try and raise
> the issue in Slate's Fray, show them who Brandt is from our
> perspective?

Our article on [[Daniel Brandt]] would have been a good starting point
were it not protected blank.

Good luck explaining this situation to Mr. Agger and his readers.
I doubt anybody is articulate enough to make Wikipedia not sound
unbelievably fucking stupid for being an easy tool in the hands of a
notorious cyber-crackpot.

If somebody told me to put a positive spin on that I wouldn't know
where to begin.

C.W.

Now there's an interesting solution — unprotect the blanked Brandt bio and let everyone write a malicious, defamatory article about what a notorious cyber-crackpot I am.

Should I be laughing or crying? Charlotte got one part right: Wikipedia sounds unbelievably fucking stupid.

[Jonny Cache]

Charlotte got one part right: Wikipedia sounds unbelievably fucking stupid.

No, I believe it.

Jonny

[Kato]

Now there's an interesting solution — unprotect the blanked Brandt bio and let everyone write a malicious, defamatory article about what a notorious cyber-crackpot I am.

Should I be laughing or crying? Charlotte got one part right: Wikipedia sounds unbelievably fucking stupid.

Indeed. The whole problem with wikipedia is that there just aren't enough revenge articles about people out there.

This cute story reveals more about WP than anything I've ever read elsewhere.

http://adamcadre.ac/content/brown/

[Derktar]

And from his seat as the High Judge, the supreme enforcer of the codified laws of Wikipedia, and the last bastion of justice, he spoke at last on the matter of Slate as an attack site:

No

Fred

So Slate, even with its pronouncement about SlimVirgin, isn't an attack site, but the same pronouncement coming from Wordbomb qualifies as moral depravity. Clearly there is only one logical choice...Wordbomb should start working for Slate. But if Slate likes its links on Wikipedia they probably wouldn't make that tactical error.

[Kato]

but the same pronouncement coming from Wordbomb qualifies as moral depravity.

You mean.....

"MORAL DEPRAVITY!!!!"

Leaning... leaning... safe and secure from all alarms.
Leaning... leaning... leaning on the everlasting arms.

For those who asked about this previously,
the above pic is a cheeky photoshop of
Fred Bauder's head on another body.

[Derktar]

Damn I always forget the emphasis...hmm is this better?

OH THE MORAL DEPRAVITY

This post has been edited by Derktar: Thu 11th October 2007, 11:40pm

[Piperdown]

And from his seat as the High Judge, the supreme enforcer of the codified laws of Wikipedia, and the last bastion of justice, he spoke at last on the matter of Slate as an attack site:

No

Fred

So Slate, even with its pronouncement about SlimVirgin, isn't an attack site, but the same pronouncement coming from Wordbomb qualifies as moral depravity. Clearly there is only one logical choice...Wordbomb should start working for Slate. But if Slate likes its links on Wikipedia they probably wouldn't make that tactical error.

That's because Wordbomb gives you unbrideled evidence. Slate gives opinion. So wordbomb is dang-ger-ous.

People who are guilty of something don't worry much about gossip. They worry about da folks who got da goods.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Thu 11th October 2007, 11:55pm

[The Joy]

Given the whimsical and goofy style of this article and it being an opinion, I doubt too many people are going to take Agger and this article seriously.

Based on the tone of the article, I'm not sure even believes that SV is a likely agent.

I think he's just humoring WR, unfortunately.

The Joy ducking and covering now.

[Somey]

Based on the tone of the article, I'm not sure even believes that SV is a likely agent.

Nor should he, nor do I, nor should it even be an issue. The issue is that she showed up on WP to push a personal agenda, obtained admin powers to make that easier to do, found a bunch of patsies and stooges to help her, and in the process drove off a bunch of more-worthy editors. But that doesn't make for a snappy hook in a news article, or a sexy sound-bite, or whatever it is they're looking for out there.

But hey, no harm done, right? I mean, if all of this is completely false, then what's the big deal?

[blissyu2]

It links to WR rather obscurely with a link saying "here", and that's it.

[jorge]

Given the whimsical and goofy style of this article and it being an opinion, I doubt too many people are going to take Agger and this article seriously.

Based on the tone of the article, I'm not sure even believes that SV is a likely agent.

I think he's just humoring WR, unfortunately.

The Joy ducking and covering now.

I don't read a whimsical or goofy nature at all to the article apart from the picture.

[Kato]

Given the whimsical and goofy style of this article and it being an opinion, I doubt too many people are going to take Agger and this article seriously.

Based on the tone of the article, I'm not sure even believes that SV is a likely agent.

I think he's just humoring WR, unfortunately.

The Joy ducking and covering now.

I don't read a whimsical or goofy nature at all to the article apart from the picture.

I do. He's writing with one eyebrow raised.

[jorge]

I do. He's writing with one eyebrow raised.

Actually he goes into a lot of detail and has clearly done a lot of research on it, so I definitely wouldn't ascribe whimsical or goofy to it although he's clearly still not convinced that Google poses a risk to anyone. I think the fact he actually mentioned that SV is a likely agent is something quite significant as there was no reason why he had to include that in the article.