The Review hits the airwaves....., thanks for coming chaps..... Options Rating

[privatemusings]

well as many good folk around here will know, I've recently posted a new conversation over at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' featuring Somey (and who knew that it's pronounced summy?), Wordbomb, Wikipedia Review and Moulton...

thanks heaps for coming by guys - I hope the people who give it a listen find it interesting, and it helps promotes useful discussion etc....

it mightn't be the last of course...

cheers,

PM.

[Derktar]

5/5 Stars, will listen again.

Good job gents.

[Somey]

I wonder if there's a way to get a big, booming reverb effect on the microphone input in this computer? That, or maybe a full-blown echo/delay, plus some bass roll-off.

Also, it would be really cool to have Prokoviev's The Montagues and Capulets playing in the background whenever I say anything longer than, say, 20 seconds or so...

Anyway, I thought it went OK, though I didn't get a chance to put in a plug for the OO/NOB proposal. I've been trying to tell myself that's not necessarily bad, since it's always better for them to think it was their idea (and after all, technically it was). Oh well, maybe next time.

[Castle Rock]

Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards.

hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...And the powers that be respond as well on Privatemusing's talk page as well.

In one case, a member there (almost certainly Lir) reported user:Snowspinner (an admin and english major in Florida) to police because of fictional stories (admittedly violent ones) he had put on his personal website. The police harassed Snowspinner, demanded he voluntarily be fingerprinted, threatened to search his garbage...

Was there ever a shred of evidence outside of IRC-based paranoia that it was in fact Lir?

This post has been edited by Castle Rock:

[Derktar]

Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards.

hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...

Bwahaha, Didn't Kohs bring this up?

The irony detector has overloaded and blown up by this point.

Oh and I see Raul the pathological liar has shown up has he? Probably just trying to harass and intimidate Privatemusings off the site.

[Amarkov]

Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards.

hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...And the powers that be respond as well on Privatemusing's talk page as well.

I thought everyone had finally realized that it's idiotic to say "LOOK LOOK TEH FOUNDER IS A NAZI THEREFORE WR IS EVIL!" I guess I overestimated Wikipedian common sense, though...

[Derktar]

Well the fact that the WR that exists now is NOT the proboards WR and that Igor had NOTHING to do with the WR that exists now is a fact that extends beyond the realm of Raul's fantasy world.

Personally I think Raul just wants some more attention from us.

[Somey]

In one case, a member there (almost certainly Lir) reported user:Snowspinner (an admin and english major in Florida) to police because of fictional stories (admittedly violent ones) he had put on his personal website. The police harassed Snowspinner, demanded he voluntarily be fingerprinted, threatened to search his garbage...

Was there ever a shred of evidence outside of IRC-based paranoia that it was in fact Lir?

No, but I for one would still like to know what was in that garbage.

"Admittedly violent ones" indeed... we'll just glom over that whole psychopathic-murderer angle as told from a first-person perspective part, shall we? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laughing.gif)

[Kato]

You guys sounded so good with those accents. Like Jim Henson creations!

PM asked me if I wanted to go on and talk about my forthright policy ideas for BLPs, but there wasn't a hope I'd figure out the Skype business in time. I would have just blown bum notes over your melodious chimes with my cigar stained Ozzy Osborne brogue anyway, so just as well. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well done.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Oh and I see Raul the pathological liar has shown up has he? Probably just trying to harass and intimidate Privatemusings off the site.

Liar, for sure. "Raul":

Wikipedia Review noted that he drew inspiration for his pay-me-to-edit-your-article buisness from Wikipedia:Bounty board and Wikipedia:Reward board. I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly, that all donations are made to the Wikipedia Foundation

"Explicitly"?

Reward board:

The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task, similar to the German edition's de:Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten. The execution and details of the transaction are the responsibility of the participating parties, and the reward can be monetary, goods (books, cookies, etc.) or tit-for-tat editing (like improving another article). Please do not post offers of barnstars or other trivial rewards. (Use the Award Center for barnstar offers.)

Why does wikia/wikipedia generate liars?

[dogbiscuit]

The Rosalind Picard article is worth observing for its evolution. From a position of no knowledge of her, it first arrives with what looks like a typical CV style write up. Not sure who or why it puts up. It in passing mentions the petition. ID people then have a debate about the petition and the section wobbles around. Then, the main section which describes her career in neutral tones is simply chopped out as unsourced, leaving the hacked around, but sort of sourced, section on controversy.

I think this is such a telling interchange:

Rosalind Picard & A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism‎

Could people please stop removing Picard from Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and removing the brief mention of the fact (and the fact that her 'dissent' is an opinion volunteered well outside her field of expertise). The first is a matter of unambiguous fact. The second is clearly notable, given its mention in the NY Times. Hrafn42 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: Please arrange to talk to me by telephone. Your edits are a gross and egregious violation of WP:BLP:DNH policy. You are not a subject-matter expert on the subject of this article, and your edits are doing harm. Please cease and desist. Moulton 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: I am under no obligation to "talk to [you] by telephone." If you have something to say, say it here. As I presume you are not a professional biographer of scientists, you are not a "subject-matter expert on the subject of this article" either. Far more likely you are an associate of Picard's and thus subject to WP:COI (as well as WP:NOR). Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant clause of the WP:BLP:DNH...

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Moulton: The New York Times is not a tabloid! Picard's signing of this misleading, anti-scientific, creationist-inspired 'dissent' is a matter of public record within the mainstream media. It is neither "tabloid" nor "titillating". DNH is therefore completely irrelevant to these edits. Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[Moulton]

The nearly parallel BLP of James Tour was even more egregious, since Tour was already on record in that very NY Times article dismissing the slanted view that Hrafn was pushing into those biographies and related articles. Eventually James Tour was obliged to craft a lengthy piece on his personal web page to refute the false claims attributed to him and ballyhooed on Wikipedia.

[thekohser]

Why does wikia/wikipedia generate liars?

I think it's because they've taken their example from the Sole Flounder.

Mr. Pellegrini (Raul654) looks like a complete buffoon... He stated:

"Wikipedia Review noted that he drew inspiration for his pay-me-to-edit-your-article buisness from Wikipedia:Bounty board and Wikipedia:Reward board. I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly, that all donations are made to the Wikipedia Foundation, not the person doing the editing. Being paid to edit an article absolutely clear-cut conflict of interest, and if he says he didn't think it was, he's a fool or he's lying."

The Wikipedia Reward Board states in several places:

"The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task..."

"This is purely a page for editors to offer rewards to other editors."

The Reward Board had essentially the same provisions of cash directly to editors in the Summer of 2006 when I started Wikipedia Review, as well. So, we can obviously see that Mark Pellegrini is a loose cannon. He's decided that I am either a "fool" or a "liar" -- about something which he has completely botched in public. Indeed, he is himself being a fool or a liar, so there's quite some irony there.

I don't want to have to contact my attorney friends in Delaware (where Pellegrini is in school, and where I lived for over 8 years).

If the Wikipedia administrator community hasn't learned by now -- it's neither polite nor wise to call me a liar. User:Durova did it in the Spring of 2007, after Jimmy Wales unblocked my account, and the pressure I and others applied escalated into her eventual abandonment of the admin bit.

I'd like to discuss this amicably in the medium where the damage was sown, but seeing as I am blocked from rebutting Raul654's aspersions where they have been cast, I hope someone will please reply publicly to him that he would be advised to redact or modify his statements, so that they are not defamatory claims backed up with utterly nothing but conjecture!

(And if someone could again replace the "buttocks" picture with Mark's headshot, that would be quite satisfying, too.)

Greg

[Aloft]

I liked this episode. Good choice of guests, and privatemusings is settling into his role well, I think. Good work.

[Moulton]

Raul654 is emblematic of the appalling lack of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online journalism. On the one hand he admits that he doesn't know the circumstances of the situation, but that doesn't stop him from fronting a haphazard (and demonstrably erroneous) theory of mind regarding what the subject of the BLP does or doesn't want known. Haphazard and unverified theories of mind about what someone believes or wants have no place in encyclopedic articles. Had Raul654 bothered to look into it, he would have found that Picard herself made a pair of edits to forthrightly disclose the fact that she signed the petition in question. What she took exception to (as did James Tour and several other co-signers of the original 2001 version) was the suggestion that the statement they signed was either anti-evolution (as suggested by the headline in the NY Times) or a 'dissent from Darwin' as later spun out by the Discovery Institute.

The unpopular point of view that I proposed is the one favored by rigorous scientists everywhere, namely that when examining any scientific theory, it is essential to adhere to the protocols of the Scientific Method.

Controversial Petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported[1] that Dr. Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers out of several hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's newly launched website promoting a controversial petition characterized as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[2] Tour's field of organic chemistry is a branch of scientific research which establishes his credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution.

Clearly the adversarial editors preferred the Discovery Institute's political point of view rather than the scientific point of view offered by the scientists themselves.

[dogbiscuit]

I'd like to discuss this amicably in the medium where the damage was sown, but seeing as I am blocked from rebutting Raul654's aspersions where they have been cast, I hope someone will please reply publicly to him that he would be advised to redact or modify his statements, so that they are not defamatory claims backed up with utterly nothing but conjecture!

Ah, but anything we communicate would be acting for a banned user and would have to be deleted, and suggesting that he redact to avoid legal action would clearly be a legal threat, so it will take a Respected User (i.e. nobody who admits to being here) to get away without a ban. So, Wikipedia policy means he's screwed, then?

[Alex]

The episode page has been nominated for deletion by NonvocalScream, a rather obvious sockpuppet.

[Jonny Cache]

The episode page has been nominated for deletion by NonvocalScream, a rather obvious sockpuppet.

Sorry, I haven't been following this.

NVS used to be WordMachine? But WordMachine also looks sockish?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[thekohser]

The episode page has been nominated for deletion by NonvocalScream, a rather obvious sockpuppet.

How DennyColt-esque. It's actually very funny. I hope that NonvocalScream gets some supports in the AfD, just to make it more interesting.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure if Mark Pellegrini refused to recant his errors about the Reward Board, it just serves our purposes all the better in mainstream media and in discussions with First State attorneys. (Note: the preparer of my last will and testament has his law office about 1000 yards from the University of Delaware campus. Raul654 better hope he finishes that PhD he's been birthing the past few years, so he can get out of Dodge before my vulture clasps onto him.)

Greg

[jorge]

The episode page has been nominated for deletion by NonvocalScream, a rather obvious sockpuppet.

Sorry, I haven't been following this.

NVS used to be WordMachine? But WordMachine also looks sockish?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Secretlondon ??