Slimvirgin gets slashdotted, No place to hide... Options

[JohnA]

Link to slashdot[

"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.

[blissyu2]

Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.

And Slashdot - thank you! I had hoped that this story would get bigger. For a brief period I thought that it might manage to be swept under the carpets. But it is a big issue, and needs to be exposed.

[Jonny Cache]

Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.

Can you prove that by anything that remains on file here?

Jonny

[blissyu2]

Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.

Can you prove that by anything that remains on file here?

Jonny B)

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?

[Jonny Cache]

Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.

Can you prove that by anything that remains on file here?

Jonny

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 30th July 2007, 3:29am

[Somey]

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.

[Jonny Cache]

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.

Yet more proof that overXposure to Wikipedia causes brain damage, even among people who think they are immune.

Xorcise 4 the Reader:

Adapt the above "reasoning" to a subject matter chosen at random from the real world, and see if you can hear how silly it sounds.

If you cannot, please seek professional help immediately.

Since I have myself recited the standard cautions against Fundamemtal Attribution Bias time and time again, you are merely chanting to the choir on that score, but how does that excuse censorship of the facts so far as we may rationally suspect them to be?

Jonny