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.

[Daniel Brandt]

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.

I think it was perfectly proper of for Ludwig Braeckeleer to do this. He has his insert inside of brackets, which every literate person understands is separate from the quotation. What the hell was he supposed to do? The only alternative would have been to skip the WR information entirely. Without those two names, it is hardly worth reading. Perhaps he could have quoted the geocities page, but that doesn't have as much prestige as this site, since it is published anonymously and is apparently a one-person effort.

Here is the relevant paragraph from Ludwig's article, where he is quoting John K. Cooley:

Salinger came to believe that [first name redacted but known to be Linda] was working for [name of intelligence agency redacted but known to be Britain's MI5] and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us.

If you are pissed at Ludwig for doing this, then Cooley has the right to be pissed at you for editing his quote. (That's just an abstract comment — in fact, Cooley sent me that email and I made the decision to post it. He didn't ask me not to, so I did it without asking him for permission.)

This is the problem: By trying to be nice to Wikipedia, we redact names and we have been keeping search engines out of the Editors forum (the latter was happening before Somey came on board, and all of us failed to object, mostly because we weren't fully aware of it).

All we end up accomplishing by doing this is to risk making ourselves irrelevant in the real world. If I didn't feel that the main purpose of this Board is to juxtapose Wikipedia against real-world ethical and informational standards, using real-world evidence, I would have lost interest a long time ago.

[Jonny Cache]

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.

I think it was perfectly proper of for Ludwig Braeckeleer to do this. He has his insert inside of brackets, which every literate person understands is separate from the quotation. What the hell was he supposed to do? The only alternative would have been to skip the WR information entirely. Without those two names, it is hardly worth reading. Perhaps he could have quoted the geocities page, but that doesn't have as much prestige as this site, since it is published anonymously and is apparently a one-person effort.

Here is the relevant paragraph from Ludwig's article, where he is quoting John K. Cooley:

Salinger came to believe that [first name redacted but known to be Linda] was working for [name of intelligence agency redacted but known to be Britain's MI5] and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us.

If you are pissed at Ludwig for doing this, then Cooley has the right to be pissed at you for editing his quote. (That's just an abstract comment — in fact, Cooley sent me that email and I made the decision to post it. He didn't ask me not to, so I did it without asking him for permission.)

This is the problem: By trying to be nice to Wikipedia, we redact names and we have been keeping search engines out of the Editors forum (the latter was happening before Somey came on board, and all of us failed to object, mostly because we weren't fully aware of it).

All we end up accomplishing by doing this is to risk making ourselves irrelevant in the real world. If I didn't feel that the main purpose of this Board is to juxtapose Wikipedia against real-world ethical and informational standards, using real-world evidence, I would have lost interest a long time ago.

Good example.

The no-wake plodders of the Podunk Picayune Presses who we ridicule for being so slow off the mark about the facts of Wikipediot life neverthless follow the rules of real world journalism — of saying what they know and how well they know it — and so they are bound to overtake any Ace Achilles who heels to the hare-brained infantasies of Wikipediot Arbnormality.

My question is:

Should I censor my references to "loopholes big enough to drive a [name redacted] truck through" by substituting "Peterbilt" for [name redacted] or would it be better to say "Dickbilt" intead?

Jonny

[Somey]

Should I censor my references to "loopholes big enough to drive a [name redacted] truck through" by substituting "Peterbilt" for [name redacted] or would it be better to say "Dickbilt" intead?

If you really think the Peterbilt Corporation would be seriously harmed by your reference to their company name, and you feel that there are people who might be associated with the Peterbilt Corporation who might be harmed as a result, then why not? After all, the truck manufacturer isn't all that important to the context of that sentence, is it?

Look, Jon, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we should follow WP's rules or allow ourselves to be guilt-tripped into treating their higher-ups like fragile little flowers who will blow away at the slightest breeze of criticism. Redacting the names was a moral decision, but it was also an experiment. And regardless of the tangible results of the experiment (i.e., nada), we nevertheless learned something from it - namely, that Wikipedia isn't going to publicly acknowledge or support any efforts we make on their behalf as regards privacy. For the most part, they either don't care, or are secretly cheering us on. The fact that they didn't support us is suggestive not only of their enmity for us, but of their enmity for SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and the rest of their crew. I suspect the number of people who would like to see those people leave Wikipedia forever is vastly greater than we thought.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of nasty and speculative stuff here that doesn't get censored, if you know where to look for it. But as for the stuff that does, I understand that I'm going to be seen as the Mean Old Censorship Lady in certain cases, and I accept that... Just remember that on some level, bringing down Wikipedia -- which some of us would love to see happen, as unrealistic a goal as that is -- could in some ways be the single greatest act of censorship in human history. Seen from that perspective, a few real names aren't really that big a deal, are they?

[Jonny Cache]

Look, Jon, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we should follow WP's rules or allow ourselves to be guilt-tripped into treating their higher-ups like fragile little flowers who will blow away at the slightest breeze of criticism. Redacting the names was a moral decision, but it was also an experiment. And regardless of the tangible results of the experiment (i.e., nada), we nevertheless learned something from it - namely, that Wikipedia isn't going to acknowledge or support any efforts we make on their behalf as regards privacy. For the most part, they either don't care, or are secretly cheering us on. The fact that they didn't support us is suggestive not only of their enmity for us, but of their enmity for SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and the rest of their crew. I suspect the number of people who would like to see those people leave Wikipedia forever is vastly greater than we thought.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of nasty and speculative stuff here that doesn't get censored, if you know where to look for it. But as for the stuff that does, I understand that I'm going to be seen as the Mean Old Censorship Lady in certain cases, and I accept that. Just remember that on some level, bringing down Wikipedia -- which some of us would love to see happen, as unrealistic a goal as that is — could in some ways be the single greatest act of censorship in human history. Seen from that perspective, a few real names aren't really that big a deal, are they?

What has happened is that "moderators" of The Wikipedia Review have overstepped the bounds of "moderation". They have done this in a way that violates one of the principles that made the Review what it was, namely, a place where contributors took personal reponsibility for what they wrote.

This means that The Wikipedia Review, unlike Wikipedia, had no Editorial Point Of View (EPOV).

This means that The Wikipedia Review, unlike Wikipedia, was free of the dogmatic distortion that requires Wikipediots to disguise their EPOV as the one and only NPOV.

The minute that we abandon this principle, the minute that "moderators" arrogate to themselves the role of Editors In Chief, we become nothing more than Yet Another King/Queen Of The Hill Soapbox (YAK/QOTHS), like Wikipedia.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 30th July 2007, 5:34pm

[Somey]

What has happened is that "moderators" of The Wikipedia Review have overstepped the bounds of "moderation". They have done this in a way that violates one of the principles that made the Review what it was, namely, a place where contributors took personal reponsibility for what they wrote.

But how does that square with the fact that not all of us are identifiable? Besides, to simply slough off the "responsibility" for what's posted here to the poster would, in many cases, lead to all sorts of problems. There have to be standards and there have to be limits, and those standards and limits are subject to change on occasion. Morality demands it, the law often demands it, and for that matter, the membership would probably demand it too, if things started to get really out of hand.

I'm not saying it was right to do what I did in this particular case, but to generalize based on that is just-plain wrong. The posts now say, "Pierre Salinger suspected that (name redacted) may have been associated with (name of intelligence agency redacted)." They don't say "Pierre Salinger suspected that Nancy Drew's sister Eunice may have been associated with the Teletubbies Liberation Organization," and they certainly don't say "Pierre Salinger felt that all of his female assistants, especially the one now thought by people who should really know better to be a Wikipedia admin, were all nice, wonderful people who should be allowed to do anything they want, anywhere they want, forever and ever, completely free of any sort of scrutiny or criticism."

(I mean, as long as we're throwing out strawmen.)

The minute that we abandon this principle, the minute that "moderators" arrogate to themselves the role of Editors In Chief, we become nothing more than Yet Another King (or Queen) Of The Hill Soapbox, like Wikipedia.

I agree, actually. So are you saying we've now abandoned that principle, then? And assuming the choice had been between redacting the names and deleting (or perhaps hiding) the material altogether, as Slimmy herself would have certainly preferred, it would have been better to delete/hide the material altogether?