Professional journalist is an anonymous admin Options Rating

[Daniel Brandt]

All anonymous admins are fair game. An anonymous admin who admits to being a professional journalist is particularly interesting, because journalists have standards that have evolved over many decades.

I guess it's a philosophical difference. No, more than that, it's a historical difference. I do not believe that the Internet is so wonderful that all the old rules should be thrown out.

[Sgrayban]

2006-05-26: From her latest sign-off: "But this latest attempt to compromise my privacy, combined with a threat to try to somehow have my livelihood taken from me, caps off a long two months of reevaluating whether volunteering here is worth it."

Excuse me, I wasn't the one who compromised your privacy. You were, by leaving a trail of cookie crumbs all across the web. And that was after you stuck your hand in the cookie jar, which you shouldn't have done in the first place as a professional journalist. I merely pointed out what every journalist already knows, and spent a couple of hours surfing the web.

Isn't that what journalism is about -- connecting the dots that others don't have the time or energy to connect?

The very first question I asked myself was this... If she has not broken ANY ethic rules or released confidential information that these reporters do get from time to time why would she just up and leave? Did she edit a or few congressional member's that she was not suppose to? Did edit them and removed information to have them look better at the request of the Congress Person?

She clearly left a trail -- WP username is the same as her Yahoo nick. Yahoo is like a gold mine for information especially on there forums. She clearly states she is a Congressional reporter on Yahoo. Even says so on a WP talk page.

Everyone needs to think outside the box on this one. Its not a clear-cut case at all. There are many ethical questions I have here about this.

And another thing she has forgotten so easly is that she is a high profile journalist who is easy to track down. However she claims her privacy was violated and tries to convince the rest of them that is the case. All lies. She needs to learn or re-learn her ethics she was taught in journalism classes.

[Skyring]

All anonymous admins are fair game. An anonymous admin who admits to being a professional journalist is particularly interesting, because journalists have standards that have evolved over many decades.

I can follow the ethics question, sort of, but it seems to me that Katefan's leaving has hurt WP, both by losing a good editor and a good admin and that blame for this will be sheeted home to WR in general and you in particular.

My preference is to see WP improve by getting rid of bad admins, or at least forcing them to lift their game. Everyone benefits in that way including WR.

As an exercise in power it was an impressive feat. I think we've got a list of better targets for you to aim at.

[everyking]

All anonymous admins are fair game. An anonymous admin who admits to being a professional journalist is particularly interesting, because journalists have standards that have evolved over many decades.

I guess it's a philosophical difference. No, more than that, it's a historical difference. I do not believe that the Internet is so wonderful that all the old rules should be thrown out.

Anonymity is very valuable to the project, Brandt. You don't seem to understand or believe that. The level of openness and freedom granted by anonymity is a big part of what has made WP so successful. In any case, though, what benefit can possibly arise from Kate's departure from the project? I can only see harm, and I think you ought to feel guilty about this, and retract your threats to her so she feels comfortable contributing again.

[Sgrayban]

And again both Skyring and everyking demand to think in a narrow minded way instead of thinking outside the box. Typical wiki style and very disappointing.

[ownage]

I don't see why total anonymity would benefit wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not the place to leak controversial or sensitive information. If anything, anonimity is the reason why so many people dare insert false and malicious information into wikipedia articles.
The fact that she doesn't want people to know who she is shows that she knows her actions may be inappropriate.

[Skyring]

And again both Skyring and everyking demand to think in a narrow minded way instead of thinking outside the box. Typical wiki style and very disappointing.

I think that our objective should be not to destroy WP, but to destroy WR.

If WP improves to the point where WR is no longer neccessary, then we've done our job.

How does forcing Katefan0 out of WP help anyone? We've probably got a few more people mad at us that we'd rather have onside or at least neutral.

[Sgrayban]

Katefan0 might have been the best editor/admin WP ever had but the main point it this...

If she edited political members such as any current serving Congressional Member she did so by using information she has gotten as a Seante Gallery Journalist. I view that as a high ethical question. If you don't then you have issues to think about.

When she made edits to remove the KKK connection on a certain Congressional Member to read ex(?)KKK connections that clearly shows bad faith as a journalist when she knows that the fact is that this member of congress was part of the KKK at one time. Trying to make this congressional member look better on WP ruin's its encyclopedia veiw because in Brittanica it states without any reservations that this member of Congress was connected to the KKK but renounced his association.

Now is that right for her to show a POV in favour of this Congressional Member? Is that ethical of her as a Senate Gallery Journalist? NO its not.

[Pat Kennys evil twin]

Do we have enough on her to file a complaint with the senate?

[Skyring]

Katefan0 might have been the best editor/admin WP ever had but the main point it this...

If she edited political members such as any current serving Congressional Member she did so by using information she has gotten as a Seante Gallery Journalist. I view that as a high ethical question. If you don't then you have issues to think about.

The function of a journalist is to get information out. I can't see anything wrong with a journalist editing WP using information they have gained as part of their job. It's not like they are breaching national security or anything. They are expected to gain information from Congress and publish it.

The ethical question is that maybe she should have identified herself as a political journalist on WP, but I really cannot view this as any great sin. We're not the police or the AJA or the CQ - why on earth should we care?

[Sgrayban]

(name redacted) might have been the best editor/admin WP ever had but the main point it this...

If she edited political members such as any current serving Congressional Member she did so by using information she has gotten as a Seante Gallery Journalist. I view that as a high ethical question. If you don't then you have issues to think about.

The function of a journalist is to get information out. I can't see anything wrong with a journalist editing WP using information they have gained as part of their job. It's not like they are breaching national security or anything. They are expected to gain information from Congress and publish it.

The ethical question is that maybe she should have identified herself as a political journalist on WP, but I really cannot view this as any great sin. We're not the police or the AJA or the CQ - why on earth should we care?

Do you know for a fact she didn't edit and add anything that was a national security issue ? I can't but that is the point. We have NO clue what she added or deleted was ethical or not.

ITS BAD FAITH so stop being WP:DICK's about it. She edited without fully disclosing who she was and what her job entailed. She edited MANY congressional leaders articles.

Personally I have a mind to find each congressional members article she ever edited on and calling there offices in Washington and informing them of the Journalist edits done on them without her disclosing her identify on WP and her direct connection to the Senate Gallery Press Office. That will certainly light a fire under someone's ass there and demand a answer from her and her employer. Not to mention in her position not asking permission to edit any of them.

[kotepho]

I don't know who said it, but no, they did not get a delevoper to remove the edit.

# 2006-05-25 23:27:21 Musical Linguist restored "User talk:Katefan0" (163 revisions restored)
# 2006-05-25 23:25:31 Musical Linguist deleted "User talk:Katefan0" (Personal information)
# 2006-05-25 20:36:09 Katefan0 protected User talk:Katefan0 (pi [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
# 2006-05-25 20:25:16 Katefan0 restored "User talk:Katefan0" (151 revisions restored)
# 2006-05-25 20:23:08 Katefan0 deleted "User talk:Katefan0" (pi)

They did the way any admin normally does it (without the page move). Developers can do it easier and actually remove the edits from the database, but this was not a case of that. Normally the developers are only called in for cases were someone in charge doesn't want even an admin to be able to see it, or if the page history is very, very long as it fucks up sometimes and it rapes the servers.

The only thing bad about Katefan0 is she always top posts on wikien-l, fucking annoying.

[Skyring]

Do you know for a fact she didn't edit and add anything that was a national security issue ? I can't but that is the point. We have NO clue what she added or deleted was ethical or not.

I've got a clue. If she had edited WP to include material that was sensitive to national security she would have had a lot more than WR on her case!

[Sgrayban]

Do you know for a fact she didn't edit and add anything that was a national security issue ? I can't but that is the point. We have NO clue what she added or deleted was ethical or not.

I've got a clue. If she had edited WP to include material that was sensitive to national security she would have had a lot more than WR on her case!

And you avoid the other issues that are important so conviniently.

[Donny]

I find this worrying. Was Katefan a controversial or bullying admin? Or was she just working constructively to build the encyclopedia?

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

[Sgrayban]

Indeed....

[everyking]

I find this worrying. Was Katefan a controversial or bullying admin? Or was she just working constructively to build the encyclopedia?

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

Personal accountability regarding behavior should, I believe, come through process and community involvement. This is nothing even remotely like that.

[Sgrayban]

*sigh* how sad the blinders of logic are used here. Oh well maybe they should take some ethic's classes in college like I have done.

[Skyring]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

Well I also see MusicalLinguist giving a great deal of support and she's a problem admin. But without some specific reason to chase after Katefan0, I have to express my severe reservations.

Wikipedia is just a website. Having status on WP is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things except for Jimbo who gets all the glory (and takes all the flak). But losing your job is a big deal. I know a bit about Washington and it's a town where if you fall off the ladder, things can get real tough real fast. Destroying someone's career or life is not something that should be done lightly. If you want to talk ethics, ask yourself just what sort of ethical code allows you to do this just to prove some point.

This post has been edited by Skyring: Fri 26th May 2006, 8:53am

[Sgrayban]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

Well I also see MusicalLinguist giving a great deal of support and she's a problem admin. But without some specific reason to chase after Katefan0, I have to express my severe reservations.

Wikipedia is just a website. Having status on WP is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things except for Jimbo who gets all the glory (and takes all the flak). But losing your job is a big deal. I know a bit about Washington and it's a town where if you fall off the ladder, things can get real tough real fast. Destroying someone's career or life is not something that should be done lightly. If you want to talk ethics, ask yourself just what sort of ethical code allows you to do this just to prove some point.

Ohhhhh a nice wiki-reversal tatic...... Our ethic's was pointing out that Kathy did not identify herself as a professional journalist working on the Senate floor with access to information that might have beeen used to favour one political party over another. Editing political articles including current Members of Congress where she should have not been in the first place. Further she edited and even went so far as to protect articles pertaining to the Members of Congress which is certainly a bias approach in her ethical position as a Journalist on the Senate Floor.

I could go on and on but I am sure you still will not get that no matter how many times I have repeated that here.

Ethically speaking say you are a member of some great importance and me as a journalist with inside information or an agenda to to smear you or praise you and I edit your article on WP under the adminship role. I know your dirt or I know your praise and make edits according to the will that bends me. Is that ethical? NO is not.

Still don't get it? Take some ethic course's for journalist then.