Slim decided that leading british paper is not a reliable source Options

Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?




down the rabbit hole we go

I accept that you do not understand or appreciate my reasoning or my values.

As to the disenfranchised, no one here is stopping you from comforting the afflicted.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 19th December 2007, 4:07am

I accept that you do not understand or appreciate my reasoning or my values.

As to the disenfranchised, no one here is stopping you from comforting the afflicted.

Moulton,

You are confusing understanding and respect with agreement.

I understand what you are doing. I respect your position.

I simply disagree that this is the most strategic tack, that's all.

I accept that you do not understand or appreciate my reasoning or my values.

As to the disenfranchised, no one here is stopping you from comforting the afflicted.

Moulton,

You are confusing understanding and respect with agreement.

I understand what you are doing. I respect your position.

I simply disagree that this is the most strategic tack, that's all.

Your proposed strategy may well be the best practice.

What I propose is not a strategic tack at all, since it has nothing to do with reaching any unilateral goal. I have no objection to people devising effective strategies to reach their urgent goals.

Upthread, one or more participants here levied a harsh criticism at a journalist from the UK Sunday Observer who was identified by name. Having executed that tactic (which I frankly would not have recommended), we now have an ethical obligation to offer her a chance to respond. It's just a matter of fairness.

To my mind, fairness is not a strategy.

To my mind, fairness is an ethical responsibility.

I don't think I have seen any negative coverage of Wikipedia in the Guardian as they are under the impression that it is has a liberal anti-conservative bias so they think it must be OK. All of Jenny Kleeman's articles have either talked about all the hard working editors improving Wikipedia or all those nasty people that are trying to disrupt it. My guess is she must be a rookie journalist and has bought into the Jimbo propaganda that wikipedia is some kind of paradise of freedom and truth.

EDIT: The closest to Wikipedia criticism the Guardian has got was a vague parody of WP "Ignopedia" hidden deep inside Charlie Brooker's column in the pullout section.

What I propose is not a strategic tack at all, since it has nothing to do with reaching any unilateral goal.

Ah! There's the rub. (or where our philosophies diverge).

I take the approach that strategy is primordial and politics are a means to an end. A necessary evil if you will towards a stated or implied objective.

As for unilateral goal..... I dont follow the term unilateral here. Unilateral goal implies that I (or whoever is making it) is foisting it on the other. Alternatives would be bilateral or multilateral, which imply cooperation towards an end. The operant word being "cooperation". And this again is where we diverge. I dont assume that everyone wants to cooperate with me towards my objectives, I assume moreover that most people don't care even to know what my objectives are, let along to have my point of view foisted upon them for discussion or ponderance.

Small sidebar: From my point of view, to ask someone to cooperate with me towards my personal or group objectives is in fact using a unilateral assumption that they care. Call me a cynic, but generally, (I think that) most people don't care what I think, or what you think, or what anyone else thinks.

I believe that most people care about themselves, as a basis, above that, about things that affect people in their circle (whatever that means), and sometimes about things that provoke an emotion in them of one sort or another. That's not objectivist or anything else. It is simply my personal interpretation of how people function in the world. I usually find that for people to get involved in what I'm interested, I need to invoke a reason for them to do so. How I do that makes a difference in the response of the people. I could have the same objective with the same person, approach it five different ways and get five different responses from the same person about the same subject. One of the different way of approach is via another person or via a group.

Which is why I would have advised to go through someone in a position of power to this woman. That would give a reason for her to care. Even that would be a long-shot, but trying 1-2 people who might see the other side of things gives it a shot. As it stands, you are arguing that a well-known entity is behaving badly, and the knee-jerk response is to believe them, and not you. If I had no experience with Wikipedia, if I was a Guardian editor, I would assume that anyone contesting a Wikipedia point of view was a crank. Most people still think Wikipedia is a legitimate op. Which is why she got-away with writing as she did (sloppy, with no references, effectively libeling a man using material completely inappropriate for non-Wikipedia interpretation).

At the basis, I don't think she has any reason, or she has an anti-reason, that being that her "hero-worship" in-group thinks we as a group on this board are proverbial (apologies to Hershel) crap. If someone here contacts her, I surmise that the first thing she's going to do is contact Gerard (or whoever), and that her fears will comprise everything from strange contacts with bizarre people (that supposedly lurk here) to a fear of being listed on Brandt's page. Remember, that the little Harvard student (if it was a Harvard student) feared that of Brandt. Which was ridiculous, of course. But that's what you deal with when you get people who've already got another story in their head.

Not to mention the fact that if she does actually realize she made a mistake, she's have to go admit it to her superiors, which is not the normal reaction, and which takes courage. Most people would deny it and try to hide it. Which is another reason I think it is best to contact her ht head editor or the business editor.

Another point: The Observer is changing Editors-in-Chief. The new guy Mulholland starts this week, and another theory is "new bosses and departing bosses are easier to approach". A new boss and a departing boss often take action, and pay attention where otherwise they would not. Someone told me this early in my career, and I've found it to be true.

That's what I was getting at. It isn't a disagreement with you, really.

Because I agree that anyone deserves the right to answer back. It is just a difference in approach, that's all.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 19th December 2007, 2:16pm