Associated Press discovers Carolyn Doran Options

Yet Another Jimbo Walapropism …

And following our normal policies, particular WP:BLP1E, there is just no way in hell we would have an article about her if it weren't for naval gazing, trolling, or some kind of attempt to manage PR.

—Jimmy Wales, Re:COO Story Now In Major Media

He must be getting all nostalgic for those Balmy Bomis days when he still had that nifty Skipper's Cap.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 22nd December 2007, 5:06pm

If WP keeps going as it is, and is the #1 site on Earth in 4-6 years …

If Wikipedia keeps going as it is, it will be Xtinct in 2 years.

Jonny

As soon as a new administration takes over in the Whitehouse, the beginning of the end of
"free will" as they know it in the "classroom" at WP will be at hand. The kids will be taken care of just as they were at Facebook this week. The kids were kicked out of school for hurting someone.

That is the real world. Charity or no charity, everyone knows that the WMF is in league with Wikia.

Free speech goes so far and then the adults of the world have rights that take over.

Let the kids go back to playing guitar hero.

That is the name of that tune.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Sat 22nd December 2007, 4:57pm

And following our normal policies, particular WP:BLP1E, there is just no way in hell we would have an article about her if it weren't for naval gazing, trolling, or some kind of attempt to manage PR.

—Jimmy Wales, Re:COO Story Now In Major Media

They need to get the United States Naval Observatory in on this.

This post has been edited by dtobias: Sat 22nd December 2007, 5:01pm

This woman absolutely should have an article now. "WP:BLP1E" is a ridiculous joke, although I admit it's a weapon deletionists have been able to wield with fairly good effect.

If WP eventually does carry some kind of permanent article on Doran, one of the ironies is that the article won't be able to carry her side of the story until she publishes her version in a reliable source. That probably won't happen until after her current legal troubles are resolved.

Of course it will carry her side. They will just waive WP:V because of the exceptional natute of the case.


This post has been edited by Yehudi: Sat 22nd December 2007, 6:09pm

This is yet another demonstration of the old guard not understanding that Wikipedia's actually important in the world.

This is yet another demonstration of the old guard not understanding that Wikipedia's actually important in the world.

Jeff, that's just their "cover story". That is not why they attempt to delete things like this. The old guard goes about puffing up Wikipedia-related themes and topics a-plenty -- when they are not embarrassing to Jimbo.

When the subject is embarrassing, THEN and only then do we hear about how "unimportant" Wikipedia is in the world.

Don't fall for them, Jeff.

Greg

If WP eventually does carry some kind of permanent article on Doran, one of the ironies is that the article won't be able to carry her side of the story until she publishes her version in a reliable source. That probably won't happen until after her current legal troubles are resolved.

Um, when in the history of BLP did Wikipedia give a damn about the opinon of the subject? Not about famous people (Spears, Springsteen, Congressmen) and not about hostage BLPs (Brandt, Levitt).

This is nothing new.

And following our normal policies, particular WP:BLP1E, there is just no way in hell we would have an article about her if it weren't for naval gazing, trolling, or some kind of attempt to manage PR.

—Jimmy Wales, Re:COO Story Now In Major Media

Didn't Durova used to be Naval Officer?

I'm sure if he asked her opinion on Naval Gazing, he'd get a spectacular answer....

Speaking of which Durova qualifies for a BLP far more than Brandt or Finkelstein ever did. Irony of ironies. Maybe they both can run her AfD for her BLP. On the 14th try....

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sat 22nd December 2007, 7:03pm

We are up to 288 reprints in various media (including some duplicates). Clearly, this has become a noteworthy story, but the Wikipediots are doing their best to make sure a Wikipedia article about Carolyn Doran never comes to pass. How will the press react when it becomes common knowledge that the Wikipedia "community" salted the article space about this embarrassing scandal?

I would like to call people's attention to multi-author blog site Profy.com, specifically a story by Cyndy Aleo-Carreira.

Note the Comments field, too! Several Wikipediots tried to poo-pooh the whole scandal, then Cyndy points out how "curious" it is that two of these apologists came from the exact same IP address. Well done, Cyndy!

Greg

I am hoping that this is just a weird Sunday software bug at Google, but I'm very suspicious that it's not.

Google News seems to have removed all records of the "famous" Carolyn Doran stories that came out in December 2007.

Still plenty of sources on Google Search, which probably 50 people use for every 1 that uses Google News, but still...

Why the News cover-up? Is this so that an article about Carolyn Doran on Wikipedia might NEVER be constructed from reliable sources?

I'm sorry, but this does seem like someone from WMF reached out (reached around?) to a friend at Google and asked them to "memory hole" the 290 or so news sources that carried the big story.

I have contacted archives-feedback@google.com about this unusual discrepancy. I hope you'll contact them, too, so that they don't think I'm just one crackpot who caught this.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 11th February 2008, 5:14am

I am hoping that this is just a weird Sunday software bug at Google, but I'm very suspicious that it's not.

Google News seems to have removed all records of the "famous" Carolyn Doran stories that came out in December 2007.

Still plenty of sources on Google Search, which probably 50 people use for every 1 that uses Google News, but still...

Why the News cover-up? Is this so that an article about Carolyn Doran on Wikipedia might NEVER be constructed from reliable sources?

I'm sorry, but this does seem like someone from WMF reached out (reached around?) to a friend at Google and asked them to "memory hole" the 290 or so news sources that carried the big story.

That is "spooky"

A search on Essjay on Google news is still prolific

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ess...es&hl=en&ned=us

I guess Ryan doesn't have any spook juice with the big Wiki-Googlies.

How would that work, some sort of "I Won't Follow" song and dance by Bono Jimbo to the boys at google?

I read today that Yahoo is spurning Microsoft's affections for a cheap $31 boom-boom, and Google is rumoured to be wanting to love Yahoo long-time.

News ceases being news when it become history.

History is a permanent record of what once was breaking news.

That story is no longer breaking news. It's now history.

News ceases being news when it become history.

History is a permanent record of what once was breaking news.

That story is no longer breaking news. It's now history.

Yeah, yeah. But Google News Archive is a pretty simple application -- it's supposed to archive the news. They're failing to do that with Carolyn Doran, but not Kenneth Lay, or Richard Reid, or "Allure Escort Service".

This is very, very strange censorship of news/history (I don't care what you call it), and I hope that Google responds to my query soon.

Greg