Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face Options

[the fieryangel]

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though

That's funny. I saw it.

[melloden]

Photo of a man who is likely a Wikimedia UK trustee

What is this, the Daily Mail? That's a rubbish caption, Greg, and you know it. No evidence has been produced that actually implies Ashley Van Haeften is the subject of that image. That's not ethical journalism in the slightest.

Why not, "Photo of a balding middle-aged man in green piano shirt who is a Wikimedia UK trustee" or "Photo of Wikimedia UK trustee who is not the essence of his surname"?

You had a chance to write a decent, respectable piece about a charity's trustee that previously had a lying issue on Wikipedia. Instead of journalistic criticism, you made it a thinly-veiled attack with assumptions and a potentially misleading image and title.

Your article doesn't answer the question of, "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Wikipedia?" Obviously, nothing--a personal decision to engage in bondage acts is not news.

At least, not real news.

Shame, Gregory, shame. Do you want to be a gossip writer or an actual journalist? Or are you just waiting for Cade Metz to retire?

This post has been edited by melloden: Tue 29th November 2011, 11:00pm

[Cla68]

To be clear, we are, of course, not giving Fæ a hard time for perhaps being gay or into bondage. We're giving him a hard time because he holds a position of trust and influence in the Wikimedia UK organization while his editing history shows misuse of sources, agenda-driven editing, violations of WP's BLP policy, and subsequent attempts to cover the entire thing up.

[EricBarbour]

To be clear, we are, of course, not giving Fæ a hard time for perhaps being gay or into bondage. We're giving him a hard time because he holds a position of trust and influence in the Wikimedia UK organization while his editing history shows misuse of sources, agenda-driven editing, violations of WP's BLP policy, and subsequent attempts to cover the entire thing up.

FTFY

[carbuncle]

Your article doesn't answer the question of, "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Wikipedia?" Obviously, nothing--a personal decision to engage in bondage acts is not news.

I agree that Van Haeften's sexuality is a distraction in this discussion (although as Ash, he had no trouble using it as a shield against legitimate criticism by implying his critics were homophobic).

I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk. In this case, we have what appears to be a man chained up in a public place. Note that it was Van Haeften who uploaded this image to one of the world's most-visited websites and Van Heaften who added it to articles so that it would be seen. If the man in that image is Van Haeften, what does that say about his attitude toward risk? Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity? Would he make a good treasurer?

I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften should be mocked for his sexual proclivities, but I am suggesting that this isn't perhaps quite as simple as you would like it to be.

[thekohser]

No evidence has been produced that actually implies Ashley Van Haeften is the subject of that image.

The evidence was so overwhelming, it was pouring out of the image like a high-pressure shower nozzle. Van Haeften uploaded it, he claimed the rights for it, no mention of who the "subject" was in the upload details, he failed to respond to my request to discuss it, and it looks just like him.

I'm sure if the image is not of him, then I should be expecting some sort of retraction demand from England. Haven't gotten one of those yet. Hmm... maybe because Haeften is the subject of that image.

You're just being ridiculous, small, jealous, and petty, Mike. My "Daily Mail" articles have received tens of thousands of page views, so it's obviously just what the public wants and needs to read about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, which the traditional press isn't giving them.

Go do your frantic hand waving on another thread.

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though

That's funny. I saw it.

I had, too. Maybe somebody "reported" it, and it was removed? Try again!

[TungstenCarbide]

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Great Examiner article - my comment isn't showing up though

That's funny. I saw it.

I had, too. Maybe somebody "reported" it, and it was removed? Try again!

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Wed 30th November 2011, 2:11am

[Alison]

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

.. and to send me friend requests!

I think the reason it's disappearing is because the page owner needs to 'approve' comments. You can see your own but until they're "public'd", nobody else can.

[mbz1]

Now on ANI

and now is closed
28bytes is right. There's nothing to do for administrators there.
AN/I was a wrong venue for this post and besides who cares, if an admin said half-truth
or untruth in his/her RfA? Isn't a very common occurrence on wikipedia? Try to put yourself in their shoes. If they are to desysop one admin over such a small deal, other editors will start complaining about the same situations with different admins, and what then? Desysoping 70+% of English wikipedia admins?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 30th November 2011, 2:24am

[thekohser]

I think the reason it's disappearing is because the page owner needs to 'approve' comments. You can see your own but until they're "public'd", nobody else can.

There's no "approval" process with these Facebook-embedded comments on Examiner, though. And both Paul and I saw Tungsten's comment earlier.

Ah, I think I've figured it out -- Tungsten must have some setting switched on in Facebook, that only "friends" can see his posts. When I sign out of Facebook, Tungsten's Examiner comment disappears for me again. When I sign into Facebook, voila, it's back again.

Here's his comment, for the record:

One of your best articles ever - good job Greg.

Wikipedians are always claiming "Wikipedia is not censored" - objectionable material there gets extra protection under the banner of anti-censorship. In reality, though, Wikipedians love censorship whenever it suits their purpose, as exemplified by this article.

Or are you just waiting for Cade Metz to retire?

I wonder why you'd be so disdainful of Cade Metz, "melloden". Oh, yeah, now I remember.

...and what then? Desysoping 70+% of English wikipedia admins?

That would leave just another 27% or 28%, and then our job would be done!

[mbz1]

...and what then? Desysoping 70+% of English wikipedia admins?

That would leave just another 27% or 28%, and then our job would be done!

Oh come on now! How could you be so selfish!
Our job would be done alright, but have you thought about Wikipedia?
How will they manage with only 27% or 28% of admins left?
Assuming that these 27% or 28% who are left would be honest, decent, unafraid and fair persons,
who is going to block content contributors who are reported by trolls?
Who's going to vote in new RfAs?
Who's going to delete IP messages from Jimbo's talk before he even was able to see it?
Who's going... but that's enough already.
I proved wikipedia needs each and every of its admins.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 30th November 2011, 3:02am

[TungstenCarbide]

Ah, I think I've figured it out -- Tungsten must have some setting switched on in Facebook, that only "friends" can see his posts. When I sign out of Facebook, Tungsten's Examiner comment disappears for me again. When I sign into Facebook, voila, it's back again.

thanks, I can't find the switch but will keep looking

It disappears everytime I log out of Facebook and then shows up again when I log in. I got a facebook account just to leave that comment.

.. and to send me friend requests!

lol? you found that funny?


This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Wed 30th November 2011, 3:09am

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

I wonder how the Wikimedia UK feels, now that Examiner is at the top of the news cycle, and not their promotional and puffy press releases?

Greg, I think you did a very good job with this article on the whole, and I'm glad to see it high up there in the Google rankings. I just have one bit of constructive criticism. You focused primarily on Van Haeften's hypocrisy on the pornography issue and Wikipedians' obfuscation of the truth through username changes and cover-ups, and you played up the bondage angle. But you only briefly touched upon (and, more importantly, didn't hammer home) what makes this case particularly shocking: Van Haeften was promoted to sysop and hired by Wikimedia UK because he concealed from the public his history of "biographical malpractice," as PD put it, and in particular of adding references to support "facts" that were not present in the sources. The average reader is not as familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia as you and I. Such a reader would be grabbed by the bondage angle, but that reader would be even more shocked that a website which is purportedly a reliable encyclopedia is being administrated by a man who slanted that website's articles by using fraudulent referencing. (That the same man has not been disavowed but has instead been made a trustee of a closely related organization is icing on the cake.)

Your article doesn't answer the question of, "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Wikipedia?" Obviously, nothing--a personal decision to engage in bondage acts is not news.

I agree that Van Haeften's sexuality is a distraction in this discussion (although as Ash, he had no trouble using it as a shield against legitimate criticism by implying his critics were homophobic).

I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk. In this case, we have what appears to be a man chained up in a public place. Note that it was Van Haeften who uploaded this image to one of the world's most-visited websites and Van Heaften who added it to articles so that it would be seen. If the man in that image is Van Haeften, what does that say about his attitude toward risk? Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity? Would he make a good treasurer?

I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften should be mocked for his sexual proclivities, but I am suggesting that this isn't perhaps quite as simple as you would like it to be.

These are good points. I think that most employers would balk at hiring an individual who has uploaded sexual images of themselves onto the internet, as they would probably interpret that as evidence of poor judgment. I imagine that this would especially be true when the images involve bondage. One would think that even Wikimedia groups consider how hiring such individuals could reflect poorly on their organization.

This post has been edited by Ego Trippin' (Part Two): Wed 30th November 2011, 4:04am

[Ottava]

I do find it odd how that "Clean Start" says that people aren't allowed to resume their old editing areas and old disputes, yet this user and many others that aren't banned after "clean starting" get a free pass. Rlevse didn't, which is rare. I think they should be very strict about this kind of sock puppetry - hiding from your past only encourages further bad behavior, not less.

[Kelly Martin]

I think the most important point to be made here is that WM UK argued, in their Charity Commission application, that WMF has policies in place that are supposed to ensure that the quality of the encyclopedia is maintained and improved, while at the same time one of their governing trustees has a notorious history of seeking to flaunt, violate, and undermine those very same policies. Truly an example of placing the wolves in charge of the henhouse.

[thekohser]

But you only briefly touched upon (and, more importantly, didn't hammer home) what makes this case particularly shocking: Van Haeften was promoted to sysop and hired by Wikimedia UK because he concealed from the public his history of "biographical malpractice," as PD put it, and in particular of adding references to support "facts" that were not present in the sources. The average reader is not as familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia as you and I. Such a reader would be grabbed by the bondage angle, but that reader would be even more shocked that a website which is purportedly a reliable encyclopedia is being administrated by a man who slanted that website's articles by using fraudulent referencing. (That the same man has not been disavowed but has instead been made a trustee of a closely related organization is icing on the cake.)

The article was getting awfully long already, and I had considerable doubts whether the average reader would care much about the nuances of fraudulent referencing, when (for most people) the real hammer to the head is simply that uploaded image. I did crop out the underpants, so as not to overly sensationalize.

Think this, and this. I admit -- I'm guilty as the rest of the mainstream media when it comes to dumbing down a snafu. Though, the rest of the media can't even seem to muster a critical viewpoint of Wikim/pedia; at least I'm managing that, right?

[Eppur si muove]

Ash goes to parliament. It takes 21 minutes before he says something. At 50 minutes someone notices that Ash has said nothing and questions him. He talks about Wikipedia's wonderful editorial policies, it's being the 6th biggest site and how he is a nobody. Isn't he lucky she googled him two days ago?

Edit: I have now watched the whole of his appearance and his speaking is confined to about a minute at 21 minutes in and to a direct question to him and follow-ups and then a question to the whole group which between them take up much of the range 50-60 minutes on the tape.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Wed 30th November 2011, 4:29pm

[thekohser]

Can someone with super-powerful Admin toolz reveal anything about this photo that was removed from Wikipedia/Commons?

[thekohser]

Ash goes to parliament.

Anyone notice that this meeting was held in the "Boothroyd Room"? (See "Sam Blacketer" for ironic effect.)

Van Haeften contends (59 minutes in) that "Wikipedia has a reputation that is purer than pure".



This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 30th November 2011, 4:35pm

[Eppur si muove]

Ash goes to parliament.

Anyone notice that this meeting was held in the "Boothroyd Room"? (See "Sam Blacketer" for ironic effect.)

Van Haeften contends (59 minutes in) that "Wikipedia has a reputation that is purer than pure".

I think he was quoting one of the parliamentarians who had earlier said she thought he was portraying Wikipedia in this way.

For those who do not want to sit through the video, uncorrected transcripts seem to take about a week to be listed here. The meeting was on 28th November.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Wed 30th November 2011, 4:54pm