The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> More defamation of Gregory Kohs
thekohser
post Thu 1st March 2007, 6:31pm
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



User:Cyde did a nice thing for me and considered unblocking his block of my personal User:Thekohser account on Wikipedia. He thought it best to put it to a Community Notice, which I fully understand.

I didn't expect defamation of me with false accusations, though. Thanks, User:Durova!

Very strongly oppose. Until last month he evaded his ban through a disruptive sockpuppet and he has given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press. I doubt the community has the authority to overturn a ban by Jimbo himself. Even if it did I see absolutely no reason to reopen the door. DurovaCharge! 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
...
Durova, could you please cite where, specifically, Kohs "has given misleading information to journalists"? Without such support, that could be construed as a defamatory comment. --72.94.152.27 13:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to double check for the exact instance, but it was linked through the Wikipedia Signpost in mid- to late- January. ... I support this siteban with every fiber of my being. DurovaCharge! 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

++++ ++++ ++++

Well, I checked the Signpost for just about all of January (and February, to boot), and I didn't see any links to evidence where I "had given misleading information to journalists".

See, this is what is so infuriating about Wikipedia. They can libel me for "giving misleading information to journalists", and they'll "have to double check for the exact instance" when called to task about it. But when someone out and out lies to journalists (I'm thinking about Essjay here, of course) and has it clearly exposed in The New Yorker (not the Wikipedia Signpost), it's perfectly fine with not only Jimbo, but the Wikia hiring committee.

Corrupt, decayed, cancerous, flawed -- I don't care what term you use. Wikipedia's got the disease.

Greg

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Thu 1st March 2007, 6:38pm
Post #2


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Greg,

You have just replicated one of the standard observations about the Wikipedia Idiotology.

To wit, can you really expect critters who constantly make unchecked statements of convenience in policy space to observe the advertized content policies of CITE, NOR, NPOV, RS, VER, ad nauseum?

The disease they've got is a variety of anemia -- they just don't have that fact-checking factor in their blood.

I mean, what else can you expect of invertebrates?

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 1st March 2007, 7:00pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 10:33pm
Post #3


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



I think that's what's nailed it.

There are two many editors and not enough fact-checkers
. In point of fact, Encyclopedia Britannica keeps these two functions separate - it is assumed that authors tend not to recognize mistakes in their own work very well. At EB there are many cycles of review, including fact and source checking before an article is released.

On Wikipedia, the fact-checkers are just other editors. But there being no division of labor, fact-checkers who find mistakes are given short shrift by editors who know they are right all along. Thus for a fact to be correctly incorporated, it must be either a) popular or b) obscure. Unpopular truths are not welcome in WikiWorld.

This post has been edited by JohnA: Fri 2nd March 2007, 10:34pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 10:46pm
Post #4


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(JohnA @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 5:33pm) *

I think that's what's nailed it.

There are two many editors and not enough fact-checkers. In point of fact, Encyclopedia Britannica keeps these two functions separate — it is assumed that authors tend not to recognize mistakes in their own work very well. At EB there are many cycles of review, including fact and source checking before an article is released.

On Wikipedia, the fact-checkers are just other editors. But there being no division of labor, fact-checkers who find mistakes are given short shrift by editors who know they are right all along. Thus for a fact to be correctly incorporated, it must be either (i) popular or (ii) obscure. Unpopular truths are not welcome in WikiWorld.


More than that, under the cruise direction of SlimVirgin and her SlimVassals there has been a steady mutation of WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:Verifiability into WP:ATT — I'm just waiting for the IP Big Shoe to drop on that — which shamelessly wikipanders to their preferred mode of indolence when it comes to checking anything more primary or reliable than Internet hearsay.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 2nd March 2007, 10:52pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Fri 2nd March 2007, 11:40pm
Post #5


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(JohnA @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 2:33pm) *

There are two many editors ...

Possibly even more.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 5:13pm
Post #6


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



QUOTE(gomi @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 11:40pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 2:33pm) *

There are two many editors ...

Possibly even more.


I can't believe I made such an idiot grammatical mistake. I am ashamed.

FORUM Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 5:24pm
Post #7


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(JohnA @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 11:13am) *
I can't believe I made such an idiot grammatical mistake. I am ashamed.

Well, it's not so bad, really... At least you don't have a really disturbing animated avatar image that's been all over the net for nearly two years! laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 6:24pm
Post #8


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 9:24am) *
Well, it's not so bad, really... At least you don't have a really disturbing animated avatar image that's been all over the net for nearly two years! laugh.gif

Two years! More like four. Its repetitive, simplistic annoyingness is my subtle encouragement to this forum. I promise to remove it when SlimVirgin and Jayjg are de-sysopped.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 6:41pm
Post #9


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 12:24pm) *
I promise to remove it when SlimVirgin and Jayjg are de-sysopped.

No chance of it happening before hell freezes over that?

We might have to take a poll on this one... tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Sat 3rd March 2007, 8:12pm
Post #10


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



I've switched off avatar-viewing.

The only problem is that now I've forgotten what mine looks like. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Sun 4th March 2007, 8:20am
Post #11


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 10:41am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 12:24pm) *
I promise to remove it when SlimVirgin and Jayjg are de-sysopped.

No chance of it happening before hell freezes over that?

Eh. Just ask. Even I find it annoying.

Is this any better? biggrin.gif


This post has been edited by gomi: Sun 4th March 2007, 8:24am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 11 17, 9:09pm