Jayjg wrote:
> I didn't compare the two; I mentioned them both because they were the
> two people who suddenly ratcheted up the rhetoric and made it
> personal, including claims of "Conflict of Interest".
That's not true. I never said anything about "conflict of interest."
Maybe Joe did, but I don't remember anything along those lines.
I *did* say that an absolutist policy of removing all links to
"attack sites" is a form of censorship. I don't see how that is
"making it personal."
As for ratcheted rhetoric, I think Jayjg's own rhetoric has been
fairly intense, but I imagine he would dispute that.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------
No, as advertised, it is biased.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 06:17 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Is Conservapedia an attack site?
>
>See Conservapedia's article on Wikipedia:
>
>http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia
>
>A real hatchet job, and full of links to the so-called "attack sites"
>(which they apparently considers to be reliable sources). So, does
>that make Conservapedia an attack site too?
>
>
>--
>== Dan ==
>Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
>Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
>Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen Blacker <owen(a)openrightsgroup.org>
Date: 01-Jun-2007 14:35
Subject: [ORG-discuss] US makes Korea eliminate fair use
To: Open Rights Group open discussion list
<org-discuss(a)lists.openrightsgroup.org>, FIPR Alerts <alerts(a)fipr.org>
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/31/us_makes_korea_elimi.html
Korea has just finished negotiating a free trade agreement with the
US that is a complete disaster on copyright. Korea has agreed to give
up all fair use to copyrighted works, and has agreed to shut down many
of its web-hosting businesses. So much for Korea's power as a global
Internet leader. It was nice while it lasted.
In one glaring example, the governments agree to shut down internet
sites that permit unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or
transmission of copyrighted works — without reference to exceptions
for art, education and critique. If the agreement is ratified, both US
and Korean governments will begin shutting down an undisclosed number
of peer-to-peer (P2P) and online storage ('webhard') services. Korea
will also be required to crack down on book copying on university
campuses.
The Korea–US FTA could set a dangerous precedent. If ratified, the US
is expected to push other countries to accept the similar conditions
in their respective FTAs. Much of the 'piracy' that the US wants to
see cracked down on is of materials copyrighted by large US-based
corporations, not individual creators. Since distribution of movies,
news, internet software and images is a core area of the US economy,
the US government has long been aggressively pushing for stricter
copyright and patent regimes in international arenas, including
through GATT and WIPO. The Korea–US FTA, represents a new step in this
process. More information:
http://web.mac.com/ellenycx/iWeb/CSM%40remoPodcast/Blog/3A4A715A-AFE9-4738-…
--
Owen Blacker, London GB
Say no to ID cards: www.no2id.net
Get your mits off my bits: www.openrightsgroup.org
--
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
_______________________________________________
ORG-discuss mailing list
ORG-discuss(a)lists.openrightsgroup.org
http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-discuss
In a message dated 6/1/2007 2:04:35 AM Central Daylight Time,
bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca writes:
Considering all the other more significant ways Wikipedia violates the
letter of the GFDL with article merges and splits and even the
occasional perversion of a "merge-and-delete" AfD result, does anyone
honestly think we'd ever get in trouble for having hard-to-follow
attribution for stuff stashed away on BJAODN?
The "merge and delete" or "transwiki and delete" especially tick me off.
Perhaps we should make users take a GFDL or asshole test when they sign up :)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
On 1 Jun 2007 at 08:22:30 -0400, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I can see the benefit of a discussing the results of a Google search.
> I haven't yet seen the value of linking to WR on an article Talk:
> page, given that none of the information posted there is trustworthy.
The places where links to WR might be on-topic and useful would be
more likely to be places where meta-discussions about Wikipedia
itself are being conducted, regarding its policies, its critics, its
effects on the world, etc. This would be more often in "Wikipedia:"
project space than in article space or article talk space, with the
exception of a few specialized articles like [[Wikipedia]] and
[[Criticisms of Wikipedia]].
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 6/1/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is something like this at all feasible?
>
>
I couldn't see why not. Sounds like a great idea to me; it's just a question
of if anyone gets around to it :). I've committed a bug on this:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10095
--
Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com
cannon.danielc(a)gmail.com
So, reading wikien-l in one window, and browsing random-article with
the other, I came across:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jews_in_politics
"This List of Jews contains individuals who, in accordance with
Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, have been
identified as Jews by reliable sources."
Given the context of the ongoing discussion about wilfuly outing
people... is it just me who finds that wording, hmm, a touch odd?
Discuss.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
On 30 May 2007 at 12:30:18 -0400, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be
> beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
Then you're not thinking hard enough. Plenty of reasons have been
discussed here, in other places where this debate has proceeded, and
in my essay on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> This is the site that welcomed AMorrow with open arms. This is the
> site
> that Daniel Brandt regularly contributes to. This is the site that
> organised severe harrassment of Phil Sandifer, then lied about their
> motives. This is the site that drove Katefan0, *an admin who even
> they
> couldn't fault*, away from Wikipedia out of pure meanness of spirit.
> This is the site where, when a board administrator mentioned that
> revealing personal information was frowned-upon, the rest told that
> fellow: "Speak for yourself."
Here's an example of the sort of rhetoric-by-repetition technique
that works much better spoken than written. The repetition in this
case is the phrase, "This is the site that..." It would spare Mark a
bit of typing if he would just list his litany, without the
oratorical device.
I know a bit about AMorrow because he showed up briefly on my own
wiki, SourceWatch, before we banned him. One thing that happens with
people who can't get along with Wikipedia is that after they quit in
anger or are banned, they go forum-shopping to other websites. We get
a few disgruntled ex-Wikipedians this way, and almost always it turns
out that they were banned for good reason, which was certainly the
case with AMorrow. Given the mission of Wikipedia Review, I'm sure it
attracts far more disgruntled ex-Wikipedians than we do.
Just now, however, I did a Google search for AMorrow on
site:wikipediareview.com, and it appears that he was banned there
about a year ago. I didn't spend a lot of time reading the discussion
threads, but there was some debate over his banning, with a user
named "blissy2" writing, "Amorrow was commenting in ways that could
be considered to be cyber stalking. Since Wikipedia Review is a law-
abiding entity, it is risky for us to be associated with someone who
may be engaging in illegal activity. ... Even if Wikipedia was
sitting there being decent, not harassing us, not slandering us, not
trying to destroy us, and we were working together, we still couldn't
allow this kind of activity. Its got nothing to do with whether or
not Wikipedia hates him."
Banning him on grounds that he is a cyberstalker doesn't sound to me
like "welcoming with open arms."
I did a similar brief search to see what happened in the case of
Katefan0. (I hadn't heard of it before.) In that case my snap
judgment is that it was indeed meanspirited and wrong for Brandt to
go after her as he did.
The problem I have with litanies like the one that I quoted above
from Mark Gallagher is that they dredge up old history mostly for the
sake of rehearsing bitterness, and they usually do so in a
tendentious way that selectively presents the facts in order to make
WR look even worse than it is (such as saying that AMorrow was
"welcomed with open arms" without mentioning that they banned him).
If this sort of history is important enough to keep bringing up, then
it ought to be done in a more thorough, precise fashion, which
inevitably means linking to and quoting from the relevant threads on
Wikipedia Review so everyone can see for themselves what is being
discussed. But, um, that presents a problem, doesn't it?
I also couldn't help noticing the similarity between the anti-
Wikipedia rhetoric that comes pouring out of "blissy2" and some of
the rhetoric that I've seen written here about WR. Blissy2 says
Wikipedia is "harassing us, slandering us, trying to destroy us." Do
any of these phrases sound familiar?
I agree that WR is a pretty pissy bunch with which I would not
personally want to become associated, but I think the problem is
being exacerbated rather than improved by a few Wikipedians who are
so busy seeing red that they can't let a few things go.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------