fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: John Lee
I got the impression that Agger takes much of Brandt's conclusions at face value ("likely MI-5 agent").
Johnleemk
I think that's an accurate impression. They take it in. Hook, line and sinker.
There is an assumption that editing by an MI5 agent is somehow a grave and unacceptable event. While this particular incident is an apparent fantasy, there is little doubt that a number of editors are here to similarly influence our content on behalf of both public and private advocacy groups.
The inability of internet readers to recognize ironic writing contributes to this kind of conspiracy theorizing. Focussing on one paragraph out of context from a much larger article seems to be a favourite tactic. Suggesting that someone is revealed as an MI-5 agent stretches plausibility, and impugns the credibility of the person who is cited as having made that claim.
Sure people edit Wikipedia to further the interests of a particular group, and many of them understand that being blatant about it will be counter-productive. Still, what is said in those instances remains more important than who said it, and verification still attaches to the content rather than the editor.
Taking ironic or symbolic writing as literal truth yields silly results. Wasn't that the whole point of the Scopes trial? Suggesting that we need to take steps to protect ourselves or our editors from such activity requires as a precondition that we be able to distinguish between literal and ironic writing . Failing in that task leaves us paranoid about imagined conspiracies trying to undermine Wikipedia.
Ec