I just thought this interesting because I've used Slate as a reference for a number of articles - but following the rigid definition of an attack site which seems to be in vogue amongst a significant few, linking to Slate is now verboten.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
"Brandt also has an interesting take on how Google props up Wikipedia as a premier information source, since more than 50 percent of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google searches. If you wish to enter further into Brandt's matrix, read about how he uncovered a likely MI-5 agent operating on Wikipedia under the alias Slimvirgin. The winding road starts here [link to Wikipedia Review post by Brandt]."
I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm mistaken - we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them suppressed.
Johnleemk
On 10/11/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought this interesting because I've used Slate as a reference for a number of articles - but following the rigid definition of an attack site which seems to be in vogue amongst a significant few, linking to Slate is now verboten.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
"Brandt also has an interesting take on how Google props up Wikipedia as a premier information source, since more than 50 percent of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google searches. If you wish to enter further into Brandt's matrix, read about how he uncovered a likely MI-5 agent operating on Wikipedia under the alias Slimvirgin. The winding road starts here [link to Wikipedia Review post by Brandt]."
I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm mistaken
- we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid
definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them suppressed.
Johnleemk
I'm usually a big fan of Slate, but this is disgraceful. Can someone more articulate and who is able to make the point better try and raise the issue in Slate's Fray, show them who Brandt is from our perspective?
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 10/11/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought this interesting because I've used Slate as a reference for a number of articles - but following the rigid definition of an attack site which seems to be in vogue amongst a significant few, linking to Slate is now verboten.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
"Brandt also has an interesting take on how Google props up Wikipedia as a premier information source, since more than 50 percent of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google searches. If you wish to enter further into Brandt's matrix, read about how he uncovered a likely MI-5 agent operating on Wikipedia under the alias Slimvirgin. The winding road starts here [link to Wikipedia Review post by Brandt]."
I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm mistaken
- we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid
definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them suppressed.
I'm usually a big fan of Slate, but this is disgraceful. Can someone more articulate and who is able to make the point better try and raise the issue in Slate's Fray, show them who Brandt is from our perspective?
I don't read Agger's article as favorable to Brandt. I tend to read the phrase "interesting take" as meaning "this is fun ti read, but hard to believe." The fact that the one "exposed" feature that he references about Slim is the more extreme one that she is an MI-5 agent leaves me with the impression that he considers Brandt to be a conspiracy theorist.
Ec
On 10/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 10/11/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought this interesting because I've used Slate as a reference
for a
number of articles - but following the rigid definition of an attack
site
which seems to be in vogue amongst a significant few, linking to Slate
is
now verboten.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
"Brandt also has an interesting take on how Google props up Wikipedia
as a
premier information source, since more than 50 percent of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google searches. If you wish to enter further into Brandt's matrix, read about how he uncovered a likely MI-5 agent
operating
on Wikipedia under the alias Slimvirgin. The winding road starts here
[link
to Wikipedia Review post by Brandt]."
I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm
mistaken
- we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid
definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them suppressed.
I'm usually a big fan of Slate, but this is disgraceful. Can someone more articulate and who is able to make the point better try and raise the issue in Slate's Fray, show them who Brandt is from our perspective?
I don't read Agger's article as favorable to Brandt. I tend to read the phrase "interesting take" as meaning "this is fun ti read, but hard to believe." The fact that the one "exposed" feature that he references about Slim is the more extreme one that she is an MI-5 agent leaves me with the impression that he considers Brandt to be a conspiracy theorist.
I got the impression that Agger takes much of Brandt's conclusions at face value ("likely MI-5 agent").
Johnleemk
On 10/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 10/11/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought this interesting because I've used Slate as a reference for a number of articles - but following the rigid definition of an attack site which seems to be in vogue amongst a significant few, linking to Slate is now verboten.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
"Brandt also has an interesting take on how Google props up Wikipedia as a premier information source, since more than 50 percent of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google searches. If you wish to enter further into Brandt's matrix, read about how he uncovered a likely MI-5 agent operating on Wikipedia under the alias Slimvirgin. The winding road starts here [link to Wikipedia Review post by Brandt]."
I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm mistaken
- we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid
definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them suppressed.
I'm usually a big fan of Slate, but this is disgraceful. Can someone more articulate and who is able to make the point better try and raise the issue in Slate's Fray, show them who Brandt is from our perspective?
I don't read Agger's article as favorable to Brandt. I tend to read the phrase "interesting take" as meaning "this is fun ti read, but hard to believe." The fact that the one "exposed" feature that he references about Slim is the more extreme one that she is an MI-5 agent leaves me with the impression that he considers Brandt to be a conspiracy theorist.
Brandt doesn't even believe that Sarah is an MI-5 agent, though. Some dead guy said that.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Agger's article as favorable to Brandt. I tend to read the phrase "interesting take" as meaning "this is fun ti read, but hard to believe." The fact that the one "exposed" feature that he references about Slim is the more extreme one that she is an MI-5 agent leaves me with the impression that he considers Brandt to be a conspiracy theorist.
I'd second that. He clearly suggests that Brandt is a nut. E.g., he introduces him with, "the conversation was a lot like discussing the grassy knoll circa 1966." And he refers to the SlimVirgin bit with, "enter further into Brandt's matrix," which I read as "I think this is wacko-land".
Of course, to me, this underlines John's point. He can't even bring up an article that calls Brandt a conspiracy theorist and mentions the SV-as-MI5 bit as obvious nuttery without getting accused of acting in bad faith.
William
On 10/11/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I'm usually a big fan of Slate, but this is disgraceful. Can someone more articulate and who is able to make the point better try and raise the issue in Slate's Fray, show them who Brandt is from our perspective?
Our article on [[Daniel Brandt]] would have been a good starting point were it not protected blank.
Good luck explaining this situation to Mr. Agger and his readers. I doubt anybody is articulate enough to make Wikipedia not sound unbelievably fucking stupid for being an easy tool in the hands of a notorious cyber-crackpot.
If somebody told me to put a positive spin on that I wouldn't know where to begin.
—C.W.
On 11/10/2007, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm mistaken
- we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid
definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them suppressed.
I think we can reasonably say that any time one posts a link to wikien-l with "is --- an attack site?", the answer is JESUS GOD OF COURSE NOT PLEASE NO.
Taking this to its reductio ad absurdam is left as an exercise for the reader.
(But one of our more myopically enthusiastic admins will probably be along before the year's out to *actually* propose banning links to, say, the BBC, so they probably don't have to take it very far...)
On 11/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I think we can reasonably say that any time one posts a link to wikien-l with "is --- an attack site?", the answer is JESUS GOD OF COURSE NOT PLEASE NO. Taking this to its reductio ad absurdam is left as an exercise for the reader.
The problem is that it's frequently been taken as an exercise for groups of admins who consider anyone disagreeing with them must prima facie be trolling.
The possibility wouldn't be mentioned if the incredibly stupid thing *didn't keep happening*.
- d.