If it weren't for the fact that Durova has been put through the wringer quite enough on this matter, I'd suggest that someone she respects ask her if she had been contacted with the opportunity to comment. To be honest though, even if she had been contacted, I wouldn't blame her a bit for saying no. Risker On Dec 3, 2007 10:20 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

On Dec 4, 2007 12:14 AM, Ral315 <en.ral315(a)gmail.com> wrote: While I see your point, Ral315, as I pointed out to jossi earlier this evening, we have well over 1000 links to this "rag" on Wikipedia right now (I think it comes out to 1835). If it is that bad a source, then there's some major cleaning up to do. I doubt you'll manage to convince all ov the editors on all of the articles where it is used that it is that bad of a source. I'll agree it comes out a bit like a hit piece, but I've seen far worse in "reliable" sources on similar subjects. It would be interesting to know if the Foundation or Jimbo were asked to comment though, which is one thing the article doesn't say. Risker

On Dec 3, 2007 10:07 PM, Ral315 <en.ral315(a)gmail.com> wrote: Their biggest bias is that they play to the audience - in that they know being controversial gets them noticed. -Matt

On 04/12/2007, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's fine. I love the way that people convince themselves because they don't like us we get to (or ought to?) juggle logic in order to declare them unreliable. This is the second time I've seen this approach argued on this particular case! So, hum. It has a known editorial voice, one it expresses strongly, and the way it reports on topics we know a lot about leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy. You know what? The latter part's true for pretty much any publication. We pick holes in articles discussing us in the most learned or respected sources; it should be no surprise that the Register is any different. So we're left with the editorial voice. They don't like us. Boo-hoo. Lots of people don't like us, lots of people think we're fundamentally going about our business in the wrong direction - with varying degrees of sense behind that - and the way to make this better isn't to start randomly getting rid of bits of content because of some kind of presumed subtext. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 12/3/07, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote: That's interesting-- I totally don't see going to the press (in the abstract) as a bad thing, I see it as a valuable RFC from the larger community-- in the case, the community of humans. But I wonder if I really believe that, or if I just believe that in this case because I tend to agree that the Durova Incident was such a huge deal. When you have a human brain, you can never really be sure-- or at least, I can't. :) Alec

On 12/4/07, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote: True dat. That was the thing that was so frustrating about mainstream media coverage of the Essjay thing. We're a community that doesn't go in for "crediential original research". If you're a 14 years old and you make a better than a 50 year old professor, we go with the 14 year old. I don't think I ever saw any articles that really "got" that about us. It doesn't really matter if you do fake your resume, because we don't look at your resume, and if by chance we do, we don't we don't believe your claims about your resume. But anyway, that's a long dead horse. Alec

On 04/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: Cade Metz has been badgering random admins to talk to him for a while, presumably because everyone knows Orlowski's name is a warning. - d.