Hi members,
I very rarely post to lists, but this thread is bothering me a lot. I have read the posting on Stormfront, as well, as at least 75% of the postings on Neo-nazi to attack. Despite this, I see only editors reacting as if what they have read on this site is going to happen, and exactly as described, i.e. all members of the Stormfront site are to login as users of Wikipedia and try to influence all the articles related to their position to make them POV. I have little doubt that the members of this site hope to disrupt Wikipedia in a big way. But, frankly, they already _have_. Editors, who usually would be working on articles, are now developing tactics to combat this neo-nazi POV attack. This is their first success. Score one for Stromfront!!! Second, do you all really believe that if they intended to do exactly as they say, they would post their tactics openly on their site? I wonder! I think that they _do_ intend to do damage to Wikipedia, but the details are probably in private mailings among members of their community. Meanwhile, they could be using their postings as a _diversion_, and while everyone is concentrating on monitoring certain articles, they could do something entirely different to damage our site. I leave it to those more technically inclined to try to figure out what that might be . Just my thinking .
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
rose.parks@att.net wrote:
Hi members,
I very rarely post to lists, but this thread is bothering me a lot. I have read
the posting on Stormfront, as well, as at least 75% of the postings on “Neo-nazi to attack.”
Despite this, I see only editors reacting as if what they have read on this site is
going to happen, and exactly as described, i.e. all members of the Stormfront site are to login as users of Wikipedia and try to influence all the articles related to their position to make them POV.
I have little doubt that the members of this site hope to disrupt Wikipedia in a big
way. But, frankly, they already _have_. Editors, who usually would be working on articles, are now developing tactics to combat this neo-nazi POV attack. This is their first success.
Score one for Stromfront!!! Second, do you all really believe that if they intended to do exactly as they say, they would post their tactics openly on their site? I wonder! I think
that they _do_ intend to do damage to Wikipedia, but the details are probably in private mailings among members of their community. Meanwhile, they could be using their postings as a _diversion_, and while everyone is concentrating on monitoring certain articles, they could do something entirely different to damage our site. I leave it to those more technically inclined to try to figure out what that might be….
Just my thinking…. As Ever, Ruth Ifcher
I doubt that's really much of a valid concern, frankly. For one thing, this has become a useful policy discussion, I think. For another, the operation of Wikipedia hasn't been "disrupted" at all by this discussion, as far as I can tell. Finally, I think it's likely that the Stormfront guys don't so much want to "damage" Wikipedia as they simply want their perspective to be heard. Whether or not there's any validity to their perspective, that would require keeping Wikipedia in working order, not damaging it.
-- Chad
on 2/7/05 9:46 PM, rose.parks@att.net at rose.parks@att.net wrote:
Second, do you all really believe that if they intended to do exactly as they say, they would post their tactics openly on their site?
Yes. We're not exactly dealing with prime tacticians here.
Andy
AndyL said:
on 2/7/05 9:46 PM, rose.parks@att.net at rose.parks@att.net wrote:
Second, do you all really believe that if they intended to do exactly as they say, they would post their tactics openly on their site?
Yes. We're not exactly dealing with prime tacticians here.
I think AndyL is right. Look at their rhetoric. They have convinced themselves that in engaging Wikipedia they are exposing a deliberate and systematic campaign of censorship carried out by a small and dedicated group of editors (with tentacles everywhere, it goes without saying) as agents of the Zionist occupation government of America, or something. They do not believe that secrecy will help them, they're conspiracy theorists on a mission.
Second, do you all really believe that if they intended to do exactly as they say, they would post their tactics openly on their site? I wonder! I think that they _do_ intend to do damage to Wikipedia, but the details are probably in private mailings among members of their community. Meanwhile, they could be using their postings as a _diversion_, and while everyone is concentrating on monitoring certain articles, they could do something entirely different to damage our site. I leave it to those more technically inclined to try to figure out what that might be .
I think you credit them with far more intelligence than they have ever demonstrated.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
Second, do you all really believe that if they intended to do exactly as they say, they would post their tactics openly on their site? I wonder! I think that they _do_ intend to do damage to Wikipedia, but the details are probably in private mailings among members of their community. Meanwhile, they could be using their postings as a _diversion_, and while everyone is concentrating on monitoring certain articles, they could do something entirely different to damage our site. I leave it to those more technically inclined to try to figure out what that might be….
I think you credit them with far more intelligence than they have ever demonstrated.
Jay.
LOL! I agree.
TBSDY
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:46:54 +0000, rose.parks@att.net rose.parks@att.net wrote:
Second, do you all really believe that if they intended to do exactly as they say, they would post their tactics openly on their site? I wonder! I think that they _do_ intend to do damage to Wikipedia, but the details are probably in private mailings among members of their community. Meanwhile, they could be using their postings as a _diversion_, and while everyone is concentrating on monitoring certain articles, they could do something entirely different to damage our site. I leave it to those more technically inclined to try to figure out what that might be…. Just my thinking….
Look at it this way: 1) They thought that removing an excessive amount of links from a page (unprotected) was an "abuse of admin rights" 2) "Wikipedia is a pro-Zionist, anti-white racialist, conformist site" 3) "its clearly written by an unrepepentant red, spilling out all the same old apologies for communism." 4) "Holocaust Denial has been essentially hijacked by the jews on wikipedia, along with many other topics, we really need more white people to sign up to wikipedia and help to make unbiased contributions to wikipedia.com" 5) They still haven't figured out the site address is en.wikipedia.org. 6) Some important messages need to be repeated twice before being noticed. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1633290&postcount=39 7) They link to sources which have no sources http://home.att.net/~whitesox/israel/Auschwitz.htm -> http://www.air-photo.com/english_old/ra/deathbooks.html 8) They suggest a wiki with membership moderated.
In other words, they're stupid. Add that to "they're crackpots" and I don't think they'll get anywhere.