Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
On 12/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
-- == 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Dan,
This article seriously mentions black helicopters in the context of Wikipedia.
If you ever took the Register seriously, it's time to reconsider your opinion.
Regards
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
On 07/12/2007, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
This article seriously mentions black helicopters in the context of Wikipedia.
Actually, it mentions them in the title of the article. It's used a convenient shorthand that most Register readers would understand.
Quoting Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
On 12/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
-- == 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Dan,
This article seriously mentions black helicopters in the context of Wikipedia.
If you ever took the Register seriously, it's time to reconsider your opinion.
Regards
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
I'm also concerned that Dan and others seem to be going out of there way to take Wikipedia disputes off-wiki in a way to maximize damage to the reputation of the project as a whole and Wikipedia editors who they disagree with. If we don't have the maturity to handle our disputes without egging on tabloids to write nasty things about other editors we have a serious problem.
Dan, I've agreed with you on BADSITES somewhat, and I've disagreed with you strongly on the Durova matter but see somewhat where you are coming from, but I cannot begin to fathom what went through your mind when you took part in this article. I see nothing it accomplishes other than being a hit piece on fellow Wikipedians. We can have polite, rational disagreement without pulling tabloids into our mess. Heck, we can even have impolite disagreements. We sometimes say "fuck" and "shut up" to each other on the mailing list. But there is no good reason to get newspapers involved like this, especially crappy newspapers who wish to cause trouble.
I hope that all editors in the future will exercise better restraint than to engage in this sort of immature and unproductive behavior.
I know, I know, this is less interesting than the latest fair & balanced Register article, and on top of that it concerns the German Wikimedia, but just in case this hasn't been mentioned yet:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/06/wikipedia-sued-for-nazi-sympathies/
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt6m1/computer/artikel/264/146922/
Adrian
On Dec 7, 2007 8:57 AM, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I know, I know, this is less interesting than the latest fair & balanced Register article, and on top of that it concerns the German Wikimedia, but just in case this hasn't been mentioned yet:
Hi, we (=Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Foundation, ComCom) are working on it. Basically, Schubert did not read the law. §86 (3) German criminal code has very specific exemptions for displaying symbols of organisations of forbidden organisations (like the nazi party). It is perfectly acceptable by law to display such a symbol in an article about that organisation.
Schubert came under fire from people within her own party who realize the absurdity of her statement and action. I am confident that she will openly regret the error she made.
Mathias
On Dec 7, 2007 7:13 PM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 8:57 AM, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I know, I know, this is less interesting than the latest fair & balanced Register article, and on top of that it concerns the German Wikimedia, but just in case this hasn't been mentioned yet:
Hi, we (=Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Foundation, ComCom) are working on it. Basically, Schubert did not read the law. §86 (3) German criminal code has very specific exemptions for displaying symbols of organisations of forbidden organisations (like the nazi party). It is perfectly acceptable by law to display such a symbol in an article about that organisation.
Schubert came under fire from people within her own party who realize the absurdity of her statement and action. I am confident that she will openly regret the error she made.
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day folks,
While we're on the topic of German Wikipedia, well done for this.
http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=18752
"The German version of the do-it-yourself online reference work Wikipedia is better than Germany's most prestigious commercial encyclopaedia, the weekly magazine Stern asserted Wednesday. "
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old schrieb:
On Dec 7, 2007 7:13 PM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 8:57 AM, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I know, I know, this is less interesting than the latest fair & balanced Register article, and on top of that it concerns the German Wikimedia, but just in case this hasn't been mentioned yet:
Hi, we (=Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Foundation, ComCom) are working on it. Basically, Schubert did not read the law. §86 (3) German criminal code has very specific exemptions for displaying symbols of organisations of forbidden organisations (like the nazi party). It is perfectly acceptable by law to display such a symbol in an article about that organisation.
Schubert came under fire from people within her own party who realize the absurdity of her statement and action. I am confident that she will openly regret the error she made.
Mathias
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day folks,
While we're on the topic of German Wikipedia, well done for this.
http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=18752
"The German version of the do-it-yourself online reference work Wikipedia is better than Germany's most prestigious commercial encyclopaedia, the weekly magazine Stern asserted Wednesday. "
Regards
Keith Old
Yeah, I considered including that as well, but this is the mailing list for rumination of baseless allegations and drama, so I figured a pending lawsuit is more to the taste of the audience.
Adrian
On Dec 7, 2007 10:01 AM, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Keith Old
Yeah, I considered including that as well, but this is the mailing list for rumination of baseless allegations and drama, so I figured a pending lawsuit is more to the taste of the audience.
There is drama in the Stern cover story as well. The Brockhaus spokesperson lamented the result :)
On 07/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Dan, I've agreed with you on BADSITES somewhat, and I've disagreed with you strongly on the Durova matter but see somewhat where you are coming from, but I cannot begin to fathom what went through your mind when you took part in this article. I see nothing it accomplishes other than being a hit piece on fellow Wikipedians.
Mr Metz is someone more than a few Wikipedians have foolishly spoken to precisely once. Then they realise that participating in ad banner trolling is unlikely to advance anyone else's agenda.
- d.
On Dec 6, 2007 9:16 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
On 12/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
-- == 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Dan,
This article seriously mentions black helicopters in the context of Wikipedia.
If you ever took the Register seriously, it's time to reconsider your opinion.
Regards
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
I'm also concerned that Dan and others seem to be going out of there way to take Wikipedia disputes off-wiki in a way to maximize damage to the reputation of the project as a whole and Wikipedia editors who they disagree with. If we don't have the maturity to handle our disputes without egging on tabloids to write nasty things about other editors we have a serious problem.
Dan, I've agreed with you on BADSITES somewhat, and I've disagreed with you strongly on the Durova matter but see somewhat where you are coming from, but I cannot begin to fathom what went through your mind when you took part in this article. I see nothing it accomplishes other than being a hit piece on fellow Wikipedians. We can have polite, rational disagreement without pulling tabloids into our mess. Heck, we can even have impolite disagreements. We sometimes say "fuck" and "shut up" to each other on the mailing list. But there is no good reason to get newspapers involved like this, especially crappy newspapers who wish to cause trouble.
I hope that all editors in the future will exercise better restraint than to engage in this sort of immature and unproductive behavior.
Personally I wouldn't encourage the sort of irresponsible reporting El Reg frequently engages in, and I don't approve of editors who would do the same, but at the same time, I don't see why editors shouldn't be free to do this. Making this verboten will only force them to become anonymous and complicate matters further. It is irresponsible to drag disputes off-wiki as was done here, but it will happen regardless of what we do - that's the whole lesson of the BADSITES debacle.
(I would also take exception to the suggestion that simply answering questions from a tabloid hostile to Wikipedia is automatically tantamount to dragging our good name through the mud - the chair of Wikimedia UK has responded to El Reg in the comments section, but this doesn't mean she has somehow harmed Wikipedia simply by virtue of participating.)
The more openness, the better, if you ask me. Sometimes it is better for us to comment when newspapers pose questions to us. The risk of tabloids abusing our openness is just something we have to tolerate.
Johnleemk
On 07/12/2007, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I wouldn't encourage the sort of irresponsible reporting El Reg frequently engages in, and I don't approve of editors who would do the same, but at the same time, I don't see why editors shouldn't be free to do this. Making this verboten will only force them to become anonymous and complicate matters further. It is irresponsible to drag disputes off-wiki as was done here, but it will happen regardless of what we do - that's the whole lesson of the BADSITES debacle.
Absolutely - we respond to stuff because we feel that doing so will advance the encyclopedia and the project to write the encyclopedia. The problem is that the only agenda advanced by feeding an ad-banner troll is that of the ad-banner troll.
But I certainly wouldn't deny anyone the important educational experience of having done so, nor the powerful personal in just how reliable those things that have been arbitrarily deemed "reliable sources" actually are.
(I would also take exception to the suggestion that simply answering questions from a tabloid hostile to Wikipedia is automatically tantamount to dragging our good name through the mud - the chair of Wikimedia UK has responded to El Reg in the comments section, but this doesn't mean she has somehow harmed Wikipedia simply by virtue of participating.)
Though she did gain a powerful personal lesson in the effectiveness of feeding the ad-banner troll.
The more openness, the better, if you ask me. Sometimes it is better for us to comment when newspapers pose questions to us. The risk of tabloids abusing our openness is just something we have to tolerate.
Definitely. Mostly, being ourselves to press queries is just the right thing to do. I'm surprised and pleased how well random normal Wikipedians the press talk to tend to come across.
- d.
I stopped reading here:
"On July 7, 2006, I decided to alert the Wikipedia community to Weiss's activities," Bagley says. "I did this by adding some true but unflattering details to the Gary Weiss article, expecting Mantanmoreland to object and escalate the matter to the official Wikipedia dispute resolution process, resulting in Mantanmoreland's banning from Wikipedia."
Jesus, really? Didn't you think maybe any of the hundred other nice, normal, easy, and transparent ways would be better?
I think there is just a culture problem. There are people in the world that are so unaccustomed to any transparency they fundamentally can't work with Wikipedia. That's my opinion today anyway.
On 12/7/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Jesus, really? Didn't you think maybe any of the hundred other nice, normal, easy, and transparent ways would be better?
I'm pretty sure any approach would have backfired on him (making niceness, normality, ease, and transparency four moot points).
—C.W.
On Dec 7, 2007 12:39 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/7/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Jesus, really? Didn't you think maybe any of the hundred other nice, normal, easy, and transparent ways would be better?
I'm pretty sure any approach would have backfired on him
Why is that?
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:19:57 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
Ah, bless, Bagley's finally found someone so daft that he actually believes his hard-luck story! Seems David Hannum was right after all.
Guy (JzG)
On 07/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:19:57 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
Ah, bless, Bagley's finally found someone so daft that he actually believes his hard-luck story! Seems David Hannum was right after all.
Who?
The article is, um, quite special. It appears to be the Judd Bagley press pack.
- d.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:24:50 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, bless, Bagley's finally found someone so daft that he actually believes his hard-luck story! Seems David Hannum was right after all.
Who?
David Hannum is the person who actually coined the phrase "there's a sucker born every minute".
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 6, 2007 5:19 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
Daniel;
While I feel it's fine for everyone to have their say, including Bagley, I'm somewhat dissapointed that you participated in helping a writer create a puff piece that completely dismissed Bagley's long and well documented history of dangerous stalking and harrassment activities.
What he's done online makes it completely unsuitable for him to ever edit Wikipedia again.
Cade is clearly looking for and finding controversy. The Register thrives on that. The reality is rather different. Rendering aid and comfort to people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of the project.
On 12/7/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Rendering aid and comfort to people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of the project.
I agree. Actually I think that's what I said about Daniel Brandt circa the 14th AFD.
—C.W.
Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation. The way to combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other side of the story out more effectively. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here helps.
On Dec 7, 2007 2:18 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:19 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
Daniel;
While I feel it's fine for everyone to have their say, including Bagley, I'm somewhat dissapointed that you participated in helping a writer create a puff piece that completely dismissed Bagley's long and well documented history of dangerous stalking and harrassment activities.
What he's done online makes it completely unsuitable for him to ever edit Wikipedia again.
Cade is clearly looking for and finding controversy. The Register thrives on that. The reality is rather different. Rendering aid and comfort to people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of the project.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/7/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation. The way to combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other side of the story out more effectively. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here helps.
I agree. The Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee always needs volunteers - I suggest contacting Sandra Ordonez <sordonez AT wikimedia DOT org> if you want to help. :-)
It's sad that a sensationalist blog is getting so much attention.
On Dec 7, 2007 2:05 PM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation. The way to combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other side of the story out more effectively. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here helps.
Part of it, I'm sure, is that responsible people don't feel qualified to act as if they were Wikipedia's spokespeople ... while the irresponsible have no problems.
-Matt
I do not disagree that offering to talk to the press is good.
I talk to press a moderate amount, on and off, in other fields (computing, alt.space company stuff). In some cases I know the press people, in other cases I have just talked to them one or more times.
When the discussion is about something where there is a percieved conflict, it's worthwhile finding out if the article is intended to be an honest coverage of the incident, or simply taking a side and publicizing it.
What came out was simply taking a side and publicizing it.
If you know going in to an interview, or should have known going in, that the piece is not going to try to present all sides, then it's not a "news" story, it's an opinion/feature piece. Some of those, it's probably not a good idea to participate in.
If the journalist already has a firm set opinion that something's wrong, engaging with them will often just give them more ammo. Especially if they think you're associated with the percieved "bad guy".
I don't suggest that we should do anything like a press blackout, even if we could. But I appeal to everyone's common sense. If the journalist in question is presenting dangerously unbalanced portrayals of the project, be careful talking to them, and consider not talking to them. Even if you tend to agree with what you think their viewpoint is.
Nobody wins when purient shit-stirring happens in the press regarding the project.
-george
On Dec 7, 2007 2:05 PM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation. The way to combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other side of the story out more effectively. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here helps.
On Dec 7, 2007 2:18 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:19 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
Daniel;
While I feel it's fine for everyone to have their say, including Bagley,
I'm
somewhat dissapointed that you participated in helping a writer create a puff piece that completely dismissed Bagley's long and well documented history of dangerous stalking and harrassment activities.
What he's done online makes it completely unsuitable for him to ever
edit
Wikipedia again.
Cade is clearly looking for and finding controversy. The Register
thrives
on that. The reality is rather different. Rendering aid and comfort to people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of
the
project.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ben Yates wrote:
Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation. The way to combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other side of the story out more effectively. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here helps.
We've got a neutral news outlet that we could go to; Wikinews. Perhaps someone who's actually familiar with the case could write a "view from the other side" and post it there, that way when discussions arise on blogs and Slashdot and whatever there'll be someplace that they can be directed to.
It shouldn't be a whitewash, mind you; Wikinews shouldn't be a propaganda arm for anyone. But in cases like this IMO a straightforward recounting of the facts one feels that the Register omitted would go a long way toward defusing a lot of the bad publicity. I've found that people are usually quite willing to accept the notion that a news story was skewed by poor reporting if there's some evidence to back that up.
On Dec 7, 2007 8:08 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
We've got a neutral news outlet that we could go to; Wikinews.
You *are* joking, right? The same Wikinews that is on Wikipedia's front page, largely developed by en-WP editors, and gets special linking rights in WP articles unlike any other news medium? Whether or not the writers of Wikinews are neutral is immaterial; I believe the conflict of interest would actually make things worse.
Risker
Quoting Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
On Dec 7, 2007 8:08 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
We've got a neutral news outlet that we could go to; Wikinews.
You *are* joking, right? The same Wikinews that is on Wikipedia's front page, largely developed by en-WP editors, and gets special linking rights in WP articles unlike any other news medium? Whether or not the writers of Wikinews are neutral is immaterial; I believe the conflict of interest would actually make things worse.
Risker
Speaking as a Wikipedia admin who is also a Wikinews admin(albeit the second only very recently), using Wikinews for this sort of thing is not in general a good idea. Wikinews has on occasion reported on Wikipedia related issues. For example they reported on the Webcomics wars and they actually broke the Chris Benoit Wikipedia story- http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Death_of_Nancy_Benoit_rumour_posted_on_Wikipedia... (and then got close to zero credit for it in the mainstream press) and many of the Wikinewsies actually dislike the English Wikipedia to the point where if some of them were writing I'd be worried about the article being too anti-Wikipedia. However, the potential for conflicts of interest is massive and the appearance of a serious conflict of interest would occur regardless of who wrote it there. Indeed, many Wikinewsies frown on Wikipedia related reporting for just those reasons. It is much better to do Wikinews reports about Wikipedia only as they are done now; generally when some person who is mainly a Wikinewsie finds out about some Wikipedia related matter that sparks their interest they edit about it. \
Now, what might make sense is for someone to talk to a Wikinewsie who is very much not a Wikipedian (and I have a few in mind) and talk to them about doing an essentially investigative article. However, that would take time and would further continue this drama which really should just die.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
On Dec 7, 2007 8:08 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
We've got a neutral news outlet that we could go to; Wikinews.
You *are* joking, right? The same Wikinews that is on Wikipedia's front page, largely developed by en-WP editors, and gets special linking rights in WP articles unlike any other news medium? Whether or not the writers of Wikinews are neutral is immaterial; I believe the conflict of interest would actually make things worse.
I doubt a page on Wikipedia itself would be better in this regard, though I myself would be fine with that. My point is simply that it would be really helpful to have some kind of reasonably neutral summary that we can point to by way of rebuttal or at least to provide a little balance for one-sided views like this.
Now, what might make sense is for someone to talk to a Wikinewsie who is very much not a Wikipedian (and I have a few in mind) and talk to them about doing an essentially investigative article. However, that would take time and would further continue this drama which really should just die.
Wishing that a drama would just die won't actually make it go away.
Ok, Register article now Slashdotted: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1434221
Could someone please go over there and explain at minimum how Bagley is a complete ass and please list a few of the things he did that got him banned?
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
Ben Yates wrote:
Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation. The way to combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other side of the story out more effectively. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here helps.
We've got a neutral news outlet that we could go to; Wikinews. Perhaps someone who's actually familiar with the case could write a "view from the other side" and post it there, that way when discussions arise on blogs and Slashdot and whatever there'll be someplace that they can be directed to.
It shouldn't be a whitewash, mind you; Wikinews shouldn't be a propaganda arm for anyone. But in cases like this IMO a straightforward recounting of the facts one feels that the Register omitted would go a long way toward defusing a lot of the bad publicity. I've found that people are usually quite willing to accept the notion that a news story was skewed by poor reporting if there's some evidence to back that up.
On 08/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Ok, Register article now Slashdotted: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1434221 Could someone please go over there and explain at minimum how Bagley is a complete ass and please list a few of the things he did that got him banned?
Raul654 has, and several others are joining in.
- d.
On Dec 8, 2007 6:20 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Ok, Register article now Slashdotted: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1434221 Could someone please go over there and explain at minimum how Bagley is a complete ass and please list a few of the things he did that got him banned?
Raul654 has, and several others are joining in.
Lots of WP regulars are over there now, but they're mostly getting torn to pieces, because their arguments do boil down to "Bagley's a sociopath, and you need to trust us on that." Virtually nobody is backing themselves up with links, like http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=382783&cid=21613811 does. Seriously, folks, it's not just on-wiki that we need to cite our sources, especially with the PR we've had this last week or two. *Not* making our critics right about our being arrogant and unsocialized would be a good thing.
Michael Noda wrote:
Lots of WP regulars are over there now, but they're mostly getting torn to pieces, because their arguments do boil down to "Bagley's a sociopath, and you need to trust us on that." Virtually nobody is backing themselves up with links, like http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=382783&cid=21613811 does. Seriously, folks, it's not just on-wiki that we need to cite our sources, especially with the PR we've had this last week or two. *Not* making our critics right about our being arrogant and unsocialized would be a good thing.
This is why I was suggesting that it'd be really useful to have a page providing a full account of the situation. Producing a neutral, verifiable summaries of persons or events is what we're _for_.
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
Michael Noda wrote:
Lots of WP regulars are over there now, but they're mostly getting torn to pieces, because their arguments do boil down to "Bagley's a sociopath, and you need to trust us on that." Virtually nobody is backing themselves up with links, like http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=382783&cid=21613811 does. Seriously, folks, it's not just on-wiki that we need to cite our sources, especially with the PR we've had this last week or two. *Not* making our critics right about our being arrogant and unsocialized would be a good thing.
This is why I was suggesting that it'd be really useful to have a page providing a full account of the situation. Producing a neutral, verifiable summaries of persons or events is what we're _for_.
There's no rule against someone writing something like that in user space.
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:19 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
Daniel;
While I feel it's fine for everyone to have their say, including Bagley, I'm somewhat dissapointed that you participated in helping a writer create a puff piece that completely dismissed Bagley's long and well documented history of dangerous stalking and harrassment activities.
What he's done online makes it completely unsuitable for him to ever edit Wikipedia again.
Cade is clearly looking for and finding controversy. The Register thrives on that. The reality is rather different. Rendering aid and comfort to people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of the project.
Hi George,
Dan is quoted in Cade's article: "I don't want to be portrayed as being on Bagley's side. I'm just in favor of being fair and balanced with everybody," Tobias says. "I very strongly dislike censorship and any attempt to control what people can say and what they can read."
I found this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judd_Bagley&oldid=156552252
That's what you meant about Mr Bagley, I suppose.
Thanks