We're getting some lovely fan mail on info-en regarding this.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. (a Delaware corporation)
On 10/15/06, The Uninvited Co., Inc uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
We're getting some lovely fan mail on info-en regarding this.
I'm guessing that they complaints aren't because the video is in a propritary format and covered with advertising in an attempt to make a quick buck by the site we're linking to?
The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
We're getting some lovely fan mail on info-en regarding this.
Not too sure what we should do about this... it's out there for good or bad, and newsworthy (has been *extensively* written up), so it would be odd not to provide a link to it. Perhaps we should separate it from the other links with a more clear/prominent warning that it is extremely graphic? (Or at least I surmise it's extremely graphic; I've only read the description, not watched it.)
-Mark
Fan mail about what? This just came into my inbox as a fresh conversation without context.
Mgm
On 10/15/06, The Uninvited Co., Inc uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
We're getting some lovely fan mail on info-en regarding this.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. (a Delaware corporation)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
See subject. [[Kristian Menchaca]] Or click below and go to the last external link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Menchaca
I don't see a problem with it. The link ends up bringing anyone that hasn't been to ogrish.com before to an adult agreement page warning them about the nature of the content. Those that have been there shouldn't have a problem unless they view it as bad PR for those playing war in Iraq.
It's worth noting in the article that the Pentagon spokesmodel doesn't have an article. If there's something to complain about, the article is excessively long, almost like it was written as a run-around the subject that caused it to be written in the first place. It's not like every soldier in Iraq gets an article. Get to the point.
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Fan mail about what? This just came into my inbox as a fresh conversation without context.
Mgm
On 10/15/06, The Uninvited Co., Inc uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
We're getting some lovely fan mail on info-en regarding
this.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 10/15/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote: [snip]
I don't see a problem with it. The link ends up bringing anyone that hasn't been to ogrish.com before to an adult agreement page warning them about the nature of the content.
[snip]
Just FYI, I've never been there before (checked the browser history and my proxy) and yet I downloaded the video without any such notice.
I don't think it matters, but I just wanted it to be clear that it doesn't work or at least doesn't always work.
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote: Just FYI, I've never been there before (checked the
browser history and my proxy) and yet I downloaded the video without any such notice.
Fair enough. Here's the link to the page that the video is on. This can be used instead of the direct video link: http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_v...
Those who complain will probably still complain, but they will at least not be able to claim surprise.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I deleted the link completely.
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote: Just FYI, I've never been there before (checked the
browser history and my proxy) and yet I downloaded the video without any such notice.
Fair enough. Here's the link to the page that the video is on. This can be used instead of the direct video link: http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_v...
Those who complain will probably still complain, but they will at least not be able to claim surprise.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I deleted the link completely.
Why? We went through this with [[Nick Berg]]. The conclusion was that the link should stay.
geni wrote:
On 10/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I deleted the link completely.
Why? We went through this with [[Nick Berg]]. The conclusion was that the link should stay.
Wikipedia is not a shock site.
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not a shock site.
Wikipedia is not censored for example [[Harlequin type ichthyosis]] could in theory be illustrated (if it ever is I wil be campaining for an autofellatio type solution) which would risk qualifying us a a shock site.
At the moment though the only pic we have of a of a fetal abnotmality that I know is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cyclopia.jpg
In anycase the video is not used as a shock item by any known shock site
On 16/10/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I deleted the link completely.
Why? I thought the community had discussed this and come to a conclusion.
I don't think WP:RS and WP:NOR apply in this instance, certainly not to the inclusion of a link. If the problem was that the link were used a source (or only used a source) for prose writen by one of our editors, it would be a problem. To simply link to a video on a container site for readers to view at their discretion, is not using the site as a source.
Regardless, would it not be better (and more in the spirit of Wikipedia) to simply find an alternative or ask someone to find an alternative, than just delete the link (to the deficit of the article)?
Oldak Quill wrote:
Regardless, would it not be better (and more in the spirit of Wikipedia) to simply find an alternative or ask someone to find an alternative, than just delete the link (to the deficit of the article)?
Ogrish could put anything up, and you would want to link to it?
--Jimbo
On 10/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Ogrish could put anything up, and you would want to link to it?
--Jimbo
That would appear to be a strawman. In this case it would appear that the past agreement is to link to such videos (at least where people care enough to find them) with a warning. Would you rather someone manged to rip the video and host it localy?
geni wrote:
On 10/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Ogrish could put anything up, and you would want to link to it?
--Jimbo
That would appear to be a strawman. In this case it would appear that the past agreement is to link to such videos (at least where people care enough to find them) with a warning. Would you rather someone manged to rip the video and host it localy?
Original research. If you can find the video hosted at some reliable location (CNN, BBC, etc.) then link to it. Otherwise, the chances of us being the victim of a hoax or someone else's bad research are too high.
--Jimbo
On 10/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Original research.
Since a film is a series of images it fall under the photo exception. Nice try but I'm probably not the best person to try rule lawyering against.
geni wrote:
On 10/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Original research.
Since a film is a series of images it fall under the photo exception.
... and images can be faked. J. Random Website is not a Reliable Source.
Nice try but I'm probably not the best person to try rule lawyering against.
If that's an admission of rules lawyering, you're headed for bannination.
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
... and images can be faked. J. Random Website is not a Reliable Source.
I believe the file fits with all know descriptions. We accept a lot of images from J. Random person that could be faked.
If that's an admission of rules lawyering, you're headed for bannination.
I've admited that back when I used to inforce the 3RR I delt with rule lawyers but being better at it. Yes I can rule lawyer if I want to. Often it is a far more effective tactic than simply yelling "IAR IAR". Rule lawyering is just a tool. It can be used for good or ill.
Why do you insist that rule lawyering is "wrong" or "taboo"? It is a way of dealing with people and nothing more. For that matter presentation is a way of dealing with people and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of some of it's users, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.
* Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking Process in the Eye"
(I deny that I have spent too much time playing Alpha Centauri)
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Original research.
Since a film is a series of images it fall under the photo exception.
... and images can be faked. J. Random Website is not a Reliable Source.
Indeed. Moreover, even if they're not faked, they can still be misinterpreted. J Random Website may identify a photo or video as showing something that it doesn't actually show.
On 10/17/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. Moreover, even if they're not faked, they can still be misinterpreted. J Random Website may identify a photo or video as showing something that it doesn't actually show.
Due you had better get busy. You have rather a lot of media to delete on that basis.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Original research. If you can find the video hosted at some reliable location (CNN, BBC, etc.) then link to it. Otherwise, the chances of us being the victim of a hoax or someone else's bad research are too high.
I guess if ogrish had a history of manipulating videos or reporting republicans as democrats like Fox News, that might be the case. Wiki's own article mentions nothing about it making false claims or other errors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogrish.com
The CBS news and Washington Post both refer to the video and to the organization that initially uncovered it. The only question seems to be whether the video released on 9/23 was also them. The previous video was accepted as fact.
"...the Americans were tortured and killed in a barbaric way." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13432770/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/23/iraq/main2036227.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/10/iraq/main1789865.shtml http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300... http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060622-13319.html The military press release simply says they were "taken by enemy forces". Can we presume that Pentagon press releases are not used as sources on WP?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 16/10/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
Regardless, would it not be better (and more in the spirit of Wikipedia)
to
simply find an alternative or ask someone to find an alternative, than
just
delete the link (to the deficit of the article)?
Ogrish could put anything up, and you would want to link to it?
Of course not. In this case, a very well publicised video is available to the public on Ogrish - I see no reason to not use Ogrish if the mainstream press refuse to provide the video.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I deleted the link completely.
And, frankly, in a rather sloppy manner. You gave no edit summary and your explanation on the talk page consisted entirely of the acronyms "WP:RS, WP:NOR." Your subsequent response when I asked for elaboration was just a slightly more wordy version of the same thing, an assertion that this is an unreliable source without anything to actually back the assertion up.
This is a case where I don't care about the subject of the article and have no basis for an opinion of my own about the external link (I haven't even watched it), but if you'd been any other editor I would have simply reverted your change for lack of explanation. I know it's a hassle, but in the long run I think it's much easier on everyone if a sound argument is presented so others don't have to keep re-adding and re-removing this material. It looks like that's been done in the article's history at least once already.
I appreciate your concerns, but I think the explanation I gave on the talk page in response to your inquiry was adequate, and I think that this is the sort of explanation that ought to be always adequate everywhere and for everyone in cases of this type.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I deleted the link completely.
And, frankly, in a rather sloppy manner. You gave no edit summary and your explanation on the talk page consisted entirely of the acronyms "WP:RS, WP:NOR." Your subsequent response when I asked for elaboration was just a slightly more wordy version of the same thing, an assertion that this is an unreliable source without anything to actually back the assertion up.
This is a case where I don't care about the subject of the article and have no basis for an opinion of my own about the external link (I haven't even watched it), but if you'd been any other editor I would have simply reverted your change for lack of explanation. I know it's a hassle, but in the long run I think it's much easier on everyone if a sound argument is presented so others don't have to keep re-adding and re-removing this material. It looks like that's been done in the article's history at least once already.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I appreciate your concerns, but I think the explanation I gave on the talk page in response to your inquiry was adequate, and I think that this is the sort of explanation that ought to be always adequate everywhere and for everyone in cases of this type.
Your explanation of why you thought the Ogrish link was unreliable was "It sounds very much inherently unreliable to me. It is a shock site. It has been victimized by hoaxes in the past."
The first sentence is just a repetition of your opinion that it's unreliable, the second is a fact that appears well supported on the [[Ogrish.com]] page but doesn't necessarily mean it's unreliable (much like how "being a blog" doesn't necessarily mean a source is unreliable), and the third is unsupported by any examples either directly from you or on [[Ogrish.com]] itself. I'm sorry, but IMO this is still really wishy-washy.
It seems to me like you may be trying to use policies and guidelines to support a decision already made for other unrelated reasons. Are you actually removing this link on some sort of "human decency" grounds, as I recall you've done in other cases in the past?
On 10/17/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I appreciate your concerns, but I think the explanation I gave on the talk page in response to your inquiry was adequate, and I think that this is the sort of explanation that ought to be always adequate everywhere and for everyone in cases of this type.
Your explanation of why you thought the Ogrish link was unreliable was "It sounds very much inherently unreliable to me. It is a shock site. It has been victimized by hoaxes in the past."
The first sentence is just a repetition of your opinion that it's unreliable, the second is a fact that appears well supported on the [[Ogrish.com]] page but doesn't necessarily mean it's unreliable (much like how "being a blog" doesn't necessarily mean a source is unreliable), and the third is unsupported by any examples either directly from you or on [[Ogrish.com]] itself.
Bryan, I don't know that the Ogrish link was being used for in this case, but in general our understanding of what's "reliable" involves a degree of editorial oversight, such as fact-checking, legal scrutiny, and so on. I believe the Ogrish site posts video and images from anyone who sends them in, regardless of whether they're authentic or staged; if it looks horrible or weird, they'll use it. That makes it pretty close to the opposite of our definition of reliable.
Sarah
On 10/17/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Bryan, I don't know that the Ogrish link was being used for in this case, but in general our understanding of what's "reliable" involves a degree of editorial oversight, such as fact-checking, legal scrutiny, and so on. I believe the Ogrish site posts video and images from anyone who sends them in, regardless of whether they're authentic or staged;
So do we. Commons is close to 1 million images. Looks like you have a lot of deleting to do.
geni wrote:
On 10/17/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Bryan, I don't know that the Ogrish link was being used for in this case, but in general our understanding of what's "reliable" involves a degree of editorial oversight, such as fact-checking, legal scrutiny, and so on. I believe the Ogrish site posts video and images from anyone who sends them in, regardless of whether they're authentic or staged;
So do we. Commons is close to 1 million images. Looks like you have a lot of deleting to do.
You, we don't. Commons routinely deletes things which are being used as "original research". Please stop your trolling.
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
You, we don't. Commons routinely deletes things which are being used as "original research". Please stop your trolling.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stroudwater_Canal_Bridge.JPG
The caption is original reaseach (it is also wrong but that is do to someone removeing so called POV from the original)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata01.jpg
original research
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata.jpg
original reasearch
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Toepfe_fcm.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Herrenchiemsee.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Reichsburg_Cochem_9.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arnold101.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taxidermied_grey_fox_face.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:U-Bahnhof_Hohenzollernplatz.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NewZealandCadetCorps.JPG
original reasearch
geni wrote:
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
You, we don't. Commons routinely deletes things which are being used as "original research". Please stop your trolling.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stroudwater_Canal_Bridge.JPG
The caption is original reaseach (it is also wrong but that is do to someone removeing so called POV from the original)
How so?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata01.jpg
original research
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata.jpg
original reasearch
How so? And please note that you're accusing an en: Arbitrator of "original research", so you'd better be damned sure you want to make that claim.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Toepfe_fcm.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Herrenchiemsee.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Reichsburg_Cochem_9.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arnold101.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taxidermied_grey_fox_face.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:U-Bahnhof_Hohenzollernplatz.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NewZealandCadetCorps.JPG
original reasearch
You're wrong, as usual. "Primary source image" isn't the same as "original research". An example of something that /is/ "original research" and was deleted as such is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Img052.jpg
I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop your trolling, or, as you call it, "rules lawyering". If you're so proud of being a rules lawyer, you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming sooner than you think.
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stroudwater_Canal_Bridge.JPG
The caption is original reaseach (it is also wrong but that is do to someone removeing so called POV from the original)
How so?
Well it could be a stroudwater canal bridge but I'm not the only one who thinks it seems to resemble one end of the Sapperton Tunnel on the Thames and Severn Canal. Of course this is original research.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata01.jpg
original research
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata.jpg
original reasearch
How so? And please note that you're accusing an en: Arbitrator of "original research", so you'd better be damned sure you want to make that claim.
I don't see a reference and the image does not appear to have been published elsewhere prior to appearing on wikipedia. In short a collection of coloured dots has been identified as an object that it has not previously been identified as. This is why we apply a slightly different NOR policy to images.
You're wrong, as usual. "Primary source image" isn't the same as "original research". An example of something that /is/ "original research" and was deleted as such is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Img052.jpg
Very good. You accept NOR in it's purest form doesn't work for images. So lets see how wikipedia modifies this:
"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."
The key line appears to be " images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments"
So do our two videos propose unpublished ideas or arguments?
Well first to the nick berg one. There are no shortage of reports that the video esists and various reports (rather a lot really due to ceritan conspiracy theories) on it's contents Assumeing the video doesn't contradict these it would appear not to propose unpublished ideas or arguments.
Moveing on to Kristian Menchaca I've yet to see any evidence that it is proposeing unpublished ideas or arguments
I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop your trolling,
I'm not trolling. Simply applying reductio ad absurdum to certian arguments.
or, as you call it, "rules lawyering". If you're so proud of being a rules lawyer, you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming sooner than you think.
Thomas Jefferson would have tended to dissagree I think
geni wrote:
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Very good. You accept NOR in it's purest form doesn't work for images.
Oh good, I'm glad we can agree on /something/.
So lets see how wikipedia modifies this:
"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."
The key line appears to be " images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments"
Right.
So do our two videos propose unpublished ideas or arguments?
Well first to the nick berg one. There are no shortage of reports that the video esists and various reports (rather a lot really due to ceritan conspiracy theories) on it's contents Assumeing the video doesn't contradict these it would appear not to propose unpublished ideas or arguments.
Moveing on to Kristian Menchaca I've yet to see any evidence that it is proposeing unpublished ideas or arguments
The point was really verifiability.
I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop your trolling,
I'm not trolling. Simply applying reductio ad absurdum to certian arguments.
Granted, but it's a fine line to walk between the two.
<snip>
you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming sooner than you think.
Thomas Jefferson would have tended to dissagree I think
Ah, but his revolution was on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Ours shall be a revolution of free culture, and stuff.
Sarah wrote:
Bryan, I don't know that the Ogrish link was being used for in this case, but in general our understanding of what's "reliable" involves a degree of editorial oversight, such as fact-checking, legal scrutiny, and so on.
Last night I dug up a news site that had a synopsis of the events depicted in the film and so reluctantly went to compare it to the video itself. I found that the link doesn't actually work. I dug around in their archives for a while and couldn't re-find it, all they had was a very short text news article about the event. Ogrish apparently no longer has the video in question.
So it's all moot anyway. I just wish people were more open about their arguments, anyone else doing basic fact-checking could have discovered this.
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Last night I dug up a news site that had a synopsis of the events depicted in the film and so reluctantly went to compare it to the video itself. I found that the link doesn't actually work. I dug around in their archives for a while and couldn't re-find it, all they had was a very short text news article about the event. Ogrish apparently no longer has the video in question.
So it's all moot anyway. I just wish people were more open about their arguments, anyone else doing basic fact-checking could have discovered this.
I did that basic fact checking earlier and provided a link to the page that has thumbnails and the video: http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_v...
Since that was missed, this previously posted material may also be of interest: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071206E.shtml http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13432770/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/23/iraq/main2036227.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/10/iraq/main1789865.shtml http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300... http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060622-13319.html
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
So it's all moot anyway. I just wish people were more open about their arguments, anyone else doing basic fact-checking could have discovered this.
I did that basic fact checking earlier and provided a link to the page that has thumbnails and the video: http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_v...
Ah, sorry about that. I hadn't read some of the earlier part of this thread, I was relying on the article's talk: page.
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_v...
Ah, sorry about that. I hadn't read some of the earlier part of this thread, I was relying on the article's talk: page.
Feel free to add it. I would have already, but continue to be blocked.
I agree with your view on Memory Hole. I've had the site bookmarked since 2004. The award and its tradition is also listed on POGO's site: http://www.pogo.org/p/x/beyondhead.html
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cheney Shill wrote:
Feel free to add it. I would have already, but continue to be blocked.
I'll wait on Jimbo's response. I've brought up the issue in the article's talk page and now that I've seen the video I found that it closely matched part of a description of the contents from Salem News. However, the Ogrish file is only the first minute of the full four and a half minute video, so even though IMO it's "authenticated" it's still not really a good source for other reasons. I also don't speak Arabic so couldn't tell if the voice over was correct or meaningful.
On 10/17/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
I did that basic fact checking earlier and provided a link to the page that has thumbnails and the video: http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_v...
There's a very big difference between Ogrish and The Memory Hole. Ogrish is designed to shock. It includes official blog postings signed with "Murder & Mayhem", and unofficial commentary in the forum that makes it very clear that for most people using the site, their motivation comes from a fascination with death and gore. I would also not be surprised that, given this general motive, the standards of verification are rather low -- but I cannot say either way.
We are generally careful to distinguish between articles and external links when it comes to the neutral point of view. However, even links have never been entirely exempt from the policy. Certainly, when the purpose of the link is to purely _document_ an article, a more neutral source than one like Ogrish.com should be found -- especially when dealing with a subject that is so obviously emotional.
Reliability is not the only issue here. Good editorial judgment also is.
Perhaps it makes sense to follow up with a bit of personal background: I'm operating a scientific archive called "The Origins of Peace and Violence". On that site, we have an article that documents child abuse in the United States:
http://www.violence.de/prescott/hustler/article.html
The article is illustrated with police photographs showing children who have been beaten or mutilated. I find it very important to have these photographs, because people have very strange ideas about what child abuse is (and in general, anything sexual receives a lot more attention than the everyday incidents of murder, abuse and neglect).
The reason I mention this is that I've received quite a few complaints about this website, including one from the same institution that contacted ogrish.com, the German agency for the protection of minors. They actually sent me a several page analysis why this page would have to be placed behind a child protection (adult check) system.
I responded in detail to this complaint, and altered the page (originally there was a separate page that included only the pictures), and the complaint was withdrawn. To me this is an example how a complex subject like violence against children can be handled in a responsible manner. I see this in sharp contrast to sites whose reason for existence seems to be the mere fascination with brutality.
In my opinion, Wikipedia should be very careful when linking to such sites -- it reflects poorly on us, because the information is contextualized in a manner that is considered inappropriate by most people. We are an encyclopedia and it is part of our editorial responsibility to contextualize information neutrally and appropriately.
--- Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's a very big difference between Ogrish and The Memory Hole.
I'm not suggesting that Ogrish be considered equivalent to Memory Hole on a reliability continuum. It is rather odd, however, that somebody rather high up in the Wiki chain of command removed a link to MH using reasoning similar to that used to remove the Ogrish link.
Ogrish is designed to shock. It includes official blog postings signed with "Murder & Mayhem", and unofficial commentary in the forum that makes it very clear that for most people using the site, their motivation comes from a fascination with death and gore.
Take, for example, that Ogrish will accept anything. If you go here: http://www.ogrish.com/submit.html Youll see that you must submit and describe the content for Ogrish to review.
Yes, it caters to a particular type of content. That, however, is not a criticism made of business or medical journals, so why here? The Wall Street Journal is considered an expert on business issues, yet it comes with a significant ideological bias that can bias even basic financial reporting. Why not consider Ogrish an expert on gore? It's reasonable to say they have developed a knowledge of what is and is not real when it comes to gore submissions that Wikipedia and most other news/information sources can not claim.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Bryan Derksen wrote:
It seems to me like you may be trying to use policies and guidelines to support a decision already made for other unrelated reasons. Are you actually removing this link on some sort of "human decency" grounds, as I recall you've done in other cases in the past?
In this particular case, no. But I do think such things are relevant.
Now, as to Ogrish, I will add supporting arguments in the next couple of days. Please treat this as an ordinary editing discussion among rational people, not an edict from above.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
It seems to me like you may be trying to use policies and guidelines to support a decision already made for other unrelated reasons. Are you actually removing this link on some sort of "human decency" grounds, as I recall you've done in other cases in the past?
In this particular case, no. But I do think such things are relevant.
Now, as to Ogrish, I will add supporting arguments in the next couple of days. Please treat this as an ordinary editing discussion among rational people, not an edict from above.
I have been. My lack of an initial revert was because I recognized you as a long-time editor who's likely to answer my questions, not because I feared the wrath of the God-King. I'm not a monarchist or theist. :) There's no urgency now if there's no actual video on Ogrish any more, though it'd always be nice to expand the article on Ogrish itself some.
I notice now that you also removed a similar external link to a video from the Memory Hole website from [[Nick Berg]] with the same "RS, NOR" reason. You should add a more detailed rationale there too, especially considering there appears to be a lot of past discussion of the matter in talk already. I believe I've also used Memory Hole myself as a source of information in the past, so I'd be interested to hear of problems with its reliability. The homepage claims it's won the Project on Government Oversight's "Beyond the Headlines" Award 2005.
On 10/18/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I notice now that you also removed a similar external link to a video from the Memory Hole website from [[Nick Berg]] with the same "RS, NOR" reason. You should add a more detailed rationale there too, especially considering there appears to be a lot of past discussion of the matter in talk already. I believe I've also used Memory Hole myself as a source of information in the past, so I'd be interested to hear of problems with its reliability. The homepage claims it's won the Project on Government Oversight's "Beyond the Headlines" Award 2005.
I've restored that link. The Memory Hole is a reliable source. (Also a regular editor action, of course.)