On 27 Jul 2007 at 18:04:37 -0400, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/27/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/1943254 is currently on the front page, along with the text "It turns out that a Wikipedia administrator named SlimVirgin is actually Linda Mack..." Looks like outing to me.
It's only outing if it's true, and apparently it isn't.
Then why has Slim's entire clique always been so desperate to suppress all mention of it? This seems to have been a primary motive of the whole idiotic "attack site link" policy, for instance.
Dan Tobias wrote:
...why has Slim's entire clique always been so desperate to suppress all mention of it? This seems to have been a primary motive of the whole idiotic "attack site link" policy, for instance.
I believe it's because the discussion is held as unseemly and hurtful.
While it is definitely reasonable to suppose that different interest groups (including intelligence agencies) want to deal with Wikipedia, this story is completely trash.
I made an investigation about that and, even I thought that "there may be some good points", Wikipedia Watch is also trash (http://millosh.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/wikipedia-and-interest-groups-part-1...).
On 7/29/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 27 Jul 2007 at 18:04:37 -0400, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/27/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/1943254 is currently on the front page, along with the text "It turns out that a Wikipedia administrator named SlimVirgin is actually Linda Mack..." Looks like outing to me.
It's only outing if it's true, and apparently it isn't.
Then why has Slim's entire clique always been so desperate to suppress all mention of it? This seems to have been a primary motive of the whole idiotic "attack site link" policy, for instance.
Ironically, it's the suppression of all mention of it which is the only reason I started paying attention to it in the first place. Until Fred Bauder made some comment about "dem attic" I didn't know anything about this particular "outing". Until Thomas Dalton implied that no suppression was taking place, I figured the whole thing was just some fringe conspiracy theory.
By the way, I found a copy of some old history dumps on my hard drive. Haven't gotten them loaded up yet. I'm not sure if I should share the results beyond confirming whether or not there are in fact oversighted versions of that article. My interest is in the coverup, not the identity of SV (barring evidence of the "secret agent" stuff beyond "Salinger came to believe...").
Until Thomas Dalton implied that no suppression was taking place, I figured the whole thing was just some fringe conspiracy theory.
What?! So me saying I trust the oversighters has made you trust them less? I'm not sure if I should be flattered that my opinion is so influential to you, or offended that my support makes you think less of people...
On 7/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What?! So me saying I trust the oversighters has made you trust them less? I'm not sure if I should be flattered that my opinion is so influential to you, or offended that my support makes you think less of people...
Forgive me but I don't see how those are mutually exclusive results.
—C.W.
On 31/07/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What?! So me saying I trust the oversighters has made you trust them less? I'm not sure if I should be flattered that my opinion is so influential to you, or offended that my support makes you think less of people...
Forgive me but I don't see how those are mutually exclusive results.
I'm an enwiki admin - I'm insane enough as it is without being both flattered and offended at the same time. I think I'll stick with confused, I know how to do that.
On 7/30/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/07/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What?! So me saying I trust the oversighters has made you trust them less? I'm not sure if I should be flattered that my opinion is so influential to you, or offended that my support makes you think less of people...
Forgive me but I don't see how those are mutually exclusive results.
I'm an enwiki admin - I'm insane enough as it is without being both flattered and offended at the same time. I think I'll stick with confused, I know how to do that.
All I was trying to say was that you brought up the question of whether or not oversight was used. It wasn't anything personal, and there's no reason to be flattered or offended. Confused is OK.
Anthony wrote:
On 7/29/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 27 Jul 2007 at 18:04:37 -0400, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/27/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/1943254 is currently on the front page, along with the text "It turns out that a Wikipedia administrator named SlimVirgin is actually Linda Mack..." Looks like outing to me.
It's only outing if it's true, and apparently it isn't.
Then why has Slim's entire clique always been so desperate to suppress all mention of it? This seems to have been a primary motive of the whole idiotic "attack site link" policy, for instance.
Ironically, it's the suppression of all mention of it which is the only reason I started paying attention to it in the first place. Until Fred Bauder made some comment about "dem attic" I didn't know anything about this particular "outing". Until Thomas Dalton implied that no suppression was taking place, I figured the whole thing was just some fringe conspiracy theory.
That's about the size of it. I couldn't be bothered with such matters but for their repetitive re-appearance on these lists.
By the way, I found a copy of some old history dumps on my hard drive. Haven't gotten them loaded up yet. I'm not sure if I should share the results beyond confirming whether or not there are in fact oversighted versions of that article. My interest is in the coverup, not the identity of SV (barring evidence of the "secret agent" stuff beyond "Salinger came to believe...").
One way of dealing with the various outings of SV would be for everyone to go to his favorite blog site to out her as well. Naturally, each person that does this would "out" her as a different person. With enough of these out there, who could possibly know which is the correct identification. :-)
Ec
On 7/29/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Then why has Slim's entire clique always been so desperate to suppress all mention of it? This seems to have been a primary motive of the whole idiotic "attack site link" policy, for instance.
It occurs to me that if one is concerned about remaining anonymous on Wikipedia, the best way to encourage that is, if someone thinks they've identified you but is in fact wrong, to protest that identification very strongly, to appear to be really concerned about it and try to get it suppressed. That way, everyone will follow the red herring and not look any further.
(not saying this is necessarily true, but noting that effort to suppress does not mean the allegation is true).
-Matt
It occurs to me that if one is concerned about remaining anonymous on Wikipedia, the best way to encourage that is, if someone thinks they've identified you but is in fact wrong, to protest that identification very strongly, to appear to be really concerned about it and try to get it suppressed. That way, everyone will follow the red herring and not look any further.
(not saying this is necessarily true, but noting that effort to suppress does not mean the allegation is true).
Just don't invent PhD's in the process...