On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/
From that URL and the title of this message I was expecting that to be the
Register calling Wikipedia a cult. It wasn't.
Not everything in it is right--for instance allowing self-published material in BLP wasn't cult-related--but overall it seems like a fair criticism.
Not everything in it is right--for instance allowing self-published material in BLP wasn't cult-related--but overall it seems like a fair criticism.
I have to admit, I only got as far as the 2nd page before giving on it. Most of it seems to be centred around the idea that a handful of admins have absolute power over things (ie. a cabal). Since they were basing everything on that false premise, they were just coming out with a load of nonsense.
This is not just the usual nonsense. This is character assassination of a respected and valuable editor and administrator. Usually the Register stuff is just stupid, but this really makes me angry. It's one thing for a tabloid to try and draw wed traffic by writing controversial posts about Wikipedia as a whole. But one editor? If I was Jossi I'd sue for libel.
On Feb 7, 2008 8:58 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not everything in it is right--for instance allowing self-published material in BLP wasn't cult-related--but overall it seems like a fair criticism.
I have to admit, I only got as far as the 2nd page before giving on it. Most of it seems to be centred around the idea that a handful of admins have absolute power over things (ie. a cabal). Since they were basing everything on that false premise, they were just coming out with a load of nonsense.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 07/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is not just the usual nonsense. This is character assassination of a respected and valuable editor and administrator. Usually the Register stuff is just stupid, but this really makes me angry. It's one thing for a tabloid to try and draw wed traffic by writing controversial posts about Wikipedia as a whole. But one editor? If I was Jossi I'd sue for libel.
Jossi has edited closely on the subject, but has a good enough grasp of NPOV to do okay. This is just rubbish. I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
- d.
I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
Me too. He really could win a libel suit in the U.K.
On Feb 7, 2008 1:44 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is not just the usual nonsense. This is character assassination of
a
respected and valuable editor and administrator. Usually the Register
stuff
is just stupid, but this really makes me angry. It's one thing for a
tabloid
to try and draw wed traffic by writing controversial posts about
Wikipedia
as a whole. But one editor? If I was Jossi I'd sue for libel.
Jossi has edited closely on the subject, but has a good enough grasp of NPOV to do okay. This is just rubbish. I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 07/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
Me too. He really could win a libel suit in the U.K.
How? What in the article is actually actionable?
I get the feeling Cade Metz is a disgruntled ex-Wikipedian, perhaps? I note The Register is full of other Metz's stories aimed at admins:
eg. Wikipedia COO was convicted felon
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
On 08/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
Me too. He really could win a libel suit in the U.K.
How? What in the article is actually actionable?
-- geni
Meg
If you feel like hitting your head against a brick wall, then perhaps it is best for you to step away from the computer, and take a break from the stress.
On Feb 7, 2008 5:42 PM, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I get the feeling Cade Metz is a disgruntled ex-Wikipedian, perhaps? I note The Register is full of other Metz's stories aimed at admins:
eg. Wikipedia COO was convicted felon
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
On 08/02/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
Me too. He really could win a libel suit in the U.K.
How? What in the article is actually actionable?
-- geni
Meg
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 08/02/2008, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I get the feeling Cade Metz is a disgruntled ex-Wikipedian, perhaps? I note The Register is full of other Metz's stories aimed at admins:
eg. Wikipedia COO was convicted felon
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
It doesn't seem to me that someone disgruntled would post an update apologising for the use of incorrect information about her in such an apologetic manner.
"Update January 4: The original version of this story said that Carolyn Doran's hit and run DUI resulted in a fatality. This was based on two separate sets of computer records - one with the Loudoun County, Virginia Circuit Court and another on the web site of the Virginia Judicial System. But these records are incorrect. Apologies to Carolyn Doran and her family."
Is it suddenly a bad thing for wikipedians to be accountable? The veil of transparency that the web provides could only last until an organisation started accumulating assets and donations publically, then the media should definitely be performing investigative journalism on it.
Peter
It's quite possible the author was asked/forced to given the apology was made 32 days after initial publication and not immediately.
On 08/02/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/02/2008, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I get the feeling Cade Metz is a disgruntled ex-Wikipedian, perhaps? I note The Register is full of other Metz's stories aimed at admins:
eg. Wikipedia COO was convicted felon
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
It doesn't seem to me that someone disgruntled would post an update apologising for the use of incorrect information about her in such an apologetic manner.
"Update January 4: The original version of this story said that Carolyn Doran's hit and run DUI resulted in a fatality. This was based on two separate sets of computer records - one with the Loudoun County, Virginia Circuit Court and another on the web site of the Virginia Judicial System. But these records are incorrect. Apologies to Carolyn Doran and her family."
Is it suddenly a bad thing for wikipedians to be accountable? The veil of transparency that the web provides could only last until an organisation started accumulating assets and donations publically, then the media should definitely be performing investigative journalism on it.
Peter
Meg
It doesn't seem to me that someone disgruntled would post an update apologising for the use of incorrect information about her in such an apologetic manner.
"Update January 4: The original version of this story said that Carolyn Doran's hit and run DUI resulted in a fatality. This was based on two separate sets of computer records - one with the Loudoun County, Virginia Circuit Court and another on the web site of the Virginia Judicial System. But these records are incorrect. Apologies to Carolyn Doran and her family."
Claiming someone killed somebody when they didn't and then not retracting the statement once you find out would be a very serious issue. The initial publication isn't libel, since they genuinely believed it at the time of publication and they did make an effort to verify it, but not retracting it might make it libel - I would have to look that up.
On 08/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
Me too. He really could win a libel suit in the U.K.
Wikipedians always seem to be overly sensitive about journalism which doesn't say wikipedians are perfect. All this talk about libel is very worrying as the article seems to be very adequately sourced.
Peter
What in the article is actually actionable?
The face that defame his character as being part of what they call a cult. Admitting you are part of an organization is not the same as welcoming the label of "cultist" that the piece slaps on him. Also, it infers that he's out to impact Wikipedia articles, and that he could be working directly for the organization (with all that shady talk about "we don't know his real connection!").
Saying Wikipedians aren't perfect, and saying they are cultists out to exploit the project for propaganda purposes are too entirely different things.
On Feb 7, 2008 2:17 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
Me too. He really could win a libel suit in the U.K.
Wikipedians always seem to be overly sensitive about journalism which doesn't say wikipedians are perfect. All this talk about libel is very worrying as the article seems to be very adequately sourced.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 07/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
What in the article is actually actionable?
The face that defame his character as being part of what they call a cult.
They don't quite call it a cult. They simply say that some people have historicaly called the organisation a cult.
Admitting you are part of an organization is not the same as welcoming the label of "cultist" that the piece slaps on him.
They don't call him a cultist.
Also, it infers that he's out to impact Wikipedia articles,
Well yes most editors are.
and that he could be working directly for the organization (with all that shady talk about "we don't know his real connection!").
I don't think that is actually actionable.
Saying Wikipedians aren't perfect, and saying they are cultists out to exploit the project for propaganda purposes are too entirely different things.
Which is why it doesn't say that.
They would hardly be the first to suggest that [[Prem Rawat]] has balance issues.
Wikipedians always seem to be overly sensitive about journalism which doesn't say wikipedians are perfect. All this talk about libel is very worrying as the article seems to be very adequately sourced.
Yeah, from what I can see, it seems to be their interpretations, rather than their facts, that are wrong. I'm not sure if that's libel or not...
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 08/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'm surprised they published this in the UK.
Me too. He really could win a libel suit in the U.K.
Wikipedians always seem to be overly sensitive about journalism which doesn't say wikipedians are perfect. All this talk about libel is very worrying as the article seems to be very adequately sourced.
I find it more hilarious than worrying. Those who are really intent on suing will just go ahead and do it without wasting time blustering about it.
Ec