Kirill Lokshin wrote: "...to an openly anti-Wikipedia site"
From http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikitruth:Editing_guidelines
"some amazing people are working behind the scenes and in the front lines over there [i.e. at Wikipedia], putting in the hours to make a difference and make Wikipedia better. [...] We wouldn't have this site if we didn't respect and love the concept of a Wikipedia. It's the implementation we have issues with."
I believe them when they say they are pro-Wikipedia. I've been astonished by how many Wikipedians are unwilling to be open to criticism (one of the essential elements of a cult by the way :) !) I don't agree with their vehemence of the opposition to WP:OFFICE. But anyone who's been following this debate about Erik and Danny will realise its implementation has been completely ham-fisted at times. So disagree with Wikitruth, and prove it wrong, but don't lie about it.
Pete
Endnote: Yes they did copy an article about a member of Jimbo's family that lingered in the database for several days. I am glad they are embarassed about that and have deleted it. Makes their motivations more believeable.
G'day Pete,
Kirill Lokshin wrote: "...to an openly anti-Wikipedia site"
From http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikitruth:Editing_guidelines
"some amazing people are working behind the scenes and in the front lines over there [i.e. at Wikipedia], putting in the hours to make a difference and make Wikipedia better. [...] We wouldn't have this site if we didn't respect and love the concept of a Wikipedia. It's the implementation we have issues with."
I believe them when they say they are pro-Wikipedia. I've been astonished by how many Wikipedians are unwilling to be open to criticism (one of the essential elements of a cult by the way :) !) I don't agree with their vehemence of the opposition to WP:OFFICE. But anyone who's been following this debate about Erik and Danny will realise its implementation has been completely ham-fisted at times. So disagree with Wikitruth, and prove it wrong, but don't lie about it.
I agree with you: this is just Wikipolitics by other means, as opposed to the straight anti-Wikipedia bizzo peddled by Britannica (through fear) or Brandt (through sheer kookiness).
I wouldn't describe what Kirill said as a "lie", though. It's a fairly easy mistake to make, especially given the poisonous content of some articles (like the silly thing about Jimbo's daughter, or the hate shrines to certain admins). WikiTruth may not be anti-Wikipedia, but it's definitely anti-Wikipedian.
Endnote: Yes they did copy an article about a member of Jimbo's family that lingered in the database for several days. I am glad they are embarassed about that and have deleted it. Makes their motivations more believeable.
I, too, am glad that they deleted the article, and I agree that it makes them just a smidgeon more credible ... as credible as a group who plan to upload articles known to be defamatory, going out of their way to hurt innocent people because they want to mock Wikipedia.
Keep in mind, however, what they replaced the article about Jimbo's daughter with:
When one of our staff threw up a bunch of deleted pages, they included one on Kira Wales. Not because they were particularly targeting the little angel, but because they just were throwing stuff up on this site willy-nilly. We just found it here, and removed it. Apologies to King Jimbo for pulling his little princess into the mudfight. Won't happen again.
"his little princess", etc., etc. Even when they're trying to do the right thing they can't resist being dicks.
Cheers,
On 4/20/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Pete,
Kirill Lokshin wrote: "...to an openly anti-Wikipedia site"
From http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikitruth:Editing_guidelines
"some amazing people are working behind the scenes and in the front lines over there [i.e. at Wikipedia], putting in the hours to make a difference and make Wikipedia better. [...] We wouldn't have this site if we didn't respect and love the concept of a Wikipedia. It's the implementation we have issues with."
I believe them when they say they are pro-Wikipedia. I've been astonished by how many Wikipedians are unwilling to be open to criticism (one of the essential elements of a cult by the way :) !) I don't agree with their vehemence of the opposition to WP:OFFICE. But anyone who's been following this debate about Erik and Danny will realise its implementation has been completely ham-fisted at times. So disagree with Wikitruth, and prove it wrong, but don't lie about it.
I agree with you: this is just Wikipolitics by other means, as opposed to the straight anti-Wikipedia bizzo peddled by Britannica (through fear) or Brandt (through sheer kookiness).
Looking through some of the material they're gatherin on various Wikipedians (FCYTravis and Kelly Martin come to mind), they're definitely starting to resemble Brandt.
Their stated motivations are quite irrelevant; "legitimate criticism" need not involve what amounts to borderline defamation (and vicious stalking) at best.
Kirill Lokshin
On 4/20/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
WikiTruth may not be anti-Wikipedia, but it's definitely anti-Wikipedian.
...
"his little princess", etc., etc. Even when they're trying to do the right thing they can't resist being dicks.
So with that in mind, I suppose I'm not anti-Wikitruth, but I am anti-Wikitruthian.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:01:35 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
I don't agree with their vehemence of the opposition to WP:OFFICE. But anyone who's been following this debate about Erik and Danny will realise its implementation has been completely ham-fisted at times.
True enough. But in the end there has to be a policy, for obvious reasons, and it would be much better if people worked on making it better rather than trying to make the necessary processes go away.
As to Erik, I am reminded of Hanlon's Razor. I would be rather surprised if Danny makes a similar mistake in future. Guy (JzG)
On 4/20/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
Kirill Lokshin wrote: "...to an openly anti-Wikipedia site"
From http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikitruth:Editing_guidelines
"some amazing people are working behind the scenes and in the front lines over there [i.e. at Wikipedia], putting in the hours to make a difference and make Wikipedia better. [...] We wouldn't have this site if we didn't respect and love the concept of a Wikipedia. It's the implementation we have issues with."
They are violateing the GFDL.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 4/20/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
Kirill Lokshin wrote: "...to an openly anti-Wikipedia site"
From http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikitruth:Editing_guidelines
"some amazing people are working behind the scenes and in the front lines over there [i.e. at Wikipedia], putting in the hours to make a difference and make Wikipedia better. [...] We wouldn't have this site if we didn't respect and love the concept of a Wikipedia. It's the implementation we have issues with."
They are violateing the GFDL.
Yes. I wonder what would happen if they undeleted a copyvio attack page...
Could this be one? http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Image:7312_deleted_edits.png
I personally think this is yet another example of WP:V being swept aside under an avalanche of Google hits, a problem in several areas at present where all the POV pushers have to do is spam as many blogs and web boards as they can find and suddenly an article must be verifiable (it's just that the reliable source is a long way down the list, honest). A supposed meme which inspires such fierce passions and which has had its fans searching the world at the urging of a website, but which can only come up with a single mention in a foreign-language newspaper, does not sound to me like the kind of thing for an encyclopaedia. More something for a Wikicities project. but then, I am older than your average Wikipedian, and I've seen my kids obsessed by, and lose interest in, many things along the way. Whether Warhammer is "better" than Pokemon I wouldn't like to say... Guy (JzG)
As I too become long in the tooth I come more and more to the opinion that it is waste of time trying to find "one size fits all" standards of notability and verifiability to apply to all articles. Seems to just generate year after year of policy-fiddling and pointless arguing.
So I wonder if it would be more pragmatic to drop these arbitary thresholds and just say "sources are required". Each article has the best sources we can find for that topic. If the best sources are blogs then fine - the reader is left to him/herself to determine notability based on their own frame of references.
Well-established material gets book citations. New material gets journal citations. Internet memes gets blog citations. Horses for courses.
This idea is analogous to the idea of NPOV - we just provide the data and the reader does the hard work.
Pete
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:09:58 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
So I wonder if it would be more pragmatic to drop these arbitary thresholds and just say "sources are required". Each article has the best sources we can find for that topic. If the best sources are blogs then fine - the reader is left to him/herself to determine notability based on their own frame of references.
This has been suggested at WP:V but was soundly rejected as being functionally equivalent to "articles must cite sources unless you can't find any". There is a good reason that encyclopaedias typically do not document facts which cannot be verified from reliable sources: a significant proportion of them turn out to be false.
Consider: you wish to promulgate a "Fred is Gay" meme (you are a not a friend of his, as we know friends of gays should not be allowed to edit Wikimedia projects). So, you set up your blogs on LiveJournal and Blogger, publish it, and then toddle off to Wikipedia to complete the writing into canon of your new shiny meme. Job done. Can you see how that might be bad? Guy (JzG)
On 20/04/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
So I wonder if it would be more pragmatic to drop these arbitary thresholds and just say "sources are required".
After having spent a fair bit of time analysing WP:V, I'm incapable of saying what our "arbitrary thresholds" are. The most hardline statement of WP:V seems to be "Every statement must be sourced", which is a nonsense that no article actually meets. The softest seems to be "Every statement should agree with what has been published somewhere, even if you don't know where. Actually even stuff that's never been published is probably ok unless someone actually takes exception to it."
If we ever get around to actually defining what "must" means, or indeed, what it means that an article "must" satisfy criteria, then we will all be happier. All we seem to know for sure is that an edit war, WP:V can be brought out. But no one is really brave enough to say "don't add unsourced material to articles". Nor do we even say "don't add material which may not have been published". All we have is an ideal which is never met, but which is used to blow away articles that stray too far from it.
Steve
On 4/20/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
Well-established material gets book citations. New material gets journal citations. Internet memes gets blog citations. Horses for courses.
This idea is analogous to the idea of NPOV - we just provide the data and the reader does the hard work.
To some extent, this already passes. The problem lies with the word "blog". The reliability of blog sources varies - I would be happy to cite Talkingpointsmemo.com in support of the statement "Josh Marshall said..." On the other hand, the average blogger account is a far less reliable source because there is no way to verify the identify of the blogger.
However, this only applies to primary sources. If we are looking for secondary sources, we have to be more picky. Since most of what we write should be based on secondary sources, they are the real heart of verifiability
Ian
Pete Bartlett wrote:
I personally think this is yet another example of WP:V being swept aside under an avalanche of Google hits, a problem in several areas at present where all the POV pushers have to do is spam as many blogs and web boards as they can find and suddenly an article must be verifiable (it's just that the reliable source is a long way down the list, honest). A supposed meme which inspires such fierce passions and which has had its fans searching the world at the urging of a website, but which can only come up with a single mention in a foreign-language newspaper, does not sound to me like the kind of thing for an encyclopaedia. More something for a Wikicities project. but then, I am older than your average Wikipedian, and I've seen my kids obsessed by, and lose interest in, many things along the way. Whether Warhammer is "better" than Pokemon I wouldn't like to say... Guy (JzG)
As I too become long in the tooth I come more and more to the opinion that it is waste of time trying to find "one size fits all" standards of notability and verifiability to apply to all articles. Seems to just generate year after year of policy-fiddling and pointless arguing.
You make me feel like a walrus.
So I wonder if it would be more pragmatic to drop these arbitary thresholds and just say "sources are required". Each article has the best sources we can find for that topic. If the best sources are blogs then fine - the reader is left to him/herself to determine notability based on their own frame of references.
Well-established material gets book citations. New material gets journal citations. Internet memes gets blog citations. Horses for courses.
This idea is analogous to the idea of NPOV - we just provide the data and the reader does the hard work.
I still don't like blogs, and I attach far more importance to verifiability than notability.
Unfortunately, your suggestion requires a more than liberal application of common sense. That alone dooms it.
Too many people live in the kind of ordered universe that can be completely defined by a set of rules that is always insufficient to the task.
Ec
On 4/20/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
I believe them when they say they are pro-Wikipedia.
That's a tad unbelievable. Have you actually *looked* at the content of the site? They're blatant trolls just dripping with the most poisonous malice, and they boast about their claimed abuse of administrator powers to put up copyright infringing and defamatory content that has been removed from the main site.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/20/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
I believe them when they say they are pro-Wikipedia.
That's a tad unbelievable. Have you actually *looked* at the content of the site? They're blatant trolls just dripping with the most poisonous malice, and they boast about their claimed abuse of administrator powers to put up copyright infringing and defamatory content that has been removed from the main site.
A person who makes an accusation of malice can leave himself open to the same charge.
If they infringe copyrigh or engage in defamation they're on their own if they have to defend themselves in court. Republishing copyvio material is not a violation of GFDL since GFDL could not apply to the original short-lived copyvio. The original writer may have a copyright in the defamatory material, but would probably be wise not to insist on his copyrights.
Ec
On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If they infringe copyrigh or engage in defamation they're on their own if they have to defend themselves in court. Republishing copyvio material is not a violation of GFDL since GFDL could not apply to the original short-lived copyvio.
GFDL is a straw man. I'm talking about third party liability. Suppose I grant a servant access to my post, and one day someone sends me a copy of the latest Harry Potter novel in an envelope. Having opened the envelope and recognised the nature of its contents, I may take steps to dispose of it.
But suppose that, instead of disposing of it, I place it within reach of someone whom I have reason to believe may wish to betray me.
Then I have contributed to any action that may be taken by that person to publish the work without authorization.
A similar argument applies to defamation. The onus is on me, as custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly dispose of it. Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take reasonable steps to prevent it. The problem is the word "reasonable". If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I haven't, and much time and money may be spent by both sides in deciding the issue.
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
A similar argument applies to defamation. The onus is on me, as custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly dispose of it. Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take reasonable steps to prevent it. The problem is the word "reasonable". If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I haven't, and much time and money may be spent by both sides in deciding the issue.
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on the bathroom door. Then the owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
I don't get it.
Anthony
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
A similar argument applies to defamation. The onus is on me, as custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly dispose of it. Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take reasonable steps to prevent it. The problem is the word "reasonable". If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I haven't, and much time and money may be spent by both sides in deciding the issue.
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on the bathroom door. Then the owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
I don't get it.
Anthony
Under UK law they probably could be. Sending a postcard containing deflamotory information under UK law is enough to allow a claim to be made.
-- geni
On 4/23/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
A similar argument applies to defamation. The onus is on me, as custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly dispose of it. Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take reasonable steps to prevent it. The problem is the word "reasonable". If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I haven't, and much time and money may be spent by both sides in deciding the issue.
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on the bathroom door. Then the owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
I don't get it.
Anthony
Under UK law they probably could be. Sending a postcard containing deflamotory information under UK law is enough to allow a claim to be made.
The building owner didn't send anything to anyone, though.
Anthony
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The building owner didn't send anything to anyone, though.
Anthony
It isn't the act of sending that is an issue since putting the postcard in an envelope would prevent any such case.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The building owner didn't send anything to anyone, though.
Anthony
It isn't the act of sending that is an issue since putting the postcard in an envelope would prevent any such case.
So now the case depends on whether the janitor sent an open postcard or put the postcard in an envelope.
We haven't yet considered the possibility of the janitor (whose normal duties include disposing of trash) picked the paper out of the trash.
Perhaps the only certainty in this case is that the judge hearing the case will be ROTFL.
Ec
Damn. I changed my analogy before sending this message and didn't fix it correctly.
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
A similar argument applies to defamation. The onus is on me, as custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly dispose of it. Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take reasonable steps to prevent it. The problem is the word "reasonable". If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I haven't, and much time and money may be spent by both sides in deciding the issue.
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on a corkboard message. Then the owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
I don't get it.
Anthony
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on a corkboard message. Then the owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
Yes, I think that the owner of the apartment building might well be liable for the defamation conducted by the janitor. It would be, as I've said, something that a court would decide. Arguably by not disposing of the defamatory material in an appropriate manner he facilitated the subsequent actions of the janitor.
Now if it was found that one of his janitors had done this *once*, it might not be a big deal and there wouldn't be much of a case. But once this happens, the owner of the apartment building becomes aware that his janitors are not all reliable, it would be reasonable to expect him to take steps to keep sensitive material out of their reach. So the second time it happens there would be a stronger case, and each time the owner of the apartment building permits potentially defamatory material to be published by not taking such steps, the case becomes stronger.
On 4/23/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on a corkboard message. Then the owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
Yes, I think that the owner of the apartment building might well be liable for the defamation conducted by the janitor. It would be, as I've said, something that a court would decide. Arguably by not disposing of the defamatory material in an appropriate manner he facilitated the subsequent actions of the janitor.
Frankly, I think that's ridiculous.
Now if it was found that one of his janitors had done this *once*, it might not be a big deal and there wouldn't be much of a case. But once this happens, the owner of the apartment building becomes aware that his janitors are not all reliable, it would be reasonable to expect him to take steps to keep sensitive material out of their reach.
I fail to see how defamatory material = sensitive material. We're not talking about secrets here, we're talking about false statements. If the paper contained the person's social security number, I could see you calling it sensitive. The fact that the janitor sees a piece of paper which says "[whoever] is gay" does not in fact affect her ability to defame [whoever] in any way.
I mean, what if the statement was: "The following statement is false: Joe Heybobarebob is gay". And then the janitor copied the statement removing the preface?
What if Wikipedia adds "the following article is false" to the top of the history?
So the second time it happens there would be a stronger case, and each time the owner of the apartment building permits potentially defamatory material to be published by not taking such steps, the case becomes stronger.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. But I guess your position has been made clear to the point where there's nothing more I can say other than that I disagree.
I'm not sure whether to call this defamation paranoia or the chilling effects of defamation law. But either way, it lends credence to my belief that Wikipedia needs to shed its centralized control and reorganize as a peer-to-peer system, and soon.
Anthony
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If they infringe copyrigh or engage in defamation they're on their own if they have to defend themselves in court. Republishing copyvio material is not a violation of GFDL since GFDL could not apply to the original short-lived copyvio.
GFDL is a straw man. I'm talking about third party liability. Suppose I grant a servant access to my post, and one day someone sends me a copy of the latest Harry Potter novel in an envelope. Having opened the envelope and recognised the nature of its contents, I may take steps to dispose of it.
You have no obligation to destroy the photocopy. All the servant has done is carry the post from where the postman has left it. How is he to know what it contains unless you have authorized him to open it?
But suppose that, instead of disposing of it, I place it within reach of someone whom I have reason to believe may wish to betray me.
If you have reason to believe that he would betray you, putting the copy where he can easily do as you describe may put you in the role of "agent provocateur" to his misdeeds. That would make you complicit.
Then I have contributed to any action that may be taken by that person to publish the work without authorization.
A similar argument applies to defamation. The onus is on me, as custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly dispose of it. Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take reasonable steps to prevent it. The problem is the word "reasonable". If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I haven't, and much time and money may be spent by both sides in deciding the issue.
This smacks of compulsive responsibility. "Reasonable" allows room for those times when everything around you just fucks up, and there really is such a person as [[Joe Btfsplk]]. It can be awfully lonely waiting at home for the process server that never comes. Most people who have been defamed will be willing to find a quick accomodation. They don't want to spend time in court any more than you do, and they probably want the collateral publicity less than you do.
Ec