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.
On 27/07/07, 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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
LOL yes, SlimVirgin is a secret agent from MI5 dedicated to 'infiltrating' Wikipedia. Haha that's funny
On 7/27/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
LOL yes, SlimVirgin is a secret agent from MI5 dedicated to 'infiltrating' Wikipedia. Haha that's funny
Infiltrating Wikipedia would generaly be an MI6 task.
On 27/07/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/27/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
LOL yes, SlimVirgin is a secret agent from MI5 dedicated to
'infiltrating'
Wikipedia. Haha that's funny
Infiltrating Wikipedia would generaly be an MI6 task.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
im just quoting the article. it's from OhMyNews, of course it's true.
Wow. That's one of the worst pieces of shit ever linked to on Slashdot. It completely lacks a link to the original article, which, if you read, makes it clear that the source of all claims relating to SlimVirgin is Daniel Brandt and Wikipedia Review. No surprise the anonymous user decided to cover that little detail up as best they could.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Jul 27, 2007, at 5:26 PM, SPUI 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.
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 27/07/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. That's one of the worst pieces of shit ever linked to on Slashdot. It completely lacks a link to the original article, which, if you read, makes it clear that the source of all claims relating to SlimVirgin is Daniel Brandt and Wikipedia Review. No surprise the anonymous user decided to cover that little detail up as best they could.
Best comment so far: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781&cid=20018627
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/07/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. That's one of the worst pieces of shit ever linked to on Slashdot. It completely lacks a link to the original article, which, if you read, makes it clear that the source of all claims relating to SlimVirgin is Daniel Brandt and Wikipedia Review. No surprise the anonymous user decided to cover that little detail up as best they could.
Best comment so far: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781&cid=20018627
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Now -that's- funny. (No one's going to get yelled at for saying something negative about Daniel Brandt on the mailing list, I hope?)
He's got me on Hivemind now too. Dunno what he's hoping to "out" about me, my picture is on my userpage and I've used my real name on the mailing list for months now. Got me shaking, I'll tell you, scared half to death really.
* Rather amused *
F.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Oh shit, Slashdot is an attack site!
Best comment so far: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781&cid=20018627
- d.
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.
One thing I never see covered by Brandt and co. is even if this is true, does it matter? Seriously. We have people who have all sorts of jobs working on the wiki, most of whom know how to leave bias's at the door. Slim's one of my favorite admin, a little short at times, but incredibly dedicated and wholly appropriate. Even where I disagree with her (WP:ATT for one) it stems from a difference of opinion, not me thinking she's evil. Theres not any real evidence for any of these claims, true, but even if they were, who the hell cares? The WR crowd always assumes this is some major bombshell.
On 7/27/07, 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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's perfect nonsense for Wikipedia Review to come up with, really, accusing someone of being a secret agent is one of those heffalump traps. If you say you're not a secret agent, it's obvious you are, if you say you are a secret agent, you're bluffing. We've stumbled into the twilight zone of conspiracy theorists now. I'd pour yourselves a large drink, put your feet up and chuckle away at the sheer stupidity and naivety of anybody who believes these.
On 27/07/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I never see covered by Brandt and co. is even if this is true, does it matter? Seriously. We have people who have all sorts of jobs working on the wiki, most of whom know how to leave bias's at the door. Slim's one of my favorite admin, a little short at times, but incredibly dedicated and wholly appropriate. Even where I disagree with her (WP:ATT for one) it stems from a difference of opinion, not me thinking she's evil. Theres not any real evidence for any of these claims, true, but even if they were, who the hell cares? The WR crowd always assumes this is some major bombshell.
On 7/27/07, 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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock _______________________________________________ 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 27/07/07, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
It's perfect nonsense for Wikipedia Review to come up with, really, accusing someone of being a secret agent is one of those heffalump traps. If you say you're not a secret agent, it's obvious you are, if you say you are a secret agent, you're bluffing. We've stumbled into the twilight zone of conspiracy theorists now. I'd pour yourselves a large drink, put your feet up and chuckle away at the sheer stupidity and naivety of anybody who believes these.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/PierreSalingersyndrome.asp
Do we have an article on [[Pierre Salinger syndrome]] yet? The term certainly has enough references in print.
- d.
On 7/27/07, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
It's perfect nonsense for Wikipedia Review to come up with, really, accusing someone of being a secret agent is one of those heffalump traps. If you say you're not a secret agent, it's obvious you are, if you say you are a secret agent, you're bluffing. We've stumbled into the twilight zone of conspiracy theorists now. I'd pour yourselves a large drink, put your feet up and chuckle away at the sheer stupidity and naivety of anybody who believes these.
Actualy aparently the CT line is that our black ops hacker team goes after websites that try and expose the truth about us:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/290707hacked.htm
(see the comment section in particular)
On 7/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/27/07, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
It's perfect nonsense for Wikipedia Review to come up with, really, accusing someone of being a secret agent is one of those heffalump traps. If you say you're not a secret agent, it's obvious you are, if you say you are a secret agent, you're bluffing. We've stumbled into the twilight zone of conspiracy theorists now. I'd pour yourselves a large drink, put your feet up and chuckle away at the sheer stupidity and naivety of anybody who believes these.
Actualy aparently the CT line is that our black ops hacker team goes after websites that try and expose the truth about us:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/290707hacked.htm
(see the comment section in particular)
-- geni
If we're this organized can we PLEASE make a decision about APG II versus Cronquist/Reveal?
KP
Brock Weller wrote:
One thing I never see covered by Brandt and co. is even if this is true, does it matter?
Conspiracy theories - the Trilateral Commission, via the machinations of the admin cabal led by "Slimmie", is using WP to secretly promote neo-Marxist libertarianism, aiming at a world government run by the survivors of Pan Am 103, flying around in black helicopters. Or something like that.
:-)
Stan
On 7/28/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
One thing I never see covered by Brandt and co. is even if this is true, does it matter?
Conspiracy theories - the Trilateral Commission, via the machinations of the admin cabal led by "Slimmie", is using WP to secretly promote neo-Marxist libertarianism, aiming at a world government run by the survivors of Pan Am 103, flying around in black helicopters. Or something like that.
:-)
Stan
On those lines, I don't think the following can be outdone. (Of course teh mildly sad thing is that there is a limited number of wikipedians reading this list currently who will be able to catch *all* the hommages/nods/references so expertly delivered in the parody)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoe&oldid=4223822 -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
LOLWTF? If this is the best they can do, then I am really disappointed. Looks more looks more like OMG JEWSDIDWTC! to me.
On 7/28/07, 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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How can you "infiltrate" Wikipedia? It's a public website. It would be like infiltrating a shopping centre... If MI5 or any other organisation wishes to edit Wikipedia, they are free to, just like anyone else.
And, as usual the Slashdot summary is terrible. It says things were permanently removed from the database (sounds like oversight, which I don't think SlimVirgin has), when the article says nothing of the sort, it just says its been "surpressed" (reverted and protected as far as I can tell - since unprotected).
On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
How can you "infiltrate" Wikipedia? It's a public website. It would be like infiltrating a shopping centre... If MI5 or any other organisation wishes to edit Wikipedia, they are free to, just like anyone else.
Mostly by gaining a position within the community that means it is more likely your changes will stick. Given the legal limits on what they can do would be of limited use to western agencies.
On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And, as usual the Slashdot summary is terrible. It says things were permanently removed from the database (sounds like oversight, which I don't think SlimVirgin has), when the article says nothing of the sort, it just says its been "surpressed" (reverted and protected as far as I can tell - since unprotected).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Pan_Am_Flight...
Something was removed in early June 2006. Anyone have a full history dump from before then? I think I have one somewhere, gotta find it though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Pan_Am_Flight...
Something was removed in early June 2006. Anyone have a full history dump from before then? I think I have one somewhere, gotta find it though.
That's just regular deleting, not oversight. There don't appear to be any deleted revisions, however (Special:Undelete shows no revision history). It looks like Musical Linguist deleted the article and restored all but one revision (or possibly a handful) to remove personal information (I'm guess that's what PI stands for), and then the next day Jayjg restored that revision(s) too (I guess he disagreed about it being personal). If I get bored, I might take a look at their talk pages for those 2 days and see what happened.
On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Pan_Am_Flight...
Something was removed in early June 2006. Anyone have a full history dump from before then? I think I have one somewhere, gotta find it though.
That's just regular deleting, not oversight. There don't appear to be any deleted revisions, however (Special:Undelete shows no revision history). It looks like Musical Linguist deleted the article and restored all but one revision (or possibly a handful) to remove personal information (I'm guess that's what PI stands for), and then the next day Jayjg restored that revision(s) too (I guess he disagreed about it being personal).
I dunno, I think a more likely explanation is that the regular deleting happened first, and the oversight came later. Also take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&... which happened around the same time period.
If I get bored, I might take a look at their talk pages for those 2 days and see what happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMusical_Linguist&d...
of course
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&...
The only thing which lends any credence at all to the rumors is the fact that some people are going to such lengths to cover things up. Not that I buy the story as Brandt tells it - I would think a government agent would do a better job of disappearing once eir cover was blown.
I dunno, I think a more likely explanation is that the regular deleting happened first, and the oversight came later. Also take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&... which happened around the same time period.
What makes you think there was any oversighting? The logs aren't visible without the oversight privilege, so I have no way to be sure, but I see nothing to suggest anything was oversighted. I don't see what is unlikely about my description, it's simply a commentary on the deletion log.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&...
Those deleted revisions I can see, and they are discussions regarding personal information that was published on Wikipedia Review. I see nothing untoward about them being deleted.
The only thing which lends any credence at all to the rumors is the fact that some people are going to such lengths to cover things up. Not that I buy the story as Brandt tells it - I would think a government agent would do a better job of disappearing once eir cover was blown.
I see no coverup, just deletions of personal information, entirely according to policy. (Remember, oversight was a brand new feature when this was going on.)
On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I dunno, I think a more likely explanation is that the regular deleting happened first, and the oversight came later. Also take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&... which happened around the same time period.
What makes you think there was any oversighting? The logs aren't visible without the oversight privilege, so I have no way to be sure, but I see nothing to suggest anything was oversighted. I don't see what is unlikely about my description, it's simply a commentary on the deletion log.
After looking some more at this, I'm going to go back to not leaning in either direction. There might have been things oversighted, and there might not have been.
The slashdot article claimed that "many of her edits to articles related to the bombing were permanently removed from the database in an attempt to conceal her identity", but looking at the edit history of the article, many of those edits were *not* removed as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&...
Those deleted revisions I can see, and they are discussions regarding personal information that was published on Wikipedia Review. I see nothing untoward about them being deleted.
The only thing which lends any credence at all to the rumors is the fact that some people are going to such lengths to cover things up. Not that I buy the story as Brandt tells it - I would think a government agent would do a better job of disappearing once eir cover was blown.
I see no coverup, just deletions of personal information, entirely according to policy. (Remember, oversight was a brand new feature when this was going on.)
I actually suspected that oversight was a brand new feature based on the logs. But I'm through speculating for now.
On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I dunno, I think a more likely explanation is that the regular deleting happened first, and the oversight came later. Also take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&... which happened around the same time period.
What makes you think there was any oversighting?
Here's something:
I counted the number of viewable revisions prior to 19:50, 3 June 2006. There are 1109, which is equal to the number restored by Musical Linguist. If "Musical Linguist deleted the article and restored all but one revision (or possibly a handful) to remove personal information (I'm guess that's what PI stands for), and then the next day Jayjg restored that revision(s) too", then the number of revisions would be greater than 1109.
So it appears something *was* oversighted. This doesn't say anything about what it was, though.
Here's something:
I counted the number of viewable revisions prior to 19:50, 3 June 2006. There are 1109, which is equal to the number restored by Musical Linguist. If "Musical Linguist deleted the article and restored all but one revision (or possibly a handful) to remove personal information (I'm guess that's what PI stands for), and then the next day Jayjg restored that revision(s) too", then the number of revisions would be greater than 1109.
So it appears something *was* oversighted. This doesn't say anything about what it was, though.
I agree, that's definitely something. There might be another explanation, but I can't think of one (it is 3:20am here, though, so that's not saying much). Might be easiest just to ask an oversighter to check the logs...
On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Here's something:
I counted the number of viewable revisions prior to 19:50, 3 June 2006. There are 1109, which is equal to the number restored by Musical Linguist. If "Musical Linguist deleted the article and restored all but one revision (or possibly a handful) to remove personal information (I'm guess that's what PI stands for), and then the next day Jayjg restored that revision(s) too", then the number of revisions would be greater than 1109.
So it appears something *was* oversighted. This doesn't say anything about what it was, though.
I agree, that's definitely something. There might be another explanation, but I can't think of one (it is 3:20am here, though, so that's not saying much). Might be easiest just to ask an oversighter to check the logs...
The answer won't change my opinion on the matter. I'd fully expect the oversighter to either refuse to comment or to lie about it, at least to me and the general public. And the evidence that something was oversighted is too strong. If one looks on Wikipedia Review there is a thread there around the time the oversight took place. As it turns out the oversight logs were made public in the early days of oversight, and "Lir" noticed the oversight of revisions from the Pan Am 103 article and posted a link to them (on June 7th). These logs are no longer public, and Wikipedia Review isn't a very reliable source ("Lir" is a banned Wikipedian), so this in itself isn't proof of anything in itself, but it fits in perfectly with the simplest explanation: "Musical Linguist" deleted the article and restored 1109 revisions, perhaps not knowing about the new oversight function or not being able to find an oversighter at the time. Then the following day "Jayjg" restored the deleted revisions and someone oversighted them. The date of the WR post even fits in with the dates of the logs which *are* still public.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post the link to the WR thread or not, so I won't. It's easy enough to google for it if you care. But like I said, that's not the proof, in itself.
Anthony
The answer won't change my opinion on the matter. I'd fully expect the oversighter to either refuse to comment or to lie about it, at least to me and the general public.
They might refuse to comment, but I very much doubt they would lie. Why would they? Oversighters are Wikipedians just like the rest of us, they want the same thing we do - to create a good encyclopedia. I would expect them to give a simply yes/no answer to whether or not anything was oversighted on that page - they won't say what was oversighted, of course.
On 7/28/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
They might refuse to comment, but I very much doubt they would lie.
I personally would refuse to comment in pretty much all cases, and I believe most oversight-enabled users would do the same. The entire reason things are oversighted is that they are either personal information or legally actionable (libel, etc); in neither case is it really a good idea to go telling people where stuff was removed from and when. I'd inform someone who complained that the information was now gone, but that's the end of it.
-Matt
As we know, Slashdot posted a story linking to a paranoic article revealing SlimVirgin's real name and claiming she is a secret agent. Bad and dumb on their part. That of course makes SlimVirgin feel distressed, creates a lot of damage, etc.
However, how far should Wikipedians go to "protect" the feelings of their editors? As of now, any attempts (and they were many) to mention anything about this anywhere on Wikipedia is reverted on sight. Any post with the words "SlimVirgin news" is just deleted.
I beleive this is going overboard. The damage is done. Shutting our eyes and ears, pretending "All is well in Wiki-land", and ruthless self-censoring is just further damaging Wikipedia's reputation.
Comments?
Oleg Alexandrov
On 29/07/07, Oleg Alexandrov mathbot@hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org wrote:
As we know, Slashdot posted a story linking to a paranoic article revealing SlimVirgin's real name and claiming she is a secret agent. Bad and dumb on their part. That of course makes SlimVirgin feel distressed, creates a lot of damage, etc.
And therefore, in order "to support productive editors and protect them from harassment both on and off Wikipedia", it is necessary that all links to Slashdot be expunged from Wikipedia immediately, right?
Here's my opinion on the matter.
First, Slashdot is not a reliable source. Thus, links in article space are thoroughly inappropriate except for in articles related to the subject. Second, the question must be asked - who is adding these links, where are they adding these links, and what is their motive for doing so? True, there are some established users who are clearly acting in good faith to call this slashdot drivel to the attention of other editors, but is doing so actually necessary? Does it benefit Wikipedia at all?
I think it's safe to say that SlimVirgin is well aware of the piece. I think it is also safe to say that SlimVirgin is highly upset by the piece, and considerably bothered by the fact that her fellow editors deem it necessary to call the piece to the attention of her and other editors.
It's a hit piece, a hack job masquerading as journalism. As I've posted on Slashdot myself, it may be true that she is who the article claims her to be, and the evidence may be sufficient to draw such a conclusion. It may be true that she has an active conflict of interest on Wikipedia, and the evidence may be sufficient to draw this conclusion as well. But there is not enough evidence to convict her of being affiliated with a government agency - I've seen better and more believable conspiracy theories advocated by the GNAA.
But yet, not only do slashdotters find it necessary to call attention to the piece, Wikipedians do as well. Can you understand why some people would rightfully be upset by this?
I don't see it as censorship. I see it more or less of a common-sense "why are we even discussing this?" type of action.
Oleg Alexandrov wrote:
As we know, Slashdot posted a story linking to a paranoic article revealing SlimVirgin's real name and claiming she is a secret agent. Bad and dumb on their part. That of course makes SlimVirgin feel distressed, creates a lot of damage, etc.
However, how far should Wikipedians go to "protect" the feelings of their editors? As of now, any attempts (and they were many) to mention anything about this anywhere on Wikipedia is reverted on sight. Any post with the words "SlimVirgin news" is just deleted.
I beleive this is going overboard. The damage is done. Shutting our eyes and ears, pretending "All is well in Wiki-land", and ruthless self-censoring is just further damaging Wikipedia's reputation.
Comments?
On 7/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Here's my opinion on the matter.
First, Slashdot is not a reliable source. Thus, links in article space are thoroughly inappropriate except for in articles related to the subject. Second, the question must be asked - who is adding these links, where are they adding these links, and what is their motive for doing so? True, there are some established users who are clearly acting in good faith to call this slashdot drivel to the attention of other editors, but is doing so actually necessary? Does it benefit Wikipedia at all?
I think it's safe to say that SlimVirgin is well aware of the piece. I think it is also safe to say that SlimVirgin is highly upset by the piece, and considerably bothered by the fact that her fellow editors deem it necessary to call the piece to the attention of her and other editors.
It's a hit piece, a hack job masquerading as journalism. As I've posted on Slashdot myself, it may be true that she is who the article claims her to be, and the evidence may be sufficient to draw such a conclusion. It may be true that she has an active conflict of interest on Wikipedia, and the evidence may be sufficient to draw this conclusion as well. But there is not enough evidence to convict her of being affiliated with a government agency - I've seen better and more believable conspiracy theories advocated by the GNAA.
But yet, not only do slashdotters find it necessary to call attention to the piece, Wikipedians do as well. Can you understand why some people would rightfully be upset by this?
I don't see it as censorship. I see it more or less of a common-sense "why are we even discussing this?" type of action.
Quoted from self:
"Not everyone reads the mailing list/Slashdot and may want to enquire about rumours they've heard. I would rather that they heard about these ridiculous allegations from Wikipedians on Wikipedia, rather than on some other website because self-righteous Wikipedians decide any mention whatsoever of the claims is ridiculous."
Johnleemk
This entire discussion really and truly misses the point in a grand way.
Yes, information has been oversighted to protect the personal identities of many people, both Wikipedia editors and members of the general public. The reasons include inadvertantly revealing personal information as well as the deliberate posting by trolls of personal information. This is policy and will continue to be policy.
In this particular case, due to some really spectacular nonsense, this is being treated as evidence that a private person who has been badly harassed by stalkers and lunatics is... a former spy? Please.
Many editors at Wikipedia have been involved in dealing with extraordinarily crazy people. Some of these people are dangerous in real life. Some of them have made direct physical threats. Others have made phone calls to people's employers. Others have done some homemade self-styled "investigative journalism" that any rational and kind person would see as being what it really is: abusive stalking.
I fully support the right of the Wikipedia community to protect itself from those kinds of lunatics by giving support to those who need to maintain their privacy.
Have edits been oversighted to protect people's identity? Damn straight they have.
Are there massive factual errors that make me laugh out loud at the speculation in the weird rant Slashdot linked to? Absolutely. The amount of truth in that piece is so slim, you'd have to be a complete intellectual virgin to take any of it at face value.
--Jimbo
On 7/28/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Are there massive factual errors that make me laugh out loud at the speculation in the weird rant Slashdot linked to? Absolutely. The amount of truth in that piece is so slim, you'd have to be a complete intellectual virgin to take any of it at face value.
I think it'd benefit quite a few of us if you'd point out these massive factual errors. I certainly am an "intellectual virgin" when it comes to the details of the Lockerbie bombing, the Entebbe Operation, and CIA involvement in Iranian coups, and while that's a great reason not to take the Ludwig De Braeckeleer article at face value, it's also a great reason not to take your comment that there are massive factual errors in the article at face value.
Anthony
Jimmy Wales schrieb:
I fully support the right of the Wikipedia community to protect itself from those kinds of lunatics by giving support to those who need to maintain their privacy.
Have edits been oversighted to protect people's identity? Damn straight they have.
What I fail to see: How does deleting SVs contribution history help her in maintaining her privacy? It seems to me, that such action rather fuels the suspicion/conspiracy brought up by /.
br
On 8/4/07, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Jimmy Wales schrieb:
I fully support the right of the Wikipedia community to protect itself from those kinds of lunatics by giving support to those who need to maintain their privacy.
Have edits been oversighted to protect people's identity? Damn straight they have.
What I fail to see: How does deleting SVs contribution history help her in maintaining her privacy? It seems to me, that such action rather fuels the suspicion/conspiracy brought up by /.
He already answered this:
"Yes, information has been oversighted to protect the personal identities of many people, both Wikipedia editors and members of the general public. The reasons include inadvertantly revealing personal information as well as the deliberate posting by trolls of personal information."
On 04/08/07, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Jimmy Wales schrieb:
I fully support the right of the Wikipedia community to protect itself from those kinds of lunatics by giving support to those who need to maintain their privacy.
Have edits been oversighted to protect people's identity? Damn straight they have.
What I fail to see: How does deleting SVs contribution history help her in maintaining her privacy? It seems to me, that such action rather fuels the suspicion/conspiracy brought up by /.
br
Raphael
Please, pretty please, do *not* go one step further with that and say, 'because she got things deleted, she deserves all of this'. People do the best they can, and no matter what you do, bad things you don't deserve will happen to you.
It's sort of hard to answer that question specifically without knowing what was deleted, and even if I did know, the answer would most assuredly be personal, but hey, personal things can be revealed in contributions.
Armed Blowfish
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Please, pretty please, do *not* go one step further with that and say, 'because she got things deleted, she deserves all of this'.
Far as I can recall you're the only one who's following that step.
Bear in mind that one can say something along the lines of "her actions caused this situation" or "her actions made this situation worse" without saying "she _deserves_ this situation because of her actions." They're very different sentiments. I'm sure I've seen statements like the first two in the past few days but I don't recall any like the latter.
On 04/08/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Please, pretty please, do *not* go one step further with that and say, 'because she got things deleted, she deserves all of this'.
Far as I can recall you're the only one who's following that step.
I've discussed what people don't deserve, not what they do deserve.
Bear in mind that one can say something along the lines of "her actions caused this situation" or "her actions made this situation worse" without saying "she _deserves_ this situation because of her actions." They're very different sentiments. I'm sure I've seen statements like the first two in the past few days but I don't recall any like the latter.
I remember statements along the lines of she left a trail, that's why she got outed, and for all our sakes she should either leave or switch pseudonyms, because by getting outed she's hurting the project more than helping it... and I strongly disagree with those statements.
Armed Blowfish
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 04/08/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Bear in mind that one can say something along the lines of "her actions caused this situation" or "her actions made this situation worse" without saying "she _deserves_ this situation because of her actions." They're very different sentiments. I'm sure I've seen statements like the first two in the past few days but I don't recall any like the latter.
I remember statements along the lines of she left a trail, that's why she got outed, and for all our sakes she should either leave or switch pseudonyms, because by getting outed she's hurting the project more than helping it... and I strongly disagree with those statements.
Yes, but those statements aren't saying she _deserved_ it. They say nothing about SlimVirgin as a person.
BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I don't think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware.
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:18:38 -0600 Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Yes, but those statements aren't saying she _deserved_ it. They say nothing about SlimVirgin as a person.
BTW, I think there's a slight inaccuracy in your recollection. I don't think the common argument was that she was hurting the project by getting outed, I think it was that the project was being hurt by the attempts to continue covering her identity up afterward. SlimVirgin herself wasn't actually involved with that as far as I'm aware.
That sounds about right. When someone is mentioned in major media, it is no longer outing to list her real name on Wikipedia, and it is incorrect to suggest that it is.
Have a sense of humor.
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Cunctator wrote:
Have a sense of humor.
My post was tongue-in-cheek.
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.
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.
I've currently got mod-points, so if anyone writes a decent response (I already modded up Phil's post), give me a link.
--Oskar
Well, as long as this has come up here...
SPUI wrote:
I'm staying well away from the questions of outing, attack sites, and such. But I did wonder who this Ludwig Braeckeleer guy is. The best I found is his author blurb from an article in the Canada Free Press: "Dr. Ludwig De Braeckeleer has worked for the Department of Energy, taught at Duke University and Washington University in Seattle. He has a PhD in Science (Nuclear Physics) and currently teaches in Bogota, Colombia." [1]
From his take on the Lockerbie situation in [1], I think it's safe to say that a) he has a minority view, and b) he's not got the NPOV thing quite down. Digging further on the topic of his article, I found the BBC and NYT takes a little different: [2], [3].
William
[1] http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/ludwig070507.htm [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6248290.stm [3] "Lockerbie Ruling Raises Questions On Libyan's Guilt" Alan Cowell, June 29, 2007; http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00D13FC3C5A0C7A8EDD... (works for me, anyhow)
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:26:10 -0400, 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.
Looks more like delusion to me.
Guy (JzG)