[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[Ray Saintonge]

fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Lee 
>
> I got the impression that Agger takes much of Brandt's conclusions at face
> value ("likely MI-5 agent").
>
> Johnleemk
>
> I think that's an accurate impression. They take it in. Hook, line and sinker.
>
> There is an assumption that editing by an MI5 agent is somehow a grave and unacceptable event. While this particular incident is an apparent fantasy, there is little doubt that a number of editors are here to similarly influence our content on behalf of both public and private advocacy groups.
The inability of internet readers to recognize ironic writing 
contributes to this kind of conspiracy theorizing.  Focussing on one 
paragraph out of context from a much larger article seems to be a 
favourite tactic.  Suggesting that someone is revealed as an MI-5 agent 
stretches plausibility, and impugns the credibility of the person who is 
cited as having made that claim. 

Sure people edit Wikipedia to further the interests of a particular 
group, and many of them understand that being blatant about it will be 
counter-productive.  Still, what is said in those instances remains more 
important than who said it, and verification still attaches to the 
content rather than the editor.

Taking ironic or symbolic writing as literal truth yields silly 
results.  Wasn't that the whole point of the Scopes trial?  Suggesting 
that we need to take steps to protect ourselves or our editors from such 
activity requires as a precondition that we be able to distinguish 
between literal and ironic writing
. Failing in that task leaves us paranoid about imagined conspiracies 
trying to undermine Wikipedia.

Ec