What do you make of the Wikipedia kerfuffle?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

What do you make of the Wikipedia kerfuffle?

Postby banned » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:08 pm

[Also in the last week or so there have been several stories on "Internet addiction", on how the Net is unsafe for children...the message definitely is "Net bad." Why? Too many people finding out too many things inconvenient for the PTB? Interesting the Wikipedia case involves the Kennedy assassinations, no? Those damn tinhat conspiracy nutters, gotta keep them off the web, eh?<br><br>So, any of you damn tinhat conspiracy nutters ever heard of this guy Seigenthaler before?]<br><br>Online Encyclopedia Tightens Rules<br><br>By DAN GOODIN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 29 minutes ago<br><br>SAN FRANCISCO - Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows anyone to contribute articles, is tightening its rules for submitting entries following the disclosure that it ran a piece falsely implicating a man in the Kennedy assassinations.<br>ADVERTISEMENT<br><br>Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site, said Monday.<br><br>The change comes less than a week after John Seigenthaler Sr., who was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s, wrote an op-ed article revealing that Wikipedia had run a biography claiming Seigenthaler had been suspected in the assassinations of the former Attorney General and his brother, President John F. Kennedy.<br><br>Wikipedia, which on Monday offered more than 850,000 articles in English, has grown into a storehouse of pieces on topics ranging from medieval art to nano technology. The volume of content is possible because the site relies on volunteers, including many experts in their fields, to submit entries and edit previously submitted articles.<br><br>The Web site hopes that the registration requirement will limit the number of stories being created, Wales said.<br><br>"What we're hopeful to see is that by slowing that down to 1,500 a day from several thousand, the people who are monitoring this will have more ability to improve the quality," Wales said Monday. "In many cases the types of things we see going on are impulse vandalism."<br><br>Wikipedia visitors will still be able to edit content already posted without registering. It takes 15 to 20 seconds to create an account on the Web site, and an e-mail address is not required.<br><br>Seigenthaler, a former newspaper editor at the Tennessean in Nashville, Tenn., and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, said that following his op-ed piece in USA Today the biography of him was changed to remove the false accusations.<br><br>But Seigenthaler said the current entry on Monday still got some facts wrong, apparently because volunteers are confusing him with his son, John Seigenthaler Jr., a journalist with NBC News.<br><br>Also disturbing is a section of his biography that tracks changes made to the article, Seigenthaler, Sr. said. Entries in that history section label him a "Nazi" and say other "really vicious, venomous, salacious homophobic things about me," he said.<br><br>Wales said those comments would be removed.<br><br>For 132 days, Seigenthaler said the biography of him falsely claimed that "for a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby."<br><br>The biography also falsely stated that he had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984.<br><br>Seigenthaler said he wasn't convinced the new registration requirement would stop the practice of vandals posting content that is slanderous or knowingly incorrect. Wikipedia will either have to fix the problem or will lose whatever credibility it still has, he said.<br><br>"The marketplace of ideas ultimately will take care of the problem," Seigenthaler said. "In the meantime, what happens to people like me?"<br><br>___<br><br>On the Net:<br><br>Wikipedia: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wikipedia.com">www.wikipedia.com</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What do you make of the Wikipedia kerfuffle?

Postby sunny » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:20 pm

I find it hilarious. Only those who are "addicted" to the msm will be all "oh, those crazy tin foil hatters! nothing they say is true" We who actually wear the shiny haberdashery will dismiss the whole thing for what it is-a smear campaign against the 'net to discredit all of the info contained therin. After all, Seigenthaler called attention to it himself. Who among <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>us</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> had actually caught it and made an issue of it?<br>Our ranks are growing and theirs is shrinking-they have to do something. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 0] --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sunny@rigorousintuition>sunny</A> at: 12/5/05 5:21 pm<br></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: New Deptmnt at Langley ?

Postby slimmouse » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:27 pm

<br> Jus wonderin if theres a new department been created at Langley - Operation Bullshitstorm.<br><br> Throwing story after story at Wikipedia, whilst in the next room the REAL Wikipedia owners are busy issuing press statements suggesting the insanity of it all <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br> They must be on the same corridor as the 9/11 Team A and Team B, and any number of other such peeps. <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: New Deptmnt at Langley ?

Postby FourthBase » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:55 pm

I guess Wikipedia is too dangerous.<br><br>Screensave as much of the parapolitical/conspiracy stuff as you can before it gets sanitized. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What do you make of the Wikipedia kerfuffle?

Postby Sepka » Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:31 pm

This is a long overdue step. I've been involved in smaller wikis, and vandalism is always a problem. It's a problem that can be easily fixed by doing exactly what Wikipedia's done, which is requiring contributors to register. Sadly, the average wiki staffers are dedicated to doing things the exact way that wikipedia does them (they're far and away the largest) so most of the staff effort is spent cleaning up vandalism and malicious reverts. There's an almost religious faith among most wiki staff in doing things the "right" way, and pretending that there's no problems, and no way to fix any problems even if they existed. I hope this will bring people to their senses. <br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Check out the article on Wikipedia...

Postby banned » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:36 am

...which is currently locked:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr.">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh...thaler_Sr.</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Now, here's my question.<br><br>Why Seigenthaler?<br><br>You don't just wake up one morning and say "I think I'll go on Wikipedia and pick some guy's bio listing at random and accuse him of being in on the Kennedy assassinations."<br><br>Either there has been past controversy in assassination studies circles as to whether Seigenthaler was some kind of government mole...or there hasn't. If there has been, does somebody saying he isn't constitute proof he isn't? Of course not. If there hasn't, then, again, WHY make that claim?<br><br>Now, if he's someone previously above reproach, an accusation like this makes Wikipedia totally suspect: here's this totally innocent guy who wakes up one morning to find he's been anonymously smeared.<br><br>Or, as slim says, somebody in the gubmint did the smearing and chose Seigenthaler because the claim is so off base.<br><br>Or Seigenthaler WAS one of the 'mockingbirds' and told to respond with high dudgeon to the slur, which of course he did in USAToday...which, please note, he used to work for:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials">www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm<br><br>Here's what I think is odd: if you find some slur like this on the Net, and you are totally innocent and have no secret agenda, do you contact Wikipedia and get it removed as quietly as you can, figuring hey, how many people have seen it? Or do you make a big frickin' nationwide stink about it? "Hey, everybody in the continental US, I didn't kill JFK!" "Er...who said you did, and by the way who are you anyway?"<br><br>Given our recent demonstration of how the PTB can call in their chits--Bob Woodward being told to leap into the Plame/Fitz fray--it's hardly far fetched to think they could call a retired journo and say "Look, we're going to smear you on Wikipedia and you're going to get huffy about it, because we need to destroy Wikipedia." People who have played ball with the PTB in the past simply do not have the option of saying "Nah, count me out." The PTB have their balls in their pocket, they got to have a nice career--in Woodward's case a stellar one--out of their collusion and when the piper wants another payment, they make it.<br><br>And of course the fact that it's impossible to trace who put the info in there works in favor of the PTB if they're behind it. Seigenthaler says in the USAToday article that he can't sue for libel and short of a lawsuit he can't get BellSouth to roll over on their subscriber. My question is, maybe he can't sue BellSouth for defamation, but what about invasion of privacy or false light publicity? I don't know enough about Internet law to know; Seigenthaler only mentions defamation.<br><br>Please also note Seigenthaler doesn't say exactly how he found out about what was posted, which I find odd. In fact for a reporter, it would be the lead in: "Joe Blow, retired reporter, was on a fishing trip when his good friend Ferd Burfle called and said 'Joe, I forgot your birthday so I looked in your bio on Wikipedia to get the exact date and do you know they say you're the Zodiac killer?" <br><br>I would think the way he found out would be burned on his brain. You know, kinda like where you were when the Kennedys were assassinated.<br><br>He says " I also was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler, journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com." Later than what? Later than when John Sr. found it on Wikipedia? Again--how did he happen to find it? Elsewhere in the article he says "For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin before Wales erased it from his website's history Oct. 5. " So again, after all that time, who told Seigenthaler about the 'character assassination'?<br><br>This paragraph is also funky:<br><br>"I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge — and sometimes by people with malice."<br><br>What had he heard? That Wikipedia was 'wonderful', or that it was created by people who had no knowledge and often did have malice?<br><br>That paragraph reads like somebody wrote it to knock Wikipedia without realizing that in context it makes no sense. Especially the 'for weeks.' Here's this retired reporter who is suddenly inundated with unsolicited reviews of a site he's never heard of? Was this before or after he found the incorrect info? <br><br>Also, what's with the three dots in this sentence:<br><br>"I phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and asked, "Do you ... have any way to know who wrote that?""<br><br>Odd use of an ellipse. Does it mean he paused, or he said more but took it out in quoting it?<br><br>The story makes no sense with respect to Seigenthaler's legal options either, which bothered me someone with a legal background including First Amendment law:<br><br>"Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name."<br><br>Uh, Mr. Seigenthaler, I dunno who your lawyer is, but YOU are the one in control of whether you file suit against a "John Doe" defendant and then issue a subpoena to BellSouth to identify the subscriber. If you're so f*cking interested, why don't you do it? Because you don't WANT to find out who did it? Given that the accusation is that you were in on ASSASSINATIONS is it likely that a court would allow BellSouth to argue it should not have to comply with your subpoena? No. Not a chance in hell.<br><br>From a NY Times article (not about the Seigenthaler case):<br><br>"The name John Doe appears in lawsuits as a kind of place holder when the true identity of a defendant is temporarily unknown. In Internet libel cases, the defendant may be unknown because he communicates on the Internet using a screen name or pseudonym. In many recent cases, the parties filing such John Doe cybersmear suits have been corporations that feel aggrieved by the unknown defendant's blistering postings. <br><br>Critics have complained that most such lawsuits are not only frivolous but dangerous to free speech. The game, they say, goes like this: plaintiffs file a John Doe lawsuit, issue a subpoena against the Internet Service Provider used by the John Doe for e-mail service and use the legal proceedings to unmask the anonymous defendant. The result, free speech advocates claim, is a chilling of individuals' rights to speak anonymously in cyberspace. <br><br>Defenders of the practice claim that many John Doe lawsuits are based on serious allegations of wrongdoing, such as libel or disclosure of confidential information by current or former employees in breach of employment contracts. Anonymity, they argue, should not be used as a weapon to evade accountability." <br><br>And last: how would you reconcile the following paragraph with Seigenthaler having founded the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University? Does it sound like it was written by someone who supports the mission of the FAC whose web page describes that mission as "The First Amendment Center works to preserve and protect First Amendment freedoms through information and education."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/">www.firstamendmentcenter.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Or does it sound like the rantings of some rightwingnut?<br><br>"And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them." <br><br>Uh, OK, Mr. Free Speech advocate now wants CONGRESS to...um...make some law...respecting...freedom of...hang on there, he's asking for LIMITS on the First Amendment 'cause somebody jagged his chain? So this means because sometimes other people defame each other, there shouldn't be a First Amendment? What's wrong with this argument?<br><br>It's my belief that the PTB have nothing but contempt for the people who collude with them, and that when it comes time to call in their chits, they do it with a very special sadistic touch. Bob Woodward, who was 'made' by Watergate, has likely been 'unmade' by Plamegate. John Seigenthaler, First Amendment advocate, has been ordered to come out favoring limits on the First Amendment rather than taking the legal remedy that already exists, namely the John Doe suit against the poster.<br><br>The PTB giveth, and the PTB taketh away, with a vengeance. <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Check out the article on Wikipedia...

Postby FourthBase » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:59 am

Banned, that's about as I had figured it, too.<br>Awesome post!<br><br>The whole "for weeks" thing really smells. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Stanford Law prof agrees with me....

Postby banned » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:00 am

Continuing to track this story I found yesterday's New York Times article, which in addition to regurgitating the Seigenthaler USAToday article contained this heartening paragraph:<br><br>"Some cyberexperts said Wikipedia already had a good system of checks and balances. Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford and an expert in the laws of cyberspace, said that contrary to popular belief, true defamation was easily pursued through the courts because almost everything on the Internet was traceable and subpoenas were not that hard to obtain. (For real anonymity, he advised, use a pay phone.)"<br><br>Rest of article at: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/">www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>weekinreview/04seelye.html?pagewanted=2<br><br>Truthfully Seigenthaler's entire story could be ripped into tiny pieces by a skilled prosecutor in about 2 minutes.<br><br>On the other hand, one Judi McLeod piles onto Wikipedia, which she dubs "Wicked-pedia" at <br><br>www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover120405.htm<br><br>But check out Ms. McLeod's bona fides, or, more accurately, mala fides:<br><br>"Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the media. A former Toronto Sun and Kingston Whig Standard columnist, she has also appeared on Newsmax.com, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and World Net Daily."<br><br>Fox? Drudge? Newsmax?<br><br>Oh, yeah, this is a put up job, all right.<br><br>And from all I've read so far, Seigenthaler's GOT to be in on it. You don't recant on the First Amendment just because somebody tosses some guck at you. Either you correct it and move on, or you file your John Doe suit, find your perp, and get on with it. Since obviously participating in an assassination is a crime, it's libel per se so you don't even need to prove special damages. <br><br>The Wikipedia article says Seigenthaler was on CNN today, anyone see it?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

YEE HAW! Seigenthaler interviewed Woodward!

Postby banned » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:14 am

This is like finding out you really ARE within six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon! Check this out, found it on the "Freedom Forum First Amendment Center" website!<br><br>And here's something else that's odd--this article by an 'intern' states that McNeely Pigott & Fox is a "Nashville law firm."<br><br>But you know what? It ain't a law firm.<br><br>Its own web site (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mpf.com/)">www.mpf.com/)</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> describes it as follows:<br><br>"McNeely Pigott & Fox is an award-winning, full-service public relations firm based in Nashville, Tenn. We provide total communications and marketing services for a diversified client mix at the local, regional and national levels.<br><br>MP&F was founded in 1987 and has grown to become one of the largest independent public relations firms in the Southeast."<br><br>MP&F apparently has a Speakers Series of which the interview with our old pal Woodward was the October 8 event.<br><br>Gawrsh, as Goofy used to say.<br><br>ARE THE BELLS GOIN' OFF IN YER HEAD YET????<br><br>Check the site for some photos of Mr. Seigenthaler up close and personal with Spooky Old Bob.<br><br>See, this is why the want to get rid of the Internet.<br><br>I went from never having heard of John Seigenthaler Sr. to tying him to Disinfo Specialist First Class Woodward in less than three hours, with time out for dinner, potty, and cat cuddling. Without ever leaving my house.<br><br>-------------<br> <br>"Government secrecy poses great threat, Bob Woodward says<br><br>By Laura Breslin<br>First Amendment Center Online intern<br>10.11.05<br><br>NASHVILLE, Tenn. — More than almost anything else, government secrecy troubles Bob Woodward, the veteran Washington Post reporter whose anonymous source helped to expose the 1972 Watergate burglary and bring down President Richard Nixon.<br><br>“The big worry that we should have about the country is not terrorism or hurricanes or Karl Rove or George Bush or whoever, the real thing that will bring us down as a country is secret government,” Woodward said Oct. 7 in an interview with First Amendment Center Founder John Seigenthaler.<br><br>“There is a lot of discussion about our business — are we too intrusive? You know what, we are not intrusive enough,” Woodward said. He also criticized what he called “this period of red-state, blue-state journalism,” in which he said the press tends to go beyond reporting straight facts and into “judging and predicting” in the context of conservative vs. liberal politics.<br><br>“We are getting in the judging and predicting business, and people we write about don’t like it, for good reason,” Woodward said. “I think that we have to go back to almost kind of a constitutional equivalent of strict constructionism, which is, ‘Let’s report what happened, what people say, and be balanced about it.’”<br><br>Joined by an audience of about 100 people, Seigenthaler and Woodward also discussed W. Mark Felt, the former FBI official who recently identified himself as “Deep Throat,” Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s Nixon administration source. Felt is the subject of Woodward’s new book, The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate’s Deep Throat.<br><br>The Post reporters’ celebrated source was not always helpful in their investigative reporting, Woodward said. “He wanted to protect himself, that was his primary goal,” he said. “But at the same time, he wanted to help because he knew something was really big and rotten.<br><br>“[Felt] saw the Nixon White House manipulating the FBI and trying to make the FBI into another instrument of the political apparatus that Nixon had set up, and he resisted that for institutional reasons,” Woodward said.<br><br>According to Woodward, Felt put his career, if not his life, at risk by talking.<br><br>“It’s astonishing how you can get people to help you who in a sense probably shouldn’t help you, who will make admissions and provide guidance endangering to themselves,” Woodward said.<br><br>Seigenthaler noted that Felt had long denied he was Deep Throat until revealing the fact in a May 31 Vanity Fair article. Woodward said a person denying he or she was a source was just a part of the business of journalism.<br><br>“As long as what they told you is true, as long as you have that relationship, then if for some reason that has to do with personal relations or career or something inside themselves, if they want to deny it, then it’s fine.”<br><br>Such sources, even when they protect themselves, Woodward said, are “critical” in a world of increasing government secrecy. “It gets into the world we’re in now in 2005, and the condition, which I think about a lot, of the First Amendment, and how important these sources are now,” he said. “Any effort to describe what government does is a plus, if it’s done fairly and honestly.”<br><br>Yet some of Woodward’s fame has come not from his secret sources, but from his ability to gain access to people as high up as the president of the United States.<br><br>After spending a year conducting research for his book Plan of Attack, which traces the road to the current Iraq war, Woodward said he sent President George W. Bush a 21-page memo outlining the book and asked for an interview.<br><br>“Condi Rice, who was then national security adviser, called me and said, ‘You are going to write this book anyways, whether you talk to the president or not,’ and I said, ‘Well, of course I am,’” Woodward told the audience. He said he was granted an interview the next day.<br><br>Bush’s willingness to talk was criticized by many close to him, including Vice President Dick Cheney.<br><br>“Cheney almost had another heart attack when Bush said, ‘I’m talking to Woodward about this,’” said Woodward.<br><br>“He was telling Bush, ‘You know, you can’t control it,’” Woodward said. “In other words, don’t answer questions about how you made the most important decision for yourself, your presidency, your country and the world.”<br><br>Woodward said it was “still somewhat of a mystery” why Bush granted him what the Post has confirmed as the longest interview ever done by a sitting president on one topic.<br><br>The Oct. 7 program was hosted by the First Amendment Center and the Nashville law firm McNeely Pigott & Fox, and held at the Seigenthaler Center, which houses the First Amendment Center." <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Check out the article on Wikipedia...

Postby Sepka » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:34 am

Banned sed:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>You don't just wake up one morning and say "I think I'll go on Wikipedia and pick some guy's bio listing at random and accuse him of being in on the Kennedy assassinations."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>People do that exact thing, actually. I can testify from experience because I've seen it done, and because I've spent time editting one of the wikis checking entries for factual basis, and cleaning out weird little bits of disinformation that anonymous users have put in.<br><br>You're leading yourself astray if you go looking for rational reasons behind acts of vandalism. You can just as productively ask what's the hidden meaning of someone dumping bubble bath in the community fountain, or drawing moustaches on movie posters.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

There is no comparison between this incident....

Postby banned » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:17 am

...and painting mustaches on a movie poster.<br><br>This was indeed an outrageously offensive claim, that one of RFK's pallbearers was involved in his murder (unless of course it's true...after all, RFK was shot in the head from behind--Sirhan was standing in front of him--and that shooter has never been identified.) <br><br>It had to be, in order to make it seem credible that Seigenthaler, a lifelong defender of the First Amendment, would go after Wikipedia. And who better, if you want to chill the Net, to object to Wikipedia than a person with those credentials? People will think, wow, it must be really bad if someone like that thinks it's bad.<br><br>Of course, him thinking it's bad is good for Miss Judy FoxNewsmaxDrudge and her ilk.<br><br>And people who have never heard of Wikipedia will come away with the idea that it's a bunch of Net nutters slamming up any old crap on the web including a vile accusation against a respectable retired journalist.<br><br>And then there's the tete a tete with the Woodster.<br><br>This seems to me the more you get into it to be a demonstration of the Danny Partridge theorem: If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.<br><br>My views are not changed by the CNN interview (I found the transcript, it's at:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WikiFanatic">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WikiFanatic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>/Wales_interview_transcript<br><br>If anything, it set off even more alarms in my head. I mean come on: <br><br>1. Once again they glide over why Seigenthaler who seems to know fuck all about the Net happened to find the listing on Wikipedia. Kyra Philips doesn't let him tell the story, she says:<br><br>K"Well, John, you- you logged on to this site, um, you wanted to see what it had to say about you, what did you discover about yourself?"<br><br>Lame.<br><br>2. See my comment above about how finely this was crafted; Jimmy Wales, head of Wikimedia, says:<br><br>"John’s really a hero to us, too, because he’s done a lot of, uh, work for the First Amendment over the years, and that’s one of the things that’s so upsetting about this."<br><br>The unkindest cut of all, eh? Et tu?<br><br>3. Seigenthaler's either being disingenuous or he's senile like Mark Felt about whom he and Woodsiepoo chatted. Check out this exchange:<br><br>"KYRA PHILLIPS: Uh, John, do you think that Wikipedia is a good idea, or is this a dangerous trend?<br><br>JOHN SEIGENTHALER, SR.: Well, I- you know, I don’t know enough about it, really, to tell you that. I’ve learned a great deal in the recent past. One thing I’m not interested in, in any way, is giving the government more power to regulate any form of media. New media, old media, I’ve – I’ve always thought the best answer to bad speech was better speech, and I hope the column I wrote in USA Today today was better speech than what I found on Wikipedia." <br><br>Read that again.<br><br>Then read the USAToday article again. On Wikipedia:<br><br>"I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge — and sometimes by people with malice."<br><br>And the money shot at the end:<br><br>"And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."<br><br>If you don't want the government to regulate media, what's yer point saying CONGRESS has enabled the 'volunteer vandals'?<br><br>DID SEIGENTHALER EVEN WRITE THE USA TODAY ARTICLE??????<br><br>And totally apart from the Wikipedia flap there are some very weird things in this man's bio. Check out his rise to prominence:<br><br>*Finding a guy who'd been missing for over 20 years--who tipped him off? The FBI?<br><br>*Talking someone out of jumping off a bridge: "After talking to Williams at the bridge for 40 minutes, Seigenthaler watched the man begin to attempt his 100 foot plunge off the bridge railing. Grabbing hold of his collar, Seigenthaler and police saved the man from falling into the Cumberland River. Williams muttered "I'll never forgive you" to Seigenthaler.[2]"<br><br>Love to know more about why the guy was jumping. MKUltra anyone?<br><br>*Credited with bringing a guy some of you may have heard of into politics:<br><br>"In February 1976, he contacted Tennessean reporter Al Gore at home to inform him that U.S. Representative Joe L. Evins was not running for re-election. Gore decided to resign from the paper and drop out of Vanderbilt University Law School, beginning his political career by entering the race for Tennessee's fourth Congressional district, a seat previously held by his father, Albert Gore, Sr."<br><br>Same Gore who let Bush steal the 2000 election.<br><br>*And, most interesting from the point of view of RI, where pedophilia is a recurring theme (though "young girls" is not defined, 'girl' could be a child or a teen under 16):<br><br>"On May 5, 1976, Seigenthaler dismissed Jacque Srouji, a copy editor at the Tennessean, after finding that she was an undercover FBI agent. Afterwards the FBI appears to have collected rumours about Seigenthaler. FBI Deputy Assistant Director Homer Boynton told an editor of the New York Times to "look into Seigenthaler," whom he called "not entirely pure." After hearing this, Seigenthaler tried for a year to get his FBI files, and finally received some highly expurgated material including these words: "Allegations of Seigenthaler having illicit relations with young girls, which information source obtained from an unnamed source." He had previously promised to publish whatever the FBI gave him, and did so. He flatly stated that the charges were false. The attorney general issued an apology, the allegations were removed from Seigenthaler's file, and he received the 1976 Sidney Hillman Prize for "courage in publishing."[6]"<br><br>His DENIAL was apparently enough? Without an investigation? <br><br>Oh, and his son's an MSNBC anchor.<br><br>Come on, Mr. Seigenthaler, file that John Doe suit and let's see who's attached to that IP address, shall we?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: There is no comparison between this incident....

Postby Sweejak » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:38 am

Damn, this is melting faster than yellow cake.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/418/caketoo3vd.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>“If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably not a cow.”<br>-- Prof. Timothy D. Swindle <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

It's a duck!

Postby FourthBase » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:47 am

My new favorite method:<br>Duck-by-association.<br><br>Banned gets a gold star. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 12/6/05 1:48 am<br></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Well, if you lie down with ducks...

Postby banned » Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:36 am

...you get up with down <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>I have wondered about what goes on in the mind of collaborators ever since I read in my late teens about the Warsaw Ghetto. The head of the Jewish Council, after advising cooperation with the Nazis all down the line, apparently realized he'd been sending people to walk the plank, and committed suicide. <br><br>I found this infuriating--here this guy had told people "If we just cooperate things will go easier on us" and then when he realized that was bullshit instead of atoning by resisting albeit belatedly he just buggered on out.<br><br>Of course, there's a difference between someone who OPENLY collaborates, and someone who colludes in secret. An open collaborator can conceivably argue that s/he genuinely believed, at least up to a point, that they were preventing a worse outcome. <br><br>But what about the person who colludes on the sneak? Obviously if they're not open about what they're doing they must not be very proud of it.<br><br>And then add in another factor: in exchange for the collusion, the colluder gets something. In the case of a journalist, they get tips, choice story assignments, "access". And maybe it gets nastier than just favoritism--maybe other journalists of equal talent who are not foot-swallowing toadies get sabotaged in order to make way for the 'star.'<br><br>Now, while you may be able to sleep at night by telling yourself "I may be sacrificing some people but I'm saving far more of them" (until you realize you've 'saved' them to be killed anyway). But how does one sleep knowing one has sold out for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver?<br><br>Maybe when the PTB recruit someone, they pick the sort of person who CAN sleep. In fact as I think about it, they'd need to. You can't have someone who's going to get an attack of bad conscience and want out of the deal. <br><br>Of course, if they DO, the PTB has something to hold over their heads: the loss of their privileged position, for starters, and if that doesn't work, I'm sure they have no problem threatening someone's loved ones. Once you're in, you're in, and there are only a limited number of ways out. They can ruin you, they can kill you, you can wuss out and kill yourself to save them the trouble.<br><br>I'm less judgmental now at 53 than I was at 18. No one has ever come to me and said "If you're willing to write what we tell you to write we'll make you rich and famous" so I can't say with 100% certainty what my reaction would be. I'm awfully tired of Top Ramen. On the other hand, if you can afford a little tuna, some bok choy and green onions, it's not all that bad a supper, and I don't have to choke it down after filing a story about what a personable guy Dubya is when you get to know him down on the ranch. I couldn't read the crapola Woodward wrote about him because I would literally have puked. What if I'd WRITTEN it?<br><br>It's another matter of course if they'd threatened someone I loved. But these people with long careers who prance and preen in the public eye--sorry, I don't believe the Bad Guys have their granny in a cell in Gitmo to ensure their loyalty. I think they're greedhead famewhores. (Cancel what I said about being less judgmental <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> ).<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Well, if you lie down with ducks...

Postby Sweejak » Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:43 am

<br> La Boétie<br><br>The Politics of Obedience:<br>The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C2128262602/E260651841/index.html">homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/i...index.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Media and Information Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest