Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] [Press] : The Sunday Indian : Internet Hooliganism
Mr. PonyTail is at it again, yaay! On a serious note, despite everything he has ever said and done, the article in his name doesn't carry anything slanderous or unacceptable. That is the true achievement of Wikipedia and its user. I just skimmed through the article: it is semi protected and the list of citations is as long the article itself. It's surprising he believes internet users are anonymous and unidentifiable. On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan rsrikanth05@ gmail.com wrote: As an editor and a member of the counter vandalism group, I personally find this ignoramus statement by IIPM insulting. Clearly, he has absolutely NO idea, how hard we work on keeping Wikipedia clean. Tell him to go thru the edits made by any Indian editor using Huggle or Lupins Anti Vandal tool. Offtopic matter: Everybody says IIPM is a fraud. Do they even have the moral right to blame us wikipedians? Regards, Rsrikanth05 Sent from my Motorola L9. Please excuse spelling errors. On May 30, 2011 10:11 PM, CherianTinu Abraham tinucher...@gmail.com wrote: The Sunday Indian magazine on its recent cover story heavily bashes Wikipedia, Google etc. The article also features an interview with Jay Walsh, Wikimedia Foundation’s Head of Communications. *Some background : * The publication is supported by Arindam Chaudhuri , Head of IIPM, who was heavily criticized by bloggers for alleged misrepresentations and false advertisements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy You can read more about the article here : *The Sunday Indian : Internet Hooliganism* http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/internet-hooliganism/15181/ ( The article is very huge and hence only few relevant extracts copied here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy Why internet vandals and slander supporting entities like Google must be criminally prosecuted and made to pay for promoting defamatory links and suggestions, and how the new IT act is a step in the right direction and gives Indians the right to get justice against such vandalism. ...First, as I mentioned earlier, is the wicked anonymity that the web provides to Internet posters, which gives them protection from being identified and prosecuted. Second is the hand-in-hand conspiratorial connivance of Internet companies like search engines, social networking sites, blog site hosts and even ISPs (intermediaries, in summary) that refuse to delete or block out the execrable comments and links and also refuse to confirm the identities of the anon-posters. Google, Wikipedia, Twitter... all of them fall within the same indecent category of companies. Third has been the unfortunate legal protection given till now to such intermediaries, who apparently could not be held responsible for material that others were posting on their websites (for example, in the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has protected intermediaries from liability for defamatory content posted on their sites, even if they allowed the content to remain despite having been notified about the same). ...But Google is only one side of the story. There are others in the same league and perhaps as worse. One of the infamously notable ones is Wikipedia, which touts itself as the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit – a metaphor for allowing any anonymous author to post details about any and every topic. And as the Wikipedia link almost always comes on the first page of any search engine's results, the nuisance value Wikipedia and its army of unidentifiable contributors command is immense and as dangerous. Stories of even Wikipedia being taken to court are well known. Recent years have seen temporary bans on Wiki pages from various governments, including the Dutch and German ones. UK’s largest internet service provider banned Wikipedia pages containing child pornography a few months ago. The Australian government has blacklisted Wikipedia pages permanently along with “child porn sites.” University of California professors refuse references to Wikipedia. BusinessWeek has called Wikipedia “awash in controversy.” New York Times, US government’s patents office and various other highly credible entities have official policy documents against Wikipedia. US Senators like Ted Stevens in Alaska have introduced bills to pull Wikipedia out of schools and libraries. The US Appeals Court now has an official ruling against Wikipedia sources being quoted. On April 4, 2009, Financial Times certified Wikipedia as “hilariously unreliable free-for-all.” USA Today’s founding editorial director John Seigenthaler Sr went to the courts when his Wiki biography concocted up that he was connected with the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby Kennedy. While Wharton writers confess, “It's
Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] [Press] : The Sunday Indian : Internet Hooliganism
Rohini, We have to remain neutral right? We can't help it if he or his organisation indulges in hooliganism or fraud? Then in that case yes, I personally will add such data, with refs from ToI, Hindu et all. But we have to be neutral. If you notice, several of the refs from the IIPM article are from IIPM ka website itself, so someone might want to help me out. I repeat, we need to be neutral. I hope you get my point. I'm being funny as usual. --Regards, Srikanth R. On 30 May 2011 23:10, Rohini L rohini.laksh...@gmail.com wrote: Mr. PonyTail is at it again, yaay! On a serious note, despite everything he has ever said and done, the article in his name doesn't carry anything slanderous or unacceptable. That is the true achievement of Wikipedia and its user. I just skimmed through the article: it is semi protected and the list of citations is as long the article itself. It's surprising he believes internet users are anonymous and unidentifiable. On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan rsrikanth05@ gmail.com wrote: As an editor and a member of the counter vandalism group, I personally find this ignoramus statement by IIPM insulting. Clearly, he has absolutely NO idea, how hard we work on keeping Wikipedia clean. Tell him to go thru the edits made by any Indian editor using Huggle or Lupins Anti Vandal tool. Offtopic matter: Everybody says IIPM is a fraud. Do they even have the moral right to blame us wikipedians? Regards, Rsrikanth05 Sent from my Motorola L9. Please excuse spelling errors. On May 30, 2011 10:11 PM, CherianTinu Abraham tinucher...@gmail.com wrote: The Sunday Indian magazine on its recent cover story heavily bashes Wikipedia, Google etc. The article also features an interview with Jay Walsh, Wikimedia Foundation’s Head of Communications. *Some background : * The publication is supported by Arindam Chaudhuri , Head of IIPM, who was heavily criticized by bloggers for alleged misrepresentations and false advertisements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy You can read more about the article here : *The Sunday Indian : Internet Hooliganism* http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/internet-hooliganism/15181/ ( The article is very huge and hence only few relevant extracts copied here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy Why internet vandals and slander supporting entities like Google must be criminally prosecuted and made to pay for promoting defamatory links and suggestions, and how the new IT act is a step in the right direction and gives Indians the right to get justice against such vandalism. ...First, as I mentioned earlier, is the wicked anonymity that the web provides to Internet posters, which gives them protection from being identified and prosecuted. Second is the hand-in-hand conspiratorial connivance of Internet companies like search engines, social networking sites, blog site hosts and even ISPs (intermediaries, in summary) that refuse to delete or block out the execrable comments and links and also refuse to confirm the identities of the anon-posters. Google, Wikipedia, Twitter... all of them fall within the same indecent category of companies. Third has been the unfortunate legal protection given till now to such intermediaries, who apparently could not be held responsible for material that others were posting on their websites (for example, in the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has protected intermediaries from liability for defamatory content posted on their sites, even if they allowed the content to remain despite having been notified about the same). ...But Google is only one side of the story. There are others in the same league and perhaps as worse. One of the infamously notable ones is Wikipedia, which touts itself as the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit – a metaphor for allowing any anonymous author to post details about any and every topic. And as the Wikipedia link almost always comes on the first page of any search engine's results, the nuisance value Wikipedia and its army of unidentifiable contributors command is immense and as dangerous. Stories of even Wikipedia being taken to court are well known. Recent years have seen temporary bans on Wiki pages from various governments, including the Dutch and German ones. UK’s largest internet service provider banned Wikipedia pages containing child pornography a few months ago. The Australian government has blacklisted Wikipedia pages permanently along with “child porn sites.” University of California professors refuse references to Wikipedia. BusinessWeek has called Wikipedia “awash in controversy.” New York Times, US government’s patents office and various other highly credible entities have official policy documents against Wikipedia. US
[Wikimediaindia-l] [Press] : The Sunday Indian : Internet Hooliganism
The Sunday Indian magazine on its recent cover story heavily bashes Wikipedia, Google etc. The article also features an interview with Jay Walsh, Wikimedia Foundation’s Head of Communications. *Some background : * The publication is supported by Arindam Chaudhuri , Head of IIPM, who was heavily criticized by bloggers for alleged misrepresentations and false advertisements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy You can read more about the article here : *The Sunday Indian : Internet Hooliganism* http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/internet-hooliganism/15181/ ( The article is very huge and hence only few relevant extracts copied here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy Why internet vandals and slander supporting entities like Google must be criminally prosecuted and made to pay for promoting defamatory links and suggestions, and how the new IT act is a step in the right direction and gives Indians the right to get justice against such vandalism. ...First, as I mentioned earlier, is the wicked anonymity that the web provides to Internet posters, which gives them protection from being identified and prosecuted. Second is the hand-in-hand conspiratorial connivance of Internet companies like search engines, social networking sites, blog site hosts and even ISPs (intermediaries, in summary) that refuse to delete or block out the execrable comments and links and also refuse to confirm the identities of the anon-posters. Google, Wikipedia, Twitter... all of them fall within the same indecent category of companies. Third has been the unfortunate legal protection given till now to such intermediaries, who apparently could not be held responsible for material that others were posting on their websites (for example, in the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has protected intermediaries from liability for defamatory content posted on their sites, even if they allowed the content to remain despite having been notified about the same). ...But Google is only one side of the story. There are others in the same league and perhaps as worse. One of the infamously notable ones is Wikipedia, which touts itself as the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit – a metaphor for allowing any anonymous author to post details about any and every topic. And as the Wikipedia link almost always comes on the first page of any search engine's results, the nuisance value Wikipedia and its army of unidentifiable contributors command is immense and as dangerous. Stories of even Wikipedia being taken to court are well known. Recent years have seen temporary bans on Wiki pages from various governments, including the Dutch and German ones. UK’s largest internet service provider banned Wikipedia pages containing child pornography a few months ago. The Australian government has blacklisted Wikipedia pages permanently along with “child porn sites.” University of California professors refuse references to Wikipedia. BusinessWeek has called Wikipedia “awash in controversy.” New York Times, US government’s patents office and various other highly credible entities have official policy documents against Wikipedia. US Senators like Ted Stevens in Alaska have introduced bills to pull Wikipedia out of schools and libraries. The US Appeals Court now has an official ruling against Wikipedia sources being quoted. On April 4, 2009, Financial Times certified Wikipedia as “hilariously unreliable free-for-all.” USA Today’s founding editorial director John Seigenthaler Sr went to the courts when his Wiki biography concocted up that he was connected with the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby Kennedy. While Wharton writers confess, “It's unclear how the Wikipedia model will evolve...,” Harvard professors cast more caustic doubts saying, “No, is the short answer here [to whether Wikipedia transfers to a good corporate environment model].” When San Francisco-based Jay Walsh, Wikimedia Foundation’s Head of Communications, was questioned by TSI in May 2011 (read the full interview later in this article) on the ongoing defamation of personalities on Wikipedia, and on the concept of Internet hooliganism, he replied, “Our project strongly supports free speech, but it also represents the power of communities to remove vandalism, protect quality information, and generally respect the importance of having high quality, non-vandalised information. We're proud of that reputation.” In fact, as recently as on May 9, 2011, UK-based billionaire Louis Bacon won a case in a London High Court, to force three websites to reveal the identities of the bloggers who were posting besmirching remarks online. One of these websites was Wikipedia (the two other were WordPress and Denver Post). What entities like Wikipedia, Google, Twitter et al are blatantly overlooking is the fact that
Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] [Press] : The Sunday Indian : Internet Hooliganism
As an editor and a member of the counter vandalism group, I personally find this ignoramus statement by IIPM insulting. Clearly, he has absolutely NO idea, how hard we work on keeping Wikipedia clean. Tell him to go thru the edits made by any Indian editor using Huggle or Lupins Anti Vandal tool. Offtopic matter: Everybody says IIPM is a fraud. Do they even have the moral right to blame us wikipedians? Regards, Rsrikanth05 Sent from my Motorola L9. Please excuse spelling errors. On May 30, 2011 10:11 PM, CherianTinu Abraham tinucher...@gmail.com wrote: The Sunday Indian magazine on its recent cover story heavily bashes Wikipedia, Google etc. The article also features an interview with Jay Walsh, Wikimedia Foundation’s Head of Communications. *Some background : * The publication is supported by Arindam Chaudhuri , Head of IIPM, who was heavily criticized by bloggers for alleged misrepresentations and false advertisements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy You can read more about the article here : *The Sunday Indian : Internet Hooliganism* http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/story/internet-hooliganism/15181/ ( The article is very huge and hence only few relevant extracts copied here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy Why internet vandals and slander supporting entities like Google must be criminally prosecuted and made to pay for promoting defamatory links and suggestions, and how the new IT act is a step in the right direction and gives Indians the right to get justice against such vandalism. ...First, as I mentioned earlier, is the wicked anonymity that the web provides to Internet posters, which gives them protection from being identified and prosecuted. Second is the hand-in-hand conspiratorial connivance of Internet companies like search engines, social networking sites, blog site hosts and even ISPs (intermediaries, in summary) that refuse to delete or block out the execrable comments and links and also refuse to confirm the identities of the anon-posters. Google, Wikipedia, Twitter... all of them fall within the same indecent category of companies. Third has been the unfortunate legal protection given till now to such intermediaries, who apparently could not be held responsible for material that others were posting on their websites (for example, in the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has protected intermediaries from liability for defamatory content posted on their sites, even if they allowed the content to remain despite having been notified about the same). ...But Google is only one side of the story. There are others in the same league and perhaps as worse. One of the infamously notable ones is Wikipedia, which touts itself as the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit – a metaphor for allowing any anonymous author to post details about any and every topic. And as the Wikipedia link almost always comes on the first page of any search engine's results, the nuisance value Wikipedia and its army of unidentifiable contributors command is immense and as dangerous. Stories of even Wikipedia being taken to court are well known. Recent years have seen temporary bans on Wiki pages from various governments, including the Dutch and German ones. UK’s largest internet service provider banned Wikipedia pages containing child pornography a few months ago. The Australian government has blacklisted Wikipedia pages permanently along with “child porn sites.” University of California professors refuse references to Wikipedia. BusinessWeek has called Wikipedia “awash in controversy.” New York Times, US government’s patents office and various other highly credible entities have official policy documents against Wikipedia. US Senators like Ted Stevens in Alaska have introduced bills to pull Wikipedia out of schools and libraries. The US Appeals Court now has an official ruling against Wikipedia sources being quoted. On April 4, 2009, Financial Times certified Wikipedia as “hilariously unreliable free-for-all.” USA Today’s founding editorial director John Seigenthaler Sr went to the courts when his Wiki biography concocted up that he was connected with the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby Kennedy. While Wharton writers confess, “It's unclear how the Wikipedia model will evolve...,” Harvard professors cast more caustic doubts saying, “No, is the short answer here [to whether Wikipedia transfers to a good corporate environment model].” When San Francisco-based Jay Walsh, Wikimedia Foundation’s Head of Communications, was questioned by TSI in May 2011 (read the full interview later in this article) on the ongoing defamation of personalities on Wikipedia, and on the concept of Internet hooliganism, he replied, “Our project strongly supports free speech, but it also represents the power of communities to
