Russavia, your post confirms my rule of thumb that any post containing the word "butthurt" is unworthy of serious attention.
I was not present at the conference while the newspaper reporter was (or at least not in the same place), so I have no personal knowledge about man statements in her article. I do, at a minimum, share some of the broader criticisms of its emphasis and its tone. When I pointed out that I was concerned by your suggestion that someone might create a "revenge BLP," people responded that you were obviously joking. It now appears that you were quite serious, and in fact that you actually raised the prospect with the reporter (albeit trying to play down the potential impact). I will add that I don't see for what purpose you were interacting with the reporter at all, at least on the specific subject of the New York Wikiconference, which you were thousands of miles from. Given your prior "outreach" activities, ranging from Pricasso to the Encyclopedia Britannica, I find your motivations to be suspect. As for the broader topic of revenge editing, it is certainly a serious issue, as we were all reminded by last year's Qworty fiasco. That is precisely why I asked you not to say something that could be read as promoting it. It is less clear whether the specific example you cite is an example of within-wiki revenge editing, or the broader issue of people who bring privacy-seeking lawsuits losing their privacy as a result (compare "Streisand effect"; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_3:_The_Target_Becomes_the_Plaintiff (adapted from a real case); and see also http://openjurist.org/8/f3d/1222/haynes-v-alfred-a-knopf-incorporated (7th Cir. 1995, Posner, J.), discussed in my BLP talk linked on my En userpage). Newyorkbrad On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Russavia <[email protected]> wrote: > Ira, > > Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable. > > Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt > over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the > media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be > painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold > no responsibility for. > > If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of > Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly > don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be > doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing > with media. > > What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you > raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have > stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and > it will make you look in the future. > > Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford > said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically > created a tense situation....hell Siko even stated on Gendergap that > New York Magazine still sucks. > > Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do > realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both > Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations. > But you stayed silent on that....how quaint...how <s>Scientologist</s> > Wikipediologist-like. > > It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions > about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments > Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would > likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who > dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being > attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira. > > For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few > times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she > recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will > New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if > Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not > have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated > in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told > her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, > and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people > generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system. > > Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on > --- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they > have been slighted. > > Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him > suing a Greek Wikipedia editor, he had a bio article on one project, > Greek Wikipedia.[2] He now has an article on 18 projects.[3] It's the > same thing with Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station,[4] which now > has articles on 33 projects.[5] On the flipside, Pine Gap,[6] has an > article on only 7 projects.[7] Interesting comparison isn't it. > > So, there you have it Ira, I hope this gives you something to think > about, and if you want to comment further, then I welcome it. > > Cheers > > Russavia > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Katsanevas > [2] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12877939&oldid=108324487 > [3] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12877939 > [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station > [5] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10369016 > [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap > [7] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1754535 > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Newyorkbrad <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Russavia, despite the smilie, your last comment suggests that someone > would > > create a biography of a living person in retaliation for the fact that > she > > wrote unflatteringly and made errors in a piece about the Wikiconference. > > > > BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the > > article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor > may > > any suggestion of doing so be made at any time.. > > > > It is also undesirable to provide ammunition for the (sometimes, > > unfortunately, accurate) perception that being the subject of a Wikipedia > > article is something that people should fear, nor that we would, even > > jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to > > be called "revenge editing." > > > > Please don't make this sort of comment again. > > > > Thanks, > > Newyorkbrad/IBM > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> There is the option of contacting her directly, or the chief editor of > >> the magazine, for further comment/clarification. Or the Wikipedia way > >> -- create a totally neutral on-project biography. ;) > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Russavia > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
