("man statements" --> "many statements")
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Newyorkbrad <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/[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>
