Risker wrote:
> Hmmm...says it's redirected and protected to prevent re-creation.
> Shouldn't
> that be pro-creation?
Considering that its origin is particularly due to dissatisfaction with
Wikipedia's presentation of issues like evolution and intelligent
design, why on earth would Conservapedia want to prevent pro-creation
viewpoints from being aired?
--Michael Snow
An Open Letter to the person posting on Wikipedia as "SlimVirgin" -
It has come to our attention that you have made claims that our site, the
Wikipedia Review, contains postings that include, in your words "actionable
libel".
This is a serious accusation. Without waiver of any protections afforded as
an internet content provider under 47 U.S.C. § 230
(1996)<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-…>,
it is not our intention to continue hosting any statements that are
defamatory once we are made aware of them.
We offer to you to remove any statements on the Wikipedia Review that are
defamatory. However, as only your pseudonym is known to us, it is impossible
for us to determine which statements about you are true and which are not.
As we are sure you know, true statements cannot be defamatory. These are
options which you may pursue:
First, you are welcome to join our site as a member and contribute
corrections to any false information.
Second, you are always welcome to email either our administrators (many of
them have email addresses linked to their usernames on our site), or to send
mail to "AntiCabal =at= Gmail =dot= com".
We hope that you will take advantage of this offer. As noted, your
accusations are serious, and a claim of "actionable libel" itself may be a
legal threat of a kind that we understood was not allowed on Wikipedia. We
will welcome any effort you make to set the record straight.
/signed/
Wikipedia Review
AutoWikiBrowser is open source but Windows-only, being written to the
.NET 2 framework. Mono isn't up to .NET 2, and .NET 2 doesn't install
under Wine on Linux. But I've opened a Wine bug for it:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8499
Others are invited to give their stacktraces, relay traces, etc. Be
sure to be using the current Wine, the .NET issue is being actively
worked on and two weeks can make a difference.
(Darn, a reason to keep Winders around. AWB is just unbelievably cool,
and is a much nicer browser to *edit* Wikipedia in. See [[WP:AWB]].)
The related .NET 2 on Wine bug is http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3972 .
If you have other useful .NET programs you would like to run under
Wine, give them a try on the current version and let wine-users know
and possibly file a bug.
- d.
In other words, you think it's a black operation, not just dumb. I don't. I've seen this sort of stuff. I know it is an effective tactic, but the site viewed as a whole does not seem to be a sophisticated "counter-intelligence" operation.
Now, of course, some day I will find out that it was, and look unsophisticated myself. A successful operation might be deliberately be made clumsy in order to avoid detection by genuine conservatives. Certainly the site is harmful to conservative interests.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charlotte Webb [mailto:charlottethewebb@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 10:06 AM
>To: angela.anuszewski(a)gmail.com, 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Conservapedia an attack site?
>
>On 6/1/07, Angela Anuszewski <angela.anuszewski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> If I didn't know they were actually for real, I'd think it was a parody. :)
>
>It looks more like an attempt to undermine the credibility of the
>political right, seemingly (but not really) from within. Whereas a
>parody would be written for readers' amusement, this borders more on
>well-poisoning/trolling, where the desired effect is to incite
>backlash by readers who assume "serious conservatives" actually share
>their views, hence the name the site has chosen.
>
>—C.W.
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
On 5/31/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
>
> Slim Virgin wrote:
> > Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing
> > links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of
> > systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just
> > removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy.
> > *That's how policy develops, by admins doing things.* It just wasn't
> > written down anywhere.
> >
>
> I think that's generally how policy develops. But I think this policy is
> fundamentally different, because it makes itself nearly invisible. How
> can the rest of us fairly judge or properly adopt an unwritten policy
> that we can't see the effects of?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
Wow, being an admin is even more of a big deal than I thought. For some
lame reason I though ordinary peons, er editors, had some say in policy. I
stand corrected. (Not really, I didn't think editors had any say in policy
unless and until they became admins, but it's nice to have it so obviously
pointed out now and then when anyone who says that being an admin is a big
deal just gets slammed.)
KP
Later on in the article, Jimbo also says something that me and several
others, such as the rest of the Final Fantasy WikiProject and User:Seraphimblade,
have been advocating:
"[Wikia] is not Wikipedia, right. It's my new organization with a completely
separate website. Basically part of the way we're framing it is that
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia and Wikia is all the rest of the library. So it's
anything people want to collaborate on."
I urge people to encourage the transwiki of cruft. Cruft isn't things like
articles on games or the entire cast as a whole; by cruft, I mean lists of
weapons, armor, locations, and other stuff that goes into excessive detail and
does not have a chance to balance in-universe with out-of-universe. The Final
Fantasy WikiProject has been doing it for a while, and we're moving right
along. Granted, this is off the topic of "reliable sources", but it's still a
good point.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Yesterday while editing a Wikipedia article and babysitting my nieces, they
came up to see what I was doing. They both were impressed that I was
editing an article (theyr'e 10 and 12, and highly web supervised), and
wanted to see how it worked, and wanted to know how I knew what to write.
The older girl told me that they get to use Wikipedia at school but if they
"vandal" it they'll get in trouble.
KP
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charlotte Webb [mailto:charlottethewebb@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 11:11 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Conservapedia an attack site?
>
>On 6/1/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> In other words, you think it's a black operation, not just dumb. I don't.
>
>So do you think the people contributing to this site generally believe
>the things they write?
Yes, although that does not rule out leftist trolls. Some of the "conservatives" on Wikipedia have seemed to be doing that, unless conservatism is a symptom of developmental disability.
Fred
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Jayjg wrote:
> Lengthy posts accusing me of "framing", "trapping people in this loop
> of hate speech", "obfuscating" , "advocating censorship" etc. cannot
> help but "make it personal". I think if you view this dispassionately
> you will agree.
I don't happen to remember using "obfuscating," but maybe I did. In
any case, the phrases you've listed all expressed the way I felt
about your own rhetoric. I don't see that as "making it personal."
Making it personal would involve calling you a "jerk" or an "asshole"
or making disparaging references to your ethnicity, family,
profession or some other personal attribute. If you're saying that
you think my own rhetoric was too abrasive, I can see how you might
feel that way. From my point of view, it seemed that you were the one
who first escalated the rhetoric, and I was responding. You evidently
think it was the other way around. If you're right, I apologize. If
I'm right, you owe me a beer.
I don't see a lot of value in rehashing this further. We've both had
our say.
Standing down now...backing away from the knife...
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------
On 1 Jun 2007 at 10:01:36 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Slim Virgin wrote:
> > > > Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing
> > > > links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of
> > > > systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just
> > > > removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy.
> > > > *That's how policy develops, by admins doing things.* It just wasn't
> > > > written down anywhere.
>
> Not even all admins agree. That's a very small group to base a concensus
> around.
There's an obvious solution to that... impose political litmus tests
within the RFA procedure on prospective admin candidates to make sure
that nobody with the politically incorrect position on a sensitive
issue ever becomes an admin.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/