Wolfman, I'm not ignoring you. It's just that the Wikipedia has forked
itself up, which really sucks (see [[autofellatio]] ;-)
Here's my considered opinion about how we should treat the [[Killian
documents]] controversy:
==the documents were faked==
I think the phrase ''the documents were faked''
should not be used in the text of the article.
First of all, it represents a point of view.
Secondly, it states that POV in a confusing
way.
The chief issues here are:
* Did Killian actually write the documents in
question?
** Does dictating notes to a secretary, who
then types up an UNSIGNED document count as
"Killian writing the documents"? Then it's just
a matter of (1) Did Killian dictate those
notes; and (2) Did his secretary type 'em up
for him?
* Was the copy CBS published "real", or what?
** To what extent can a reconstructed document
legitimately be presented as an "authentic
copy" of an original?
** If I use Office 2002 to word-process a copy
of a decades-old document (which I have in my
hand, but I can't get it to a xerox machine) -
and if I use a Courier font so it '''looks
like''' it was typed, how much of these details
am I obliged to reveal?
(A related example concerns my "far-right-wing"
church. When I received bookkeeper training in
1991, my church treasurer told me that the IRS
will accept hand-written or typed "receipts"
for petty cash expenditures, in lieu of printed
cash register receipts. This is primarily
intended for purchases such as buying soda from
a vending machine, or using a pay phone. You
just had to make sure you didn't overdo it;
accounting for 100% of petty cash with
reconstructed receipts would positively be a
violation, and the treasurer would, er, "stomp"
on me way ahead of any IRS audit, maybe even
remove me from my position if I stayed out of
compliance. The point here is that
'''reconstructed documents''' are allowable in
certain contexts.)
The question for Dan Rather and 60 Minutes is
whether this '''single case''' of presenting a
document as evidence of a political claim is:
# A straightforward presentation of an
'''original''' document
# A '''permissible''' reconstruction''' of an
authentic document
# An '''illegitimate''' reconstruction''' of an
authentic document
# A forgery, i.e., he never wrote that; he
didn't dictate anything like it to his
secretary; he never even thought that
Considering the importance of the issue, I
think we'd be better off ducking all
conclusions. It opens too many Pandora's boxes.
Let's not call them "faked documents" but
"documents relating to George W. Bush's service
in the Air National Guard. Let's mention that
the matter was investigated and aired during
the last election (the won he didn't "really
win", remember?) and that they brought it up at
the last minute AGAIN for this election (with a
link to [[October surprise]]). Oh, and don't
forget to mention that at least '''part''' of
the furor was over the "authenticity" of the
documents.
We should handle this dispute with as much care
and sensitivity as the death of [[Rachel
Corrie]]. ~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:00 PM
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 19, Issue 93
Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
<< File: Today's Topics (9 messages) >> << Message: Re:
[WikiEN-l]
Re: The Censorship Lie >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re:
Autofellatio -
NO to that image >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Reply to Tony, David,
and Christiaan >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO to
that image >> << Message: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie >>
<<
Message: Child porn and wikipedia (was [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO
tothat image) >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures
>>
<< Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures >> << Message: Re:
[WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie >> << File: Digest Footer >>