WikiPedia Founder Wales Speaks About Wikinews

One thing by cbrocious · 2005-01-07 13:35 · Score: 1, Redundant

One thing that they don't seem to be addressing is that _everyone_ is biased in some way or another on some topic. They seem to forget this.

That said, wikinews looks damn cool, and I look forward to reading it and/or contributing to it.

--
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.

Re:One thing by Master+of+Transhuman · 2005-01-07 13:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

"They seem to forget this."

From TFA:

How can you ensure that you are actually neutral? Doesn't each individual contributor have his or her own bias? Even the choice of story reflects some bias.

Yes, of course. There's no magic bullet to eliminate bias, and be objective and neutral.

You were saying?

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:One thing by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:43 · Score: 0

"Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality"
Re:One thing by Altima(BoB) · 2005-01-07 13:52 · Score: 1

Not true, the hottest place in Hell was/is reserved for slaves who rebel against their masters, according to Dante. Those who waste the opportunity to do the right thing (neutrality) were sent to a frozen lake near the mouth of Hell.

Ahem, I'm just being annoying I guess :)

--
Yup...
Re:One thing by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2005-01-07 13:57 · Score: 1

One thing that they don't seem to be addressing is that _everyone_ is biased in some way or another on some topic. They seem to forget this.

No, they don't. Have you read Wikipedia? From the heated discussions on the mailing lists, Talk: pages, edit histories, and so forth, you would not at all expect for the article to be anywhere close to neutral. I'm very surprised that petty vandalism is more prevalent (in the sense of lasting longer) than obvious or dangerous bias.

I guess how it works is that everybody writes slightly towards their own POV and rephrases things that offend them, and the page molds itself towards a compromise. If you can't compromise, you can always have two sections "Liberal viewpoint" and "Conservative viewpoint" or whatever.

Somebody will write the article with an inherent yet unintentional bias towards their side; somebody else from the other side will remove the biased references, and at worst introduce a smaller bias to his side.
Re:One thing by Altima(BoB) · 2005-01-07 13:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

But the idea is a sound one, in my view. Total neutrality in an abstract sense is not necessarily being 100% non-judgemental, because just about every assertion that one can make involves a judgement. I believe 100% neutrality is when everyone's varied views on a matter are taken into account. What the Wiki projects do is give everyone the opportunity to inject their view on an issue.

The problem is when anyone thinks they are 100% right and, at least in the case of wikipedia, monitor an article to prevent and undermine any changes that run contrary to their views. This is the main failing of the wiki project and it really has no easy answer. The wikinews site offers the advantage that specific articles will be under more intense scrutiny by more people in a short period of time, reducing the potential for sabateurs marginally, but also running the risk that the status quo will dominate the tone and content of the articles more often, drowning out minority voices.

--
Yup...
Re:One thing by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 14:01 · Score: 1

The betrayers went into the frozen lake. They were buried in ice proportionate to their crime.

I think you're thinking of the evil counselors, who had their own bolgia on the 8th tier.
Re:One thing by deacon · 2005-01-07 14:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can write a fact only news story and keep your own personal bias out of it.
Here is a sample of a fact only news article that I just made up:
Police responded to a 911 emergency call at 123 Maple Ave last night at 3:22 AM. Mr Raymond Maynard called police to report that several persons were trying to break down his door, and asked for help. The police dispatcher could hear the sound of banging and hammering, and then Mr Maynard stated that the door was giving in, and that he had to put the phone down.
When Police arrived on the scene, they found Mr Dumbo Mcnutt, Mr Metoo Imdumb, and Mr Gang Banger on the floor of the house in the hallway leading to the master bedroom. Handguns were found by the bodies, and Mcnut had $6400 on his person. Mcnut, Imdumb, and Banger were pronounced dead at the scene from multiple shotgun wounds. The intruders all had previous records for assault, robbery, rape, and stampeding cattle thru the Vatican.
Police do not expect to file any charges against Mr Maynard.
Last month, the Governor signed into law the bill that bars lawsuits on the behalf of persons injured or killed while commiting a crime. Instances of home invasion have dropped 62% since the city mandated that each homeowner be armed last year.
### Now here is another story about the event, with a particular bias:
Another tragedy occured in the city tonight, and its cause was, as always, an armed citizen. A vigilante viciously gunned down 3 young men of color, innocent victims of Bush's oppression of the poor, the homeless, those who never had a chance in society. Police responded to a complaint by Mr Maynard that someone was knocking loudly at his door, and that it was past his bedtime. When officers arrived at the scene, they found a scene of bloody carnage. Mr Maynard had killed these three young men, claiming self defense. These sorts of senseless and unneccesary killings must be stopped now!. If only guns were outlawed, then citizens like Mr Maynard would be unable to act as judge, jury and executioner.
In an added tragedy, The Republican Governor last month signed a bill, over the objections of the UN , Cuba, and the ACLU, which prohibits the relatives of the victims of these attacks from having their day in court. Fatal shootings of persons accused of entering peoples homes without permission have risen sharply following the citys bloodthirsty mandate that all homeowners be armed to the teeth.####
I could do a 3ed version which puts the bias of the second version the other way, but I've spend too long on this already. In any case, you can see the first version reports only facts. The second version uses emotional language to press the readers buttons.
Most of what gets put into the mainstream media should be marked as troll or flamebait.
Re:One thing by geminidomino · 2005-01-07 14:51 · Score: 1

Most of what gets put into the mainstream media should be marked as troll or flamebait.

That statement alone warrants +1, Insightful. Unfortunately (after 2 years and 1100+ comments), I've never had mod points, so allow me to give you verbal props.
Re:One thing by LuSiDe · 2005-01-07 15:04 · Score: 2, Informative

I agree with that viewpoint I'm not trying to say this example is a trend or something but i decided to surf around at the Wikinews beta project to search for a news item which i know a bit of background on.

Little bit later i stumbled upon Pinochet arrested after Supreme Court ruling and i read the article. What striked me was the following sentence: The crimes where a part of "Operation Condor," an attempt to supress opposition to the government. The dictator ruled from a 1973 coup, overthrowing the elected socialist Salvador Allende, until 1990.

This statement is true, but not accurate. Its not news either, its background information for the uninformed reader. From here, the power of Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) could be used to link to history but the nice thing is that this is the Internet and that websites and Wiki's can easily 'connect' to each other. That'd be a good way IMO. Because now it misses all the facts of the CIA which were involved in this coup and who have blood on their hands, which is regulary censored or evaded (comes down to the same). I verified, and yes the wikipedia entry for Salvador Allende contains some information on this piece of history of Chille.

I'd like to know why they don't link to the encyclopedia for background information...

--
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Re:One thing by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 15:24 · Score: 0

Here's a tip for getting mod points: take a break from reading slashdot for a little while. Seriously. The system doesn't give points to users with a very high or very low number of page views over a period of time.

I've found that the only time I get mod points is after not reading slashdot for a few days.
Re:One thing by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 15:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

Instances of home invasion have dropped 62% since the city mandated that each homeowner be armed last year.
You proved the opposite point. In your supposedly unbiased article, you are obviously linking arming homeowners with the drop in home invasion. Those are two facts, true, but putting them in the same sentence is obivously implying that one leads to the other, even when there's nothing other than the author's belief to back that theory up.
It's the same thing that always makes me mad at Michael Moore. He never outright lies, but he lines up facts together in a way that is designed to show you causality where none exists.
Re:One thing by ClosedSource · 2005-01-07 15:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

This assumes that the truth is always in the perceived "middle". A compromise has no greater probability of being true than an "extreme" position.
Re:One thing by node+3 · 2005-01-07 15:46 · Score: 1

You can write a fact only news story and keep your own personal bias out of it.

Simply choosing which facts to include requires bias.
Re:One thing by node+3 · 2005-01-07 15:53 · Score: 1

he lines up facts together in a way that is designed to show you causality where none exists.

Perhaps he isn't trying to show causality, but relationship? Causality is best suited to physics, and relationships to politics.
Re:One thing by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 16:04 · Score: 0

Last month, the Governor signed into law the bill that bars lawsuits on the behalf of persons injured or killed while commiting a crime. Instances of home invasion have dropped 62% since the city mandated that each homeowner be armed last year.

Here is the problem, with these last two lines you have introduced context.
You either must keep all context out of the article (and rely on ppl being informed enough to establish it themselves) or realize that any related factoids that you introduce may already be considered biased (by the choice which related fact is worth mentioning and which is not)...
Re:One thing by queef_latina · 2005-01-07 18:26 · Score: 1

after 2 years and 1100+ comments
I can see that you are a very interesting person who has acomplished much in his life.

--
Slashdotters: You are all a bunch of faggots.
Do you hear me, you repulsive faggots? NO DIGG.
Re:One thing by Cappy+Red · 2005-01-08 02:20 · Score: 1

If we're talking about absolute points, left edge, middle, right edge, then you're right. However, "compromise" does not necessarily mean "middle." There is a much higher chance of reality lying at the compromise point, as it can fall within a wide range, than there is of reality being at either of the most extreme points.

--
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
Re:One thing by ClosedSource · 2005-01-08 04:38 · Score: 1

Well, I agree that I was too quick to place compromise in the exact middle, but the main point is that the truth has nothing to do with our perception of how moderate or extreme a belief is. Thus compromise (wherever it may reside within the range) is not more likely to correspond to reality than any other point.
Re:One thing by bshanks · 2005-01-08 13:52 · Score: 1

Hmm.. maybe in some cases I'd agree. But consider this. Let's say there's a topic for which a range of points of view exist along a 1-dimensional continuum. We'll label the points of view with numbers, 1 through 10.

Now, if there's lots of people who believe in numbers in the middle, but only a few who believe in numbers close to 1 or close to 10 (e.g. a bell curve centered at 5), then I would say that the middle has a greater probability of being true (I am assuming here that probability of truth of a proposition is proportional to the # of people who believe in the proposition)

I would expect that this is what we would actually see if we looked at, say, people who believe in U.S. democratic party ideals vs. U.S. republican party ideals. In fact, I would expect the distribution would look like this for most issues which people think about linearly.

Now, if you had the same amount of people who believed in each point along the continuum (i.e. 10 people who are "1"s, 10 people who are "2"s, etc), then it's true that most of the points will be equally probable (assuming again that the probability is proportional to the # of points who believe in nearby points). But this seems less likely to happen to me.
Re:One thing by ClosedSource · 2005-01-09 05:20 · Score: 1

"I am assuming here that probability of truth of a proposition is proportional to the # of people who believe in the proposition"

That assumption is the problem with your argument.

For most of man's existence, almost everyone believed that the earth was flat and that the sun circled around it. There's no fixed relationship between opinion and fact.
Re:One thing by bbtom · 2005-01-10 01:55 · Score: 1

Hypothetical. Two politicians are being interviewed, and asked the question "What does two plus two equal?". One says "five" and the other "ten".

They are both flat out wrong, and no amount of "bias-balancing" is going to change that. (Outside of humour) If the broadcaster does not put these people straight, they are basically complacently consenting to the whole con.

Unlike politicians, I'll tell you that the answer is "four". If someone flames me for it or revert-wars me over it, so be it. The truth is still the same - the answer is four.

--
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Re:One thing by bshanks · 2005-01-10 19:47 · Score: 1

You don't think there's even a probabilistic relationship?

You would go so far as to say that two points of view A and B are almost equally likely even if 90% of people believe A and 10% believe B?

Because I conjecture that is the case with extreme points of view; a large proportion of people probably believe something in the "middle".

If you do think that truth is uncorrelated with opinion, then how do you explain society's seeming to advance to hold more "true" ideas about the world over history? How could we move towards the truth if we have no compass to guide us?
Re:One thing by ClosedSource · 2005-01-11 06:22 · Score: 1

"If you do think that truth is uncorrelated with opinion, then how do you explain society's seeming to advance to hold more "true" ideas about the world over history?"

Well, look at my example again. Let's say that in the old days 95% people believed the earth was flat and 5% believed it was round. Today, the percentages are probably flipped.

So the opinion "variable" has changed by 95% and the earth's shape has not changed (more or less). Please explain the mathematical correlation.
Re:One thing by bshanks · 2005-01-13 11:41 · Score: 1

If there is such a correlation, you would expect to see it by looking at lots of facts which are now known, but which used to be uncertain, and lots of people's opinions about those facts when they were contentious.

Such an experiment would be hard to do, though, because those issues which you hear the most about are often the ones in which some minority is talking about a lot because they have new evidence which upsets the consensus view (for example, global warming). Almost any method for choosing a sample of "previously contentious issues" might have this sort of bias. So I can't even think of a good way to test it right now.

No single example or small set of examples could decide the issue, since the rule I propose is probabalistic rather than deterministic. Unfortuntely, I don't know of any study which has been done which looks at this. So, in the lack of hard evidence either way (note that your feeling that there is no such correlation would require a difficult study to examine it as much as my feeling would), I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Re:One thing by bshanks · 2005-01-13 11:48 · Score: 1

Oh, and I guess I should answer your last post more directly. Here's the reason I don't think the example of the earth shows anything. I feel that yes, at any given time, a few beliefs which were widely held were wrong. But I think that is general, if you looked at the set of all beliefs, and then divided them into two groups, "widely held beliefs" and "non-widely held beliefs", the proportion of correct beliefs would be greater in the "widely held beliefs" group.

So, there might be examples like "earth is flat" which were, at some time, in the "widely held belifs" group, yet incorrect. But I conjecture that there are proportionally more incorrect beliefs in the "non-widely held beliefs" group.

As I noted in my other message, this would be hard to test because you first have to have a way of getting a fair sample of "beliefs". Does "the sun is bright" count as a belief? Does "44 + 2 = 46"?
It's not fair to just look at currently contentious political beliefs, because it's probably that the reason they are contentious is that there is an abnormally high probability of being about to change.

What is this guy's problem? by warmgun · 2005-01-07 13:36 · Score: 1

Did he get screwed over by Wikimedia or something? He's being very vocal lately (or is /. just getting around to reporting his rants).

Re:What is this guy's problem? by Captain+Nitpick · 2005-01-07 13:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Did he get screwed over by Wikimedia or something? He's being very vocal lately (or is /. just getting around to reporting his rants).

You've confused two people. Larry Sanger is the one who had the kuro5hin rant posted recently accusing Wikipedia of anti-elitism. Jimbo is Wikimedia's current benevolent dictator.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.
Re:What is this guy's problem? by warmgun · 2005-01-07 13:38 · Score: 1

Nevermind, shoulda rtfa.

Hmmmm... by jim_v2000 · 2005-01-07 13:36 · Score: 1

Would this make it kind of like a Slashdot for regular/all kinds of news?

--
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.

Re:Hmmmm... by sangreal66 · 2005-01-07 13:52 · Score: 1

You think Slashdot is unbiased?
Re:Hmmmm... by adeydas · 2005-01-07 14:21 · Score: 1

Not apparently. /. peer reviews every bit of news that its reader submit. Wikinews, on the other hand, will only peer review news on its front page.
Re:Hmmmm... by dzarn · 2005-01-07 14:30 · Score: 1

Would this make it kind of like a Slashdot for regular/all kinds of news?

So we'd just be hearing about the tsunamis now, but we'd get to hear about it all over again for the next 3 days, and then randomly in 2 years? All while passing it off as breaking news? Great!
Re:Hmmmm... by wealthychef · 2005-01-08 07:37 · Score: 1

How is this different from some of the political coverage of major TV stations? LOL.

--
Currently hooked on AMP
Re:Hmmmm... by dzarn · 2005-01-08 07:50 · Score: 1

Wikinews tries to at least appear unbiased? :)

news.com.com.com by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:37 · Score: 0

thats a lot of news

Re:news.com.com.com by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:53 · Score: 0

Personally, I prefer news.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com for my news.
Re:news.com.com.com by omeomi · 2005-01-07 16:13 · Score: 1

no, that's a lot of com. A lot of news would be news.news.news.com

--
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Re:news.com.com.com by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 23:03 · Score: 0

Well it's definitely a lot of something...
Re:news.com.com.com by rdnk · 2005-01-07 23:24 · Score: 1

That's the most commercially biased news site I've seen, wonder if they write articles by orders?

Wow, very balanced interview by Staplerh · 2005-01-07 13:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

I must say that I was impressed with the interview with Jimmy Wales. I've had my misgivings with the Wikinews project in the past, despite being an avid reader/contributor to Wikipedia. Yet from the article Mr. Wales lays out the project well:

The bloggers are the editorial page and response to the editorial pages, and we're the response to the front page. We'll synthesize what's being reported in a variety of sources.

Brilliant! That's exactly what WikiNews should be, and what it would excel at. Now, it will be simply a blog, but sort of an.. uber-blog. I'm just glad that Mr. Wales isn't looking too far, and acknowledges the shortcomings of the Wikinews project - the accessibility to foreign lands, important peoples, etc. In short, the power to break many stories. Not that bloggers haven't broken a few stories, but the lion's share will continue to reside with the big media sources.

All in all, a great interview. Kudos to Mr. Wales!

--
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan

Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Master+of+Transhuman · 2005-01-07 13:41 · Score: 1

I think where blogs and bloggers can contribute to breaking news is to break the IMPORTANCE of a story that is otherwise being ignored by the mass media (usually on orders from the PTB or in their own self-interest.)

Seymour Hersh's breaking of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal would be an example. (While he's in "mass media", he's not writing in the NYT or Washington Post.)

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by MrHanky · 2005-01-07 13:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

The bloggers are the editorial page and response to the editorial pages, and we're the response to the front page. We'll synthesize what's being reported in a variety of sources.

Brilliant! That's exactly what WikiNews should be, and what it would excel at.
I'm not so sure. One of the things that has caused mainstream news to fail spectacularly is exactly that they all use each other as sources, and every article is just a 'synthesis' of what a bunch of the others said. This causes errors, falsehoods and blatant propaganda to be repeated through the networks for ever if they first get in there.

That said, I'll wait and see what comes out of the wikinews project.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 14:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Boy, did you ever get that wrong. Seymour Hersch is personally responsible for blowing the Abu Ghraib story completely out of proportion.

My favorite Seymour Hersch anecdote comes from Tommy Franks' autobiography, American Soldier. He diplomatically refrains from mentioning Hersch by name, but he refers to an author who fabricated an absurd story during the fighting in Afghanistan. The dead giveaway was the fact that the author -- Hersch --said that the military used X AC-130 Spectre gunships during a certain event, where X was a figure that was larger than the total number of AC-130s that existed in the world at the time.

Pretty funny story. He's not quite in the Robert Fisk or Jayson Blair class for self-described journalists who just make up their stories, but he's awfully close. What a huge waste of The New Yorker's money.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by stupidfoo · 2005-01-07 14:07 · Score: 1

LOL - He didn't break anything. The news was out there for months. It just wasn't getting a lot of play in the media. Then the pictures appeared and blamo! tons of coverage.

Take a "quiz" to see if you can separate facts from fiction with the whole "torture scandal".

Here's a good question for you:

8. How were the pictures made public?

A. Discovered after months-long investigations by reporter Seymour Hersh and 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes
B. Handed to Hersh by Gary Myers, his old pal from the My-Lai court martial who was coincidentally representing SSG Ivan Frederick, the highest ranking individual charged with torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, immediately after the preliminary hearing in which they were released to the defense
C. Handed to a representative of 60 Minutes by relatives of SSG Frederick
D. Discovered posted on weblogs operated by the guards

Hint, it's not A, B, or D.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by pHatidic · 2005-01-07 15:06 · Score: 1

As a Wikipedian, the thing that impresses me most about Jimbo is the fact that he actually talks about everything in no-point-of-view language. He is the only person who I have ever known of who actually talks about himself from NPOV.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 16:14 · Score: 0

but sort of an.. uber-blog

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of uber-blogs.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by grcumb · 2005-01-07 16:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does nobody know who Seymour Hersch is any more?

The reason that many in the US Armed Forces don't like Seymour Hersch, besides the facts that he has some of the best sources in the business, is that he was almost single-handedly responsible for breaking the story of the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, where US soldiers murdered hundreds of innocent men, women and children.

That story marked a seminal moment in US journalism, demonstrating the power of the media by uncovering the truth and the lies of the Viet Nam conflict. It was Hersch's work that more or less guaranteed the end of US involvement in Viet Nam due to the huge outcry when the details came out.

Given that you don't appear to know that tiny bit of your own history, it might also surprise you to learn that a young officer named Colin Powell was assigned to investigate the massacre. He claimed to find no credible evidence that the massacre ever occurred. Hersch made a fool of Powell and many others in the military when he convinced one of the soldiers present during the mass murder to go public with his story.

Now tell me that Tommy Franks and others don't have an axe to grind.

Hersch is known to everyone who works in the business as one of the best informed correspondents in the US media. His research is impeccable. Read his columns in the New Yorker if you don't believe me. His writing is clear, and extremely well documented.

My biggest regret these days is that there's no new generation of independant reporters with the skills and determination that Hersch is still showing. I'm glad that someone broke the Abu Ghraib story; I'm only sorry that Hersch is still the one doing the ground work.

Now, to bring this post back on topic *grin*: It's precisely because of threads like this that I like Wikipedia and Wikinews. Someone makes wild-assed claims, backs it with weak evidence from a tainted source, and call it fact. On Fox and CNN, this goes unchallenged. In a wiki environment, it can be corrected and refined quickly and efficiently, and the public get the truth, rather than some shill's doublethink. Hopefully Wikinews will provide the training ground for a few more Seymour Hersches. We need them now more than ever.

--
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 19:07 · Score: 0, Troll

The reason that many in the US Armed Forces don't like Seymour Hersch

Apart from the fact that he routinely fabricates important parts of his stories, you mean? Conspiracy theories about 30-year-old grudges are all well and good, but the whole "lies a lot" bit is kind of a show-stopper, don't you think?

That story marked a seminal moment in US journalism, demonstrating the power of the media by uncovering the truth and the lies of the Viet Nam conflict.

Actually, what it did was demonstrate the power of the press to shine a really bright light on a really small spot. Was what happened at My Lai a big deal? Absolutely. It was tragic and inhuman. But was it representative of the conduct of war? Absolutely not. It was an aberration. But thanks to the news media, an entire generation of Americas --possibly including yourself, I gather from reading between the lines --grew up with the idea that My Lai was typical.

The media frenzy of My Lai, and, later, Abu Ghraib, was a case of well-intentioned people spinning completely out of control and failing to put the news in perspective. Ultimately, a great disservice was done in both cases.

Now tell me that Tommy Franks and others don't have an axe to grind.

Whether anybody has an ax to grind or not seems, to me, to kind of be beside the point. Hersch has been caught, repeatedly, reporting things that just aren't so. The most egregious example I know about was the one I cited before, where he completely made up a story about a military engagement in Afghanistan. Ironically, if he'd been less zealous, he might have gotten away with it. As it is, anybody who reads the story who actually knows how many AC-130s existed at that time will know that Hersch was just plain lying.

What somebody thinks about Hersch is, in my opinion, pretty much irrelevant. He went on record with a story that couldn't possibly have been true. He lied. It's nothing personal; that's just how it is.

My biggest regret these days is that there's no new generation of independant reporters with the skills and determination that Hersch is still showing.

My biggest regret is that there is, in fact, an entire generation of young, idealistic reporters out there who went into journalism because they wanted to change the world. It's an old saw that journalism is the first draft of history. It's a terrible disservice when somebody -- Seymour Hersch or Ted Rall, or more recently Dan Rather and Mary Mapes --sacrifices truth on the altar of their political agenda.

Someone makes wild-assed claims, backs it with weak evidence from a tainted source, and call it fact.

We're talking about Seymour Hersch again, right? He is, after all, the one who consistently goes on record with wild-assed claims that are in contradiction of documented fact, supposedly supported by "sources" that nobody else can find.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 19:09 · Score: 1

Wow, fantastic link. I consider myself to be pretty well-informed --or maybe it's better to say that I try really hard to be --and I got a lot of these questions completely wrong.

Fantastic link. Just great.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by grammar+fascist · 2005-01-07 20:11 · Score: 1

I'm not so sure. One of the things that has caused mainstream news to fail spectacularly is exactly that they all use each other as sources, and every article is just a 'synthesis' of what a bunch of the others said. This causes errors, falsehoods and blatant propaganda to be repeated through the networks for ever if they first get in there.

One thing that could separate WikiNews from that is the presence of actual experts - or, at least, people who have more than just a passing familiarity with the subject at hand.

There are blogs by active military in Iraq and by retired military officers. Whenever a big military story breaks, I check those. It's astonishing how utterly ignorant the media is about the military. They haven't got a clue. For example, remember the soldier who questioned Rummy about the vehicle armor? Remember the MSM's speculations about his imminent retirement? Well, it didn't happen - and the military bloggers were very quick to point out that asking hard questions of superior officers, no matter how superior, is actually encouraged in the US military. The reporters, in their wonderful ignorance, just assumed it was curtains for the poor guy.

We all have a good laugh when the MSM tries to cover technology accurately, because they tend to fail miserably. How can we assume they don't in other fields? We can't. The really crappy thing about it is that, so far, we've been powerless to change the stories before they reach readers. Maybe that's why we're laughing...it's really more like a nervous giggle.

By providing a central place for the thousands of experts on the Internet to offer corrections, WikiNews could give a tremendous boost to reporting accuracy. At the very least, the MSM might feel another presence looking over their shoulders and try a little harder.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 20:30 · Score: 0

Excuse me, what is MSM? Last I've checked, it is Men who have Sex with other Men.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by grammar+fascist · 2005-01-07 20:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Excuse me, what is MSM?

It's an abbreviation used by bloggers to denote the "Mainstream Media." I couldn't say when it came into common use.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by mav[LAG] · 2005-01-07 20:39 · Score: 1

The dead giveaway was the fact that the author -- Hersch --said that the military used X AC-130 Spectre gunships during a certain event, where X was a figure that was larger than the total number of AC-130s that existed in the world at the time.

Mmmm, yeah what a devastating blow to the reporter's credibility. What is much more likely is that Hersch got the number wrong and pretty much everything else right and Franks reckoned - rightly in your case - that the best way of discrediting the piece was to jump on the gunship number and say: "Look! He got the number of gunships wrong - how can anything else be right?"
I mean how many gook women and children were really killed at My Lai? Was it 304? 500? More? How can we trust this reporter?

He's not quite in the Robert Fisk or Jayson Blair class for self-described journalists who just make up their stories, but he's awfully close.

I'd be impressed if you can point to a single instance where Robert Fisk has made up anything in one of his stories. He's known for being incredibly meticulous, down to the point of getting serial numbers off fragments of cruise missiles he's found in Baghdad streets in order to show the US Military has lied about their intended targets. Oh, and he's actually in the Middle East as a reporter, unlike Jayson Blair who just sat at home IIRC.

--
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by ichimunki · 2005-01-08 00:13 · Score: 1

That link is hardly free of bias. Unlike you, I did get most of the answers "right". But they're so obviously tainted that one has to wonder what value they add to an already difficult discussion.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by TuringTest · 2005-01-08 00:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, that gives a whole new meaning to grandparents post.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-08 05:04 · Score: 1

What is much more likely is that Hersch got the number wrong and pretty much everything else right

The "it was just a typo" argument doesn't hold water. To this day, Hersch insists that he got the number right, that the government has some super-secret stash of AC-130 gunships that they're keeping under wraps just to discredit him.

Get him talking about it sometime. You'll be surprised how quickly he spins off into tin-foil-hat land.

how many gook women and children

What could possibly make you type something like that?

getting serial numbers off fragments of cruise missiles

Actually, that's a perfect example of Fisk's just making stuff up. He famously (or rather infamously) went to press with a firsthand account of an American missile strike on an Iraqi suk. He published what he said was a serial number from a piece of the missile ...only that serial number didn't correspond to any piece of American ordinance ever made. Not only was the number not right, it wasn't even in the right format. It had too many digits.

But that didn't stop Fisk from insisting that the Americans did it, and getting his moment in the sun.

A few days later, it was determined from actual weapon fragments that what struck the suk was an Iraqi al-Hussein surface-to-surface missile that went out of control and hit the wrong target.

Fisk's retraction, somehow, never made it into the paper.

I understand your desire to rush to the defense of people whom you admire, I really do. But you evidently don't have the whole story here. That's nothing to be ashamed of or anything; it's not like the papers have gone out of their way to make sure you're informed. If I didn't know so well how journalism works, I'd accuse reporters and editors of trying to cover up their own mistakes. But that's not it at all. It's just simple incompetence, that's all.

Well, except in cases like Fisk and Hersch, of course. Those guys are just plain liars.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by pinkocommie · 2005-01-08 05:19 · Score: 1

I guess i shouldnt be feeding a troll, despite whatever you think the bottom line is 3 million vietnamese were killed in the war vs a mere 60000 US Troops, just imagine for a second the sheer devastation the loss of that many lives wreaks.............
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-08 05:50 · Score: 1

3 million vietnamese were killed in the war vs a mere 60000 US Troops

You do know that the Vietnam War was a civil war, right? Vietnamese communists were fighting Vietnamese nationalists, with, relatively speaking, a small commitment of US troops on the side. While we will never know exactly how many Vietnamese died in the war, best estimates say that about 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers and 1.5 million South Vietnamese civilians died. They were, politically speaking, "on our side." And of those Vietnamese deaths, fully half occurred between 1960 and 1965, before the United States even got involved.

So comparing the total number of Vietnamese, both communist and nationalist, who died to the total number of American soldiers who died is kind of meaningless.

Speaking of statistics, do you want a concrete example of how the story of My Lai was blown out of proportion? Nobody knows exactly how many civilians died at My Lai, but the number is universally agreed to be in the hundreds. Have you ever heard of an event called the Hue massacre? The NVA and VC occupied the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive. During the occupation, some 2,500 civilians were systematically murdered, most of them Catholics who had taken sanctuary in local churches. In addition to the 2,500 confirmed murdered, another 3,000 or so vanished without a trace and are presumed to have been killed by the NVA.

US soldiers run amok and kill somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 civilians and the story is front-page news. (Rightly so; as I've said, it's a big story.) But the NVA wipes out more than 10 times that many at Hue, and the story is utterly ignored by the press.

Now tell me, friend ...who's the troll here?
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by crush · 2005-01-08 06:31 · Score: 1

I agree with you that higher ranking USMIL people probably have an axe to grind with respect to Seymour Hersch, but you should also be aware that he's widely considered to be a conduit for leaks from some CIA elements and he hasn't been doing any actual on-the-ground investigative journalism in recent years as compared to Robert Fisk who is one of the few Western journalist to have interviewed Osama bin Laden, has actually physically visited the places that he reports on as a non-embedded (e.g. traditionally free agent) report, placing his own life at risk at times.

Yes, you can clearly see that he has a bias, but he's upfront about it and it's always clear in his writing which parts are his opinion and which are the factual experiences that he's recording.

With regard to Wikinews, I think that it's interesting that the "neutral" and "non biased" articles about (to take just one example) the Indonesian earthquake disaster don't mention the shenanigans going on over the withholding of disaster relief to "rebel" strongholds in Aceh and the request from representatives of the "rebels" that international aid is not delivered into the hands of the government. This is covered in one of the few independent and courageous news sources these days: Amy Goodman's "DemocracyNOW!" radio program. Here's a sample from January 7th:
Indonesian Military Beats Acehnese, Bars Journalists Meanwhile, Australian journalists who witnessed a confrontation between Indonesian soldiers and Acehnese yesterday were ordered to leave the area and warned not to report on the incident. The incident occurred just 25 miles from the provincial capital Banda Aceh, the centre of the relief operation spearheaded by US and Australian forces in Aceh. Government soldiers fired into the air and beat up Acehnese they claimed were supporters of the Free Aceh Movement, known as the GAM. The incident prompted special forces Kopassus soldiers to confront The Australian's representatives in the area. A Kopassus Commander told the journalists, "Your duties here are to observe the disaster, not the conflict between TNI (the Indonesian army) and GAM. Kopassus ordered the Australian journalist and photographer to leave. The Indonesian military has killed thousands of Acehnese in the conflict. Aceh has been under martial law and sealed off for years. The Kopassus are infamous for their extreme brutality during the occupation of East Timor.

If Wikinews isn't reporting this sort of stuff in order to avoid appearing "contentious" then it's providing a misleading picture of the actual physical facts of the world. Not very impressive.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by mav[LAG] · 2005-01-08 06:58 · Score: 1

To this day, Hersch insists that he got the number right, that the government has some super-secret stash of AC-130 gunships that they're keeping under wraps just to discredit him.

I'll take your word for it - can't find any sources for or against this.

What could possibly make you type something like that?

Gee I dunno. Extreme sarcasm perhaps? What could have possibly made you type that Seymour Hersch was just "blowing stuff out of proportion" about Abu Ghraib, a major scandal which has disgusted the entire world?

Actually, that's a perfect example of Fisk's just making stuff up. He famously (or rather infamously) went to press with a firsthand account of an American missile strike on an Iraqi suk. He published what he said was a serial number from a piece of the missile ...only that serial number didn't correspond to any piece of American ordinance ever made. Not only was the number not right, it wasn't even in the right format. It had too many digits.

Now you're the one that's making stuff up, unless of course you're just parrotting the US and UK government lines which is roughly the same thing. He was there (http://www.robert-fisk.com/google_finds_it.htm), published the numbers and *other* people found all the details (either a Harm or a Paveway *and* a plane was operating in the area at the time).

A few days later, it was determined from actual weapon fragments that what struck the suk was an Iraqi al-Hussein surface-to-surface missile that went out of control and hit the wrong target.

Ah yes. Naturally.

I understand your desire to rush to the defense of people whom you admire, I really do. But you evidently don't have the whole story here. That's nothing to be ashamed of or anything; it's not like the papers have gone out of their way to make sure you're informed. If I didn't know so well how journalism works, I'd accuse reporters and editors of trying to cover up their own mistakes. But that's not it at all. It's just simple incompetence, that's all.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of "the papers". I *am* a fan of investigative journos though - Fisk, Cockburn, St Clair, Hersch, Pilger, Webb (RIP) and Palast - guys who get their hands dirty and their feet wet and don't boot lick whoever happens to be in authority.

Well, except in cases like Fisk and Hersch, of course. Those guys are just plain liars.

Yeah. Hersch was sooo lying about My Lai. Fisk was sooo lying about how Iraq would turn into a quagmire. I suggest we speak again on this subject in a few years when all the horror stories come out about the Iraq occupation. They always do. Or do you think Vietnam was all sweetness and light? That it didn't damage hundreds of thousands of lives? And that your government wasn't lying through it's fscking teeth the whole time about it?

--
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by crush · 2005-01-08 07:35 · Score: 1

Whether anybody has an ax to grind or not seems, to me, to kind of be beside the point. Hersch has been caught, repeatedly, reporting things that just aren't so. The most egregious example I know about was the one I cited before, where he completely made up a story about a military engagement in Afghanistan. Ironically, if he'd been less zealous, he might have gotten away with it. As it is, anybody who reads the story who actually knows how many AC-130s existed at that time will know that Hersch was just plain lying.
I think you should provide some links to back up your serious allegations. Specific links covering all sides of this particular "AC-130" story and at links to at least 5 other instances of Hersch "being caught, repeatedly" would go a way to establishing that you aren't just making things up.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by crazyeddie740 · 2005-01-08 08:07 · Score: 1

I got an 80% - but that was mainly by outguessing the bias. Would've gotten a 90%, but I misread one question.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Master+of+Transhuman · 2005-01-08 08:22 · Score: 1

If you read my original post, you'll note that I was pointing out that people can break the IMPORTANCE of news, not necessarily the story itself.

Hersh pumping the Abu Ghraib story was instrumental in its not being buried by the rest of the national media, who have been burying US military war crimes for the last two years...not to mention long before that...

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Master+of+Transhuman · 2005-01-08 08:49 · Score: 1

"Was what happened at My Lai a big deal? Absolutely. It was tragic and inhuman. But was it representative of the conduct of war? Absolutely not. It was an aberration"

BULLSHIT!

I was THERE! 1967 to 1968.

While I personally did not see any civilian executions, I KNOW how (most) US soldiers regarded the local population. It was totally racist! Period!

And for further evidence that it was NOT an aberration, see the series of articles printed a while back about systematic US murders committed by various US units who executed women, children and old men without regard in Vietnam. I can't find the articles via Google just now, unfortunately, but they were a series in one of the major papers in the Mid-West, IIRC.

And try this quote about the Phoenix program in Nam:

"The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It's not like you had their address and telephone number. The normal procedure would be to go into a village and just grab someone and say, 'Where's Nguyen so-and-so?' Half the time the people were so afraid they would say anything. Then a Phoenix team would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him through the village and say, 'When we go by Nguyen's house scratch your head.' Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, 'April Fool, motherfucker.' Whoever answered the door would get wasted. As far as they were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members. Sometimes they'd come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people."
-- Vincent Okamoto, combat officer (Lieutenant) in Vietnam in 1968, and recipient of Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest award conferred by the U.S. Army. Wounded 3 times. He was also an intelligence liaison officer for the Phoenix Program for 2 months in 1968. Quote is from page 361 of the hardback 2003 first edition of the book "Patriots: the Vietnam War remembered from all sides."

Your "aberration" bullshit is just another example of trying to sweep under the rug a long history of US military brutality and incompetence.

The US military today is killing thousands of Iraqi civilians (6,000 in Fallujah alone in the last two months) using aerial bombing and artillery attacks of civilian neighborhoods and outright execution of civilians face to face and via snipers.

The assholes in charge - right up to Rumsfeld and Bush - need to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced to a couple decades in Leavenworth Military Prison.

Instead, what is going to happen is that once the US is ordered to leave the country - and refuses because Bush has no intention of leaving - the REAL Iraqi resistance movement will come into being and crush the US forces in Iraq, causing ten or twenty thousand US casualties (at a probable cost of a million Iraqi casualties) and send the US fleeing with their tails between their legs. It will be the worst US military defeat in its history. Historians will be talking about it for the next fifty years - more so than Vietnam.

Have a nice day.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by cybpunks3 · 2005-01-08 10:03 · Score: 1

--
One thing that could separate WikiNews from that is the presence of actual experts - or, at least, people who have more than just a passing familiarity with the subject at hand.
--

Who determines whether someone is an expert or not on Wiki?
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by danila · 2005-01-08 10:09 · Score: 1

But can we find enough interested people to run this huge "fact-checking", or "bias-checking" or "stupidity-checking" business? Jimmy mentions that there are 200-300 core contributors at Wikipedia. Let's say 20-30 core contributors for Wikinews, who all have day jobs. Can they really provide adequate coverage and adequate assurance that major blunders were caught?

An alternative is to interest the bloggers. But I fail to see how this can be done in the (relatively) anonymous Wiki mode. If I am a blogger competent in some field, why would I submit a correction to a Wiki, where I won't get comments, won't get a feeling that someone reads MY thoughts. A few people might check what I changed and in the best case I would not get any reaction (just silent acceptance). The alternative is to maintain my own blog and know that there is MY audience, people coming to ready what I write (even if there are only a few tens or a hundred of them).

P.S. The success of wikipedia doesn't necessarily translate to Wikinews automatically.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-08 10:19 · Score: 1

What could have possibly made you type that Seymour Hersch was just "blowing stuff out of proportion" about Abu Ghraib, a major scandal which has disgusted the entire world?

Well, you kinda hit the nail right on the head. Abu Ghraib wasn't a major scandal. It was a crime, definitely, and people needed to be punished for it. But it wasn't a major scandal. And the fact that the "entire world," to borrow your laughably inaccurate phrase, became fixated on it for a while is evidence that it was, indeed, blown out of proportion.

Now you're the one that's making stuff up

I'm sorry you feel the need to come to that conclusion. That's disappointing.

guys who get their hands dirty and their feet wet and don't boot lick whoever happens to be in authority

And who never let the inconvenient details of the truth stand in the way of advancing a political agenda. Bravo.

Hersch was sooo lying about My Lai.

A lie of omission, yes. He lied by reporting that a bad thing happened in My Lai without putting it in context. The result? Kids are learning about My Lai in history classes, but they're not learning about Hue. Only part of the story is widely known.

Fisk was sooo lying about how Iraq would turn into a quagmire.

Okay, let's go over the basics here. Statements can either be fact or opinion. When you state an opinion, especially one that makes a conjecture about future events, you can't be accused of lying. Lying means to say something you know not to be true, or in the case of lying by omission to willfully leave out relevant facts. See? Fact versus opinion.

So Robert Fisk's opinion that the Iraq invasion would turn into a quagmire was obviously not a lie. It was one of the biggest public humiliations of his career, but it was not a lie.

Saying that he found a piece of a US missile with a serial number on it, however, was just a lie. An embarrassing, shameful lie.

I suggest we speak again on this subject in a few years when all the horror stories come out about the Iraq occupation. They always do.

So ...wait. Your anger comes entirely from your assumption that things are happening that you're not hearing about.

That explains a great deal, friend.

Or do you think Vietnam was all sweetness and light?

No, I think it was terrible. I also think that it was necessary. As many as a million Vietnamese civilians were murdered in cold blood in the purges following the fall of Saigon, and tens of millions lived and died under the most horrible oppression imaginable in the years that followed. Even now, ideas like personal liberty, civil rights or even property are simply unknown in Vietnam It's a shattered, desolate place filled with people who are, in all but name, slaves to their totalitarian regime.

Because we let it happen.

See, here's the thing: War, as it has been said, is a terrible thing. But it is not always the worst possible thing. Damning millions to a life without freedom or liberty is worse than waging war against those who wish to do the enslaving.

Now let me ask you: Which do you think is worse? What those four American reservists did at Abu Ghraib, or what the members of Saddam's Mukhabarat did there? What's that? You're not aware of what the Mukhabarat did there? Golly. Could that be because the people who have the responsibility for telling the stories -- the Hersches, the Fisks --have failed you?
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-08 10:34 · Score: 1

I was THERE! 1967 to 1968.

There have been so many lies spread in the past 30 years under the banner of "I was there" that it should come as no surprise to you whatsoever that I don't believe a single word of this.

There are many reasons why I think you're lying, but I'm just going to pick one. You said that "Rumsfeld and Bush ...need to be arrested ...and sentenced to a couple of decades in Leavenworth Military Prison."

There is no such thing as "Leavenworth Military Prison." There is a federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, but it's not a military prison. There is also the United States Disciplinary Barracks on the grounds of Fort Leavenworth, but it's not called "Leavenworth Military Prison."

Also, as civilians, neither the President or SECDEF would ever be sent to USDB under any circumstances.

A veteran, as you claim to be, would know these facts.

So I'm sorry to say that I think you're just lying. I understand why you're lying, and I know that you've got what you consider to be the best of intentions, but that doesn't make it okay for you to lie.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Master+of+Transhuman · 2005-01-09 00:11 · Score: 1

Look, moron, I was IN the Federal prison at Leavenworth. I know what is there.

My use of the term Leavenworth military prison was intended to describe WHATEVER detention facility was present at that location. If you can't handle that, that's your problem. I don't know what the thing is officially called and I couldn't care less. Obviously, from your response and your comments about Hersh, you are a nit-picker who glosses over facts with nits about terminology.

As far as my stating that Rumsfeld and Bush should be imprisoned for war crimes, it is irrelevant whether they COULD be sent to a military prison as civilians, they SHOULD be sent to one (as I'm told they're worse than even the Federal joints - and certainly they deserve to be sent to an Abu Ghraib-quality US military prison.)

As for my service record, I was inducted and served basic and advanced training at Fort Jackson from March 1967 to June 1967, went to Vietnam in July or August of 1967 and returned in late July IIRC 1968 (I can't remember exact dates forty years later - ah wait, my DD214 comes to the rescue - 6 Aug 67 to 5 Aug 68). I was stationed at Cam Ranh Bay for nine months as a clerk typist in the orderly room for a petroleum company, and then Vung Ro Bay south of Tuy Hoa for three months as a radio operator for a petroleum detachment - including during the attack on Vung Ro in June 1968, details of which you can find on the Net if you look hard enough. I served my remaining time at Fort Rucker, Alabama, in the AG offices as a clerk, specialty 71H20, Personnel Specialist. I was released from servitude on March 16, 1970.

My Service Number was RA 11 801 502, subsequently changed to my SSN.

So fuck you very much.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by mav[LAG] · 2005-01-09 00:21 · Score: 1

And the fact that the "entire world," to borrow your laughably inaccurate phrase, became fixated on it for a while is evidence that it was, indeed, blown out of proportion.

It really did disgust the world. The so-called liberators were shown to be racist, ignorant barbarians. The excuse of a few bad apples seems terribly weak. When a magazine like The Economist (pro the invasion even) publishes headlines like "Resign Rumsfeld" because it correctly concluded that the orders to humiliate and degrade prisoners came from the top, rather than the over-zealousness of a few trailer-trash troops, then most people can see that something's wrong.

I'm sorry you feel the need to come to that conclusion. That's disappointing.

Well, I'm waiting for the other side of the story. Where is some evidence please?

A lie of omission, yes. He lied by reporting that a bad thing happened in My Lai without putting it in context. The result? Kids are learning about My Lai in history classes, but they're not learning about Hue. Only part of the story is widely known.

I'm not sure I follow you. Hersch claims that US troops under the command of Lt William Calley slaughtered hundreds of Vietnamese civilians and were prevented from carrying on their murderous spree by three extremely brave helicopter crew who risked their own lives and careers to do so - i.e. they reacted like real soldiers: they thought, they did the right thing, they were willing to put their lives on the line and were rewarded with thirty years of disgrace and anonymity for it. What has that got to do with Hue?

So Robert Fisk's opinion that the Iraq invasion would turn into a quagmire was obviously not a lie. It was one of the biggest public humiliations of his career, but it was not a lie.

Whoops - touche. You're right that Robert Fisk's opinion has got nothing to do with statments of fact. However I think he's been proved right - the invasion has turned into a quagmire: not enough troops, no control over the country, a deadly suicide bombing every day seemingly, universal hatred for the occupying forces and a mounting death toll.

Saying that he found a piece of a US missile with a serial number on it, however, was just a lie. An embarrassing, shameful lie.

Again, I want to see the evidence discrediting this please. So far all you've said is "he's lying."

So ...wait. Your anger comes entirely from your assumption that things are happening that you're not hearing about. That explains a great deal, friend.

No it comes from experience. I've lived through two wars and a genocide and marched around in uniform in another so-called "low-key" conflict. I know only too well what really goes on. I also know my history and can read what happened in Baghdad in the 1920s.

See, here's the thing: War, as it has been said, is a terrible thing. But it is not always the worst possible thing. Damning millions to a life without freedom or liberty is worse than waging war against those who wish to do the enslaving.

I don't see what this has to do with Iraq. Dick and the boys just want Saddam's oil, not to liberate the Iraqi people, unless you count the 100 000 civilians who have been "liberated" already.

Now let me ask you: Which do you think is worse? What those four American reservists did at Abu Ghraib, or what the members of Saddam's Mukhabarat did there? What's that? You're not aware of what the Mukhabarat did there? Golly.

I'm well aware of what Saddam got up to against his own people. But then he is a US creation through and through so no-one should be too surprised.

Could that be because the people who have the responsibility for telling the stories -- the Hersches, the Fisks --have failed you?

If you'd read either of them you would know that both have written in depth about the great evil Saddam is responsible for. But they also understand that US meddling is the root cause - not the solution.

--
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-09 03:57 · Score: 1

Yeah. Sorry. Still don't believe you. Your story just doesn't ring true. Especially the part about "I don't know what it's called and I couldn't care less." Not the words of a veteran.

And the "I was in Leavenworth" bit? Now you're just reaching.

Seriously, man, you can make your point without concocting absurd stories.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-09 04:06 · Score: 1

I think you're trying to be funny.

You purport to think the My Lai massacre was the story of the century despite the fact that it was a blip compared to other crimes perpetrated by the Vietnamese communists both during and after the war. You think Iraq is a "quagmire" (that oh-so-trendy term) despite the fact that the country is largely at peace, the terrorists have been routed from their safe havens and there's an election coming up in three weeks. You continue to insist that Fisk's "it was an American cruise missile" story got it right despite the fact that that story was as thoroughly debunked as the Piltdown Man. You claim to have served in uniform, and yet you don't speak like a soldier. You say it was all about the oil. You think Saddam was a "US creation." You insist that "US meddling" is worse than totalitarianism and mass murder.

It seems to go on and on.

I don't think anybody with two brain cells to rub together could sincerely be that hate-filled. I think that you might be playing a little joke.

Very funny, mister name-nobody-can-pronounce. You sure pulled one over on the rest of us. Har har har.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by mav[LAG] · 2005-01-09 07:30 · Score: 1
I think you're trying to be funny.

Nope.

You purport to think the My Lai massacre was the story of the century despite the fact that it was a blip compared to other crimes perpetrated by the Vietnamese communists both during and after the war.

My turn to pick some nits: claiming what I profess to think is a bit silly, especially when it's wrong - I don't think My Lai was the story of the century. I also wasn't comparing My Lai with what the VC got up to.

You think Iraq is a "quagmire" (that oh-so-trendy term) despite the fact that the country is largely at peace, the terrorists have been routed from their safe havens and there's an election coming up in three weeks.

Largely at peace. This must be some new definition of the word "peace" I was previously unaware of. Perhaps Rumsfeld won't need those extra troops after all. Perhaps the next troops or regional governors killed by suicide bombers will have time to reflect on how at peace the country is.

You continue to insist that Fisk's "it was an American cruise missile" story got it right despite the fact that that story was as thoroughly debunked as the Piltdown Man.

For the third time: where was it debunked? Where? By whom? Can you point me to a single article anywhere which states this case of yours?

You claim to have served in uniform, and yet you don't speak like a soldier.

British Army #: 24788227
Sandhurst SLC: 882, Sword of Honour nomination
14 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, 105mm Light Gun
Marksman: 9mm Browning, 7.62 SLR, 5.56mm SA-80

You say it was all about the oil.

Well I don't see Iraq's electricity and water supplies back to normal. Haliburton is working hard on the flow of oil though...

You think Saddam was a "US creation."

Sure he was. He was an ally during the 80s Iran-Iraq war when the Ayatollah was the big boogeyman for the US. He got most of his weapons and equipment from the US.

You insist that "US meddling" is worse than totalitarianism and mass murder.

Well, then let's take a look at the totalitarianism and mass murderers that US foreign policy has actually directly supported or created shall we?
- the government of Guatemala in the 50s
- the Shah
- Manuel Noriega
- the Taliban
- Saddam Hussein
- numerous central and South American examples
This is to name but a few - and leaves out the ones that were elected by popular vote but were assassinated because they didn't fit in with US policy.

I don't think anybody with two brain cells to rub together could sincerely be that hate-filled. I think that you might be playing a little joke.

I'm not hate filled - I'm just calling it like I see it. It is possible to be educated and rational and think US foreign policy is bad for the rest of the world, you know.

Very funny, mister name-nobody-can-pronounce. You sure pulled one over on the rest of us. Har har har.

Hehe - always stop before you've run out things to say. It saves you looking foolish.
--
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Re:Wow, very balanced interview by Master+of+Transhuman · 2005-01-09 10:50 · Score: 1

You're obviously either a troll or a moron.

Anybody reading Slashdot over the last year knows I'm been in the joint. I've posted info about it enough times.

"Not the words of a veteran"? Right, like you speak for all veterans. You're the liar - you've never been in the military, obviously.

Just another /. troll...

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!

How does this differ from blogging? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:39 · Score: 0

Wikipedia's neutral point of view makes it ideal for collaboration. How can you possibly centralize data about a news item in a meaningful way?

There is pretty much only one point of view on the capital of Idaho or the name of George Washington's first wife.

Everybody has a different angle on news. Centralizing this is just bringing all the chaos of the world together into a bulging black hole blog.

Good luck with that, Jimbo.

LOL@poster by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:40 · Score: 0

I get it! By writing "news.com.com.com", you're subtly mocking the ESTABLISHMENT that owns both com.com and news.com but chooses to host its news from the redundant subdomain news.com.com.

Your joke is that you added an extra .dom. I get it! This is an excellent and most amusing pun! Thank you for your many hours of diligent labor!

Re:LOL@poster by dustinc20 · 2005-01-07 14:04 · Score: 1

if you were being sarcastic, then screw you. it made me snicker and I doubt it took the poster hours. if it was a lame attempt at a stewie quote, you suck as well. screw you and you suck. :)

--
:: if you outlaw outlaws, only the.. no wait
Re:LOL@poster by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:04 · Score: 0

If you really want to thank me for all my labors then I do have a request. Do something about overpopulation and kill yourself.

Moderation? by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2005-01-07 13:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was around in the early days when Indymedia was being planned. I helped a bit from the technical end, how to set up Apache, which Linux would I recommend, etc. I dropped out of the project because I disagred with their moderation scheme, there is very little accountability.

I'm a flaming liberal, and these days I can't stand Indymedia. Why? Because many comments and stories are hidden by the fascist moderators.

Apparenly I'm not liberal ENOUGH to have my comments read by others, especially when I dare to criticize some Black Blockster when they do stupid shit like setting a trashcan on fire...

Does Wikinews have a similar moderation scheme?

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act

Re:Moderation? by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2005-01-07 13:51 · Score: 1

Does Wikinews have a similar moderation scheme?

The moderation scheme is the Wiki scheme - readers can moderate, rephrase, remove bias, and so forth. If you want it to show liberal viewpoints, by all means write some stories of liberal interest -- just don't get didactic or biased. If I'm not mistaken, Wikinews will carry over the same neutral POV / avoid-bias policy that Wikipedia uses to remain nonpartisan on more visible issues.

There are moderators (administrators), but they don't seem to be radically liberal. Unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Wales himself is quite Randian Objectivist.

Setting a trashcan on fire will generally be described as "an attention-getting stunt that seemed to attract some positive opinion from the local community, but was generally discredited by members of the larger public and city authorities" or somesuch.
Re:Moderation? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:58 · Score: 0

1. Indymedia is supposed to be about reporting of NEWS, not your opinions of Black bloccers. Unless you have startling new information about "stupid shit like setting a trashcan on fire" then you're turning a NEWS SERVICE into a political discussion forum.

2. Different Indymedias have different moderation policies: from complete "free speech" to highly moderated. Those without high moderation have sustained repeated and sustained disruption by right wing trolls and wingnuts.
Re:Moderation? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:13 · Score: 0

Learn to read, shit for brains.

Because many comments and stories are hidden by the fascist moderators.
Re:Moderation? by slavemowgli · 2005-01-07 14:18 · Score: 1

No. It's a Wiki, and even if someone edits an article, the old version is still stored in the article's history (and the edit will be checked by others to make sure it's not censoring etc.) That being said, of course, criticism has no place on Wikinews, either. It's a news source, and like on Wikipedia, NPOV is probably the single most important principle behind it - just the facts, no opinions, whether explicit (by stating them) or implicit (by leaving out things etc.)

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:Moderation? by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2005-01-07 14:22 · Score: 1

political discussion forum.

If it's not supposed to be a discussion forum, then why does every news article have a "add your comments" link to it?

I should be free to comment on the news articles. I understand why trolls may get modded into oblivion, but why are my serious comments and questions dissapear? It should be simple for Indymedia viewers to view all articles which have been modded down. Why are my news submissions, even the good ones, never accepted?

Indymedia is an echo chamber. You only go there when you want to hear people support your own positions. Dissenters ithin the Indymedia community are frequently punished, which is very ironic in a forums which is supposed to promote dissent.

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Re:Moderation? by LuSiDe · 2005-01-07 15:13 · Score: 1

If it's not supposed to be a discussion forum, then why does every news article have a "add your comments" link to it?

Not sure who uses that wording, but i advise the one who uses that wording to change and/or specify it more clearly. It really depends on the Indymedia. Some Indymedia's have this in their policy that only information in the form of contributions may be added, not comments or opinions, because there are other places where thats possible already. I'm a contributor to a local, non-English Indymedia and i'm sure as hell our policy and language is clear on this issue. Trolls, ofcourse, don't really care for it... those are also the whiners who actually state their 'opinions are censored' -- which happens with every 'opinion'.

Why are my news submissions, even the good ones, never accepted?

Can't really speak for every Indymedia here but i'm quite sure that (except for one IMC) news is almost never deleted unless its really not according to the policy. Even then its most of the times open trash, publicly viewable.

You only go there when you want to hear people support your own positions.

Strange that you seem to know why every visitor of Indymedia goes to Indymedia? I go to Indymedia for mainly 3 reasons which are 1) Information 2) Action news 3) Ongoing actions in future. Case in point 1: the info is not covered by regular media. Case in point 2: the info is not covered by regular media. Case in point 3: the info is not covered by regular media. As for opinions, i'm not really interested in those. If i want opinions i go to a bar or become interviewer.

--
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Re:Moderation? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 17:17 · Score: 0

If it's not supposed to be a discussion forum, then why does every news article have a "add your comments" link to it?
So that you can add further details to the NEWS. Not so that you can have a debate about whatever bugbear stimulates you. Add NEWS, add correction and clarification of NEWS. Avoid simple political discussion. Political opinions are like assholes: we all have them and it's rude to show them in publice unless there's a really good reason.
I should be free to comment on the news articles.
Not unless you're adding NEWS you shouldn't. Or correcting a serious factual error. The purpose of indymedia is to spread NEWS.
I understand why trolls may get modded into oblivion, but why are my serious comments and questions dissapear?
Because they're not NEWS?
It should be simple for Indymedia viewers to view all articles which have been modded down. Why are my news submissions, even the good ones, never accepted?
Maybe they're not NEWS? Have you contacted the editors of whatever IMC you're dealing with to ask them? Their answer is the reason why.
Indymedia is an echo chamber. You only go there when you want to hear people support your own positions. Dissenters ithin the Indymedia community are frequently punished, which is very ironic in a forums which is supposed to promote dissent.
Indymedia isn't supposed to "promote dissent", it's supposed to a collectively run media outlet for passionate, radical and accurate news.
Re:Moderation? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 17:22 · Score: 0

Can't really speak for every Indymedia here but i'm quite sure that (except for one IMC) news is almost never deleted unless its really not according to the policy. Even then its most of the times open trash, publicly viewable.

Which IMC is that?
Re:Moderation? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 17:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Indymedia was designed as a *news service* for people interested in doing progressive and radical journalism. The open newswire and the comments area were not the chief goal of the website. Indymedia has bias, of course. It exists for progressives and radicals to report on their protests and to engage in journalism from a radical point of view.

Oh, by the way, I'm an Indymedia volunteer and veteran of many black blocs. I like good news projects and I like trashcans set on fire. It sounds like Indymedia wasn't a good fit for you, so best of luck in your other projects.
Re:Moderation? by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 19:17 · Score: 1

That might be the original intent, but somewhere along the way it became a facility whereby troublemakers coordinate their efforts to disrupt the political process both in this country and abroad.

Surely we remember the little issue of GOP delegates' home addresses being disseminated via Indymedia Web sites?

Bottom line: There are basically two groups that have taken over Indymedia. On the one hand, you have the children who don't know right from wrong. On the other hand, you have the malicious ones who seek to manipulate the first group into doing their bidding. They're the ones who tell kids to bring a brick to a so-called "peace march."

Indymedia has become a powerful force for the incitement of violence, original intent or no.

(It kinda bothered me, incidentally, that you used the word "radical" more than once with a tone that suggested that you don't see anything at all wrong with it. It makes me wonder whether you're in one of those two groups I talked about. If I had to make a guess, I'd pick the first group, but what the heck do I know.)
Re:Moderation? by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2005-01-07 22:09 · Score: 1

So that you can add further details to the NEWS.

This could be fixed by changing the wording on the stupid button, change "Add your comments" to "Add further details to the NEWS".

I see all sorts of conversations which don't add further details to the NEWS, and yet they aren't always removed.

But if I dare point out another view or the macho men in the black block, my opinion is removed.

Perhaps this is because I broke two rules instead of one? I wasn't adding further details to the NEWS and I pissed off the moderators?

Who watches the watchers? Thanks for making those descisions for me.

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Re:Moderation? by mvdwege · 2005-01-08 02:34 · Score: 1

Let me play Devil's Advocate here.

That might be the original intent, but somewhere along the way it became a facility whereby troublemakers coordinate their efforts to disrupt the political process

If the political process has been subverted to take power away from the people and hand it to an oligarchy, isn't the process worth disrupting?

[...] the malicious ones who seek to manipulate the first group into doing their bidding. They're the ones who tell kids to bring a brick to a so-called "peace march."

If the authorities can bring to a protest march:
Police in body armour, with shields and other heavy equipment and weapons.
Water cannons and tear gas.
Armoured cars.
Or even the Army.
How serious is it then to tell people to bring a brick? Especially given the pervasive stories that the authorities like to incite minor violence first so that they have an excuse to execute an all-out assault on an otherwise peaceful protest?
Indymedia has become a powerful force for the incitement of violence [...]

When violence is used to take away your freedoms and your rights, is it then wrong to defend yourself violently?

These, IMO, are the hard questions worth asking. Unfortunately, too often the negative aspects of certain positions are used to totally discredit one side in political discourse. I may disagree with a lot on Indymedia, but I am glad they exist, because without opposition, we may as well hand over our freedom to the oligarchists right now.
Mart

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Re:Moderation? by snorklewacker · 2005-01-08 05:15 · Score: 1

I'm a flaming liberal, and these days I can't stand Indymedia. Why? Because many comments and stories are hidden by the fascist moderators.

Funny, I'm a flaming liberal and I can't stand Indymedia because it makes the left look so darn bad.

Apparenly I'm not liberal ENOUGH to have my comments read by others, especially when I dare to criticize some Black Blockster when they do stupid shit like setting a trashcan on fire...

Folks, go take a look at the article commentaries on Indymedia. It makes slashdot look like a fucking mensa society.

--
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
Re:Moderation? by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-08 05:16 · Score: 1

If the political process has been subverted to take power away from the people and hand it to an oligarchy, isn't the process worth disrupting?

That kind of begs the question. The political process has obviously not been subverted. So the whole "if-then" thing is just so much noise.

If you want to talk about it in the subjunctive, go for it. "If the system had been subverted, would violence be justified?" That's a good question. I don't find it an interesting one, myself, because I'm more preoccupied with the indicative than the subjunctive, but that's just me.

How serious is it then to tell people to bring a brick?

Boy, that's a doozy. Are you seriously asking whether it's okay to incite violence against police officers who are there only to keep you doing violence?

Yes, police officers are empowered to defend themselves, property and the public good. They are empowered to use force to do that, even to the point of using deadly force when it's called for. That's how our society works. We make the laws, and then we license certain people to enforce those laws.

You, on the other hand, are not permitted, legally or morally, to throw a brick at a cop. It's just not okay.

The fact that you see these things as being somehow comparable troubles me deeply.

Especially given the pervasive stories

Why are those stories pervasive? Because people from group #2 (see above) use word-of-mouth and, increasingly, Web sites like Indymedia to perpetuate them in order to manipulate people from group #1 to do violence on their behalf.

When violence is used to take away your freedoms and your rights, is it then wrong to defend yourself violently?

Again with begging the question. That obviously has not happened, so a response to it isn't up for discussion at this time.

If something like that ever does happen, let's reconvene on the subject, okay?

These, IMO, are the hard questions worth asking.

If you wanted to talk about them in the abstract, in a classroom or a coffee shop, that'd be no problem at all. But the fact is that you're advocating here, not discussing. You're arguing that since X, therefore Y, when X is not, in fact, true. And what elevates it from just your being a dumbass to the level of actual harm is that Y involves a shitload of violence against innocent people and both public and private property.

we may as well hand over our freedom to the oligarchists right now

Do you even know what "oilgarchy" means? Hint: In a democratic system, it is not an accurate statement to refer to the people we elect as oligarchs, and it is not an accurate statement to refer to a system whereby 120 million people who show up on election day get to make the decisions as an oligarchy.
Re:Moderation? by justins · 2005-01-08 05:28 · Score: 1

Surely we remember the little issue of GOP delegates' home addresses being disseminated via Indymedia Web sites?

You say that as if you think that the identity and location of our representatives in the democratic process ought to be top secret. You don't have to be a radical left-winger to disagree with that.

I actually remember more of a controversy surrounding the location of the delegates' hotels being disseminated during the GOP convention. I don't really have a problem with that - I think it's an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of the "free speech zones" which were set up by the federal government, trying to put everyone who wanted their voices heard by the delegates behind barbed wire. (or was it razor wire? I forget) Anyhow, it's worth noting that based on the news reports the worst that happened to any of the delegates was some hurt feelings, surprise at how much they were disliked by a vocal few. (The fact that they were surprised says an awful lot about the need for protest, I think. How out of touch with reality should such delegates actually be?)

It's a case where we ought to actually consider for a few milliseconds the consequences of our (or the government's) actions. If you make it extremely difficult for people to get their voices heard, almost the only people who find a way to be heard are going to be the highly-motivated radicals. Free speech zones are ultimately self-destructive for an administration that wants to minimize the appearance of dissent, but unfortunately they do not understand human nature (or American History, I would argue) well enough to see the damage they are doing. Or maybe they do.

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:Moderation? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 05:34 · Score: 0

Funny, someone that sees "liberal" and "left wing" as having anything in common probably isn't "left wing" at all. They're probably someone that votes for the Democratic war-criminal instead of the Bush war-criminal.

I'll agree with you about some of the article commentaries though: that's why there should be more moderation of Indymedia, not less. Only comments that add factual information instead of rants, insults, unsupported claims should be allowed.
Re:Moderation? by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-08 06:01 · Score: 1

You say that as if you think that the identity and location of our representatives in the democratic process ought to be top secret.

No, I say it as if I think that distributing the home addresses of delegates with the intent that those people should be intimidated into giving up their seats at the convention is both illegal and probably not that great for our political process.

trying to put everyone who wanted their voices heard by the delegates behind barbed wire. (or was it razor wire? I forget)

It was neither; it was chain link, which is completely different. And why were barriers necessary? Because of the constant threats of violence against delegates, many of them originating on Indymedia Web sites. See? We've kinda come full circle.

Anyhow, it's worth noting that based on the news reports the worst that happened to any of the delegates was some hurt feelings, surprise at how much they were disliked by a vocal few.

Um. Actually, if you do a LexisNexis search you'll find that there were many instances of violence and intimidation against the homes of GOP delegates around the country. Most of it was low-grade stuff --spray paint on cars, that kind of thing --but there were also a number of death threats involved. So while it's true that we're lucky nobody got actually physically harmed, it's not correct to say that it was just hurt feelings.

How out of touch with reality should such delegates actually be?

I'm sorry, but "You suck, I hate you" is not reality. It's just vitriol. And the more of it we keep out of our politics, the better for everybody on both sides of the aisle.

If you make it extremely difficult for people to get their voices heard

Who what? I'm sorry, I thought for a second there that we were having a totally unmediated discussion on a freely accessible Internet forum that can be read or commented on by anybody anywhere in the country and in most of the world. (Stupid China and Iran.)

Friend, it's easier today to participate in the public debate than it's ever been in the history of the world. I think your problem -- if you'll excuse me for getting personal--is that you think waving a "Bush = Hitler" sign is a contribution, and you're dismayed by the sheer number of people don't want to pay attention to you when you do it.

Want to participate? Participate! Want to comment on the government? Go ahead. Want to comment to the government? Call 202-456-1414, any time day or night. Seriously. Try it sometime.

Want to yell and scream, be profane or obscene, or commit acts of violence? Go do it in the middle of the woods somewhere or something, because America isn't interested.

In other words, friend, use your inside voice if you want to be heard.
Re:Moderation? by LuSiDe · 2005-01-08 06:14 · Score: 1

Belgium (Indymedia.be). Not the local Belgian collectives btw. Belgium heavily censors and is in control of a Belgium, stalinistic political party.

--
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Re:Moderation? by mvdwege · 2005-01-08 06:31 · Score: 1

Man, there is so much wrong with your post, I don't know where to start. Let me first start by pointing out that I started my post with a simple phrase: Devil's Advocate. Look it up. It might make you look less of a dumbass next time you flame someone.

The political process has obviously not been subverted. So the whole "if-then" thing is just so much noise.

There are plenty of indications that the current political process in the democratic countries of the West only panders to the interests of a small elite: Laws like the DMCA and the EUCD, the ongoing problems in the US with campaign finance, massive corruption and outright fraud in the European Commision.

Now, I've given some backing to my statement. Let me see if you can do more than just argue by assertion.

Are you seriously asking whether it's okay to incite violence against police officers who are there only to keep you doing violence?

I gave examples of the overwhelming power deployed by the authorities and I asked how a brick compared to that. Don't start strawmanning me by snipping away parts of my argument.

As for your argument for the benevolence of the police, I think the news speaks for itself. If demonstrators are left dead in the streets, even if they were throwing bricks, then there is an obvious disparity in the levels of violence used. And since the police is indeed meant to protect me, it worries me a lot that that disparity falls out in their favour.

it is not an accurate statement to refer to a system whereby 120 million people who show up on election day get to make the decisions as an oligarchy.

It is not? Go look at the backgrounds of the candidates. Go look at who pays for their campaigns. Go look at who their legislation benefits. I think you'll find that the current U.S. system is a whole lot closer to an oligarchy than you think.

And as for Europe: the background of our politicians is a bit more diverse, but they all end up openly calling for policies that benefit that same small elite. If that isn't an oligarchy, I think we are using different meanings for the term.
I won't bother replying further, so just go on with your obvious strawmanning. I hope you enjoy boasting to your neo-con friends that you slapped down yet another leftie. Mart

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Re:Moderation? by justins · 2005-01-08 06:40 · Score: 1

No, I say it as if I think that distributing the home addresses of delegates with the intent that those people should be intimidated into giving up their seats at the convention is both illegal and probably not that great for our political process.

I doubt very much indeed that it is illegal to post the information, if it was just addresses and phone numbers of political figures they were posting. What one does with the information after reading it is another matter.

(was anyone even charged? somehow I doubt it)

t was neither; it was chain link, which is completely different.

You're either being dishonest or you're just misinformed. Did you see any of the pictures of the NY free speech zones? There were plenty in the papers and on TV. I pulled this more or less at random, there are certainly better pics:
http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64349 ,00.htm l

I'm sorry, but "You suck, I hate you" is not reality. It's just vitriol. And the more of it we keep out of our politics, the better for everybody on both sides of the aisle.

If you think it's the place of the federal government to decide what is "just vitriol" and to "keep vitriol out of politics", we're hardly even part of the same conversation.

So while it's true that we're lucky nobody got actually physically harmed, it's not correct to say that it was just hurt feelings.

None of which really addresses the point should the delegates identities be secret? We have really moved pretty far away from the traditional American political process when we answer "yes." It really is interesting to visualize what some of the founding fathers would have to say about political delegates cowering in fear of kiddies on the internet, though.

Who what? I'm sorry, I thought for a second there that we were having a totally unmediated discussion on a freely accessible Internet forum that can be read or commented on by anybody anywhere in the country and in most of the world. (Stupid China and Iran.)

There's this thing called "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" that's actually sort of important. It's mentioned in some interesting documents.

Friend,

I'm not your friend, palooka.

it's easier today to participate in the public debate than it's ever been in the history of the world.

The "where" of the public debate is pretty important, which is why public assembly is mentioned in the constitution. It's rather more important when you have leaders that brag about never reading the newspaper, I suppose.

I think your problem -- if you'll excuse me for getting personal--is that you think waving a "Bush = Hitler" sign is a contribution, and you're dismayed by the sheer number of people don't want to pay attention to you when you do it.

You don't know anything about my politics. No, it's not a "contribution," in my view. The point is that it's not for the federal government, or you, to decide what constitutes a "contribution."

Want to yell and scream, be profane or obscene, or commit acts of violence?

Interesting that you group those all together. The law treats them all quite differently, for good reason.

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:Moderation? by leandrod · 2005-01-11 20:31 · Score: 1

> Indymedia isn't supposed to "promote dissent", it's supposed to a collectively run media outlet for passionate, radical and accurate news.

That and should have been an or. The terms of your conjunction are incompatible.
I mean, it's all very nice to have an opinion, but if you are so dumb and misinformed to confound it with news, and then to accept every piece of rumour and opinion as it was fact, you perpetrate a scam on those who are as dumb and misinformed as yourself.
You shouldn't be 'balanced' to do news that's usually Newspeak for 'politically correct'. It is better to be correct than balanced. But that requires one to dig deeper for the truth, and that's hard when our society (global, not only US) has became so stupid, polarised and accomodated that it won't spend enough time and money to evaluate facts one dig, instead wasting all its resources to buy sound bytes and then analyse them with little but prejudice and half-truths.

--
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Re:Moderation? by leandrod · 2005-01-11 21:08 · Score: 1

> I'm not liberal ENOUGH

Would you please stop confounding everyone out of the US with your euphemisms? It's leftism, not liberalism. Liberalism relates to liberty, not to government intervention. It means economical laissez-faire and parlamentary democracy.

--
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin

A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Baldrson · 2005-01-07 13:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

The epistemology of Wikidom has some weaknesses that render it useless for anything where there might be important information. Important information inevitably involves various interests and there is no way to remove the human element of resource competition from those interests.

A great example is what just happened to the fusion power article. Two of the three founders of the Tokamak program have come out against the Tokamak and one of the founders circulated a letter to all of the plasma physics labs as well as to the relevant Congressmen, stating categorically that the Tokamak program was never real -- it was just a vehicle for raising funding so that other more hopeful ideas could be tried.

I scanned the original letter and presented a link to it as an aspect of the fusion power article. This is primary source material -- not original research -- from one of the foremost authorities, indeed one of the fathers of the US fusion energy program. The nothing-better-to-do-with-their-times censored it and quite honestly I just don't have the time, energy or patience to bother with a reversion war with the bottom feeders at wikipedia.

--
Seastead this.

Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Staplerh · 2005-01-07 13:49 · Score: 2, Informative

This is an excellent example of a shortcoming of Wikipedia. I try to contribute as much as I can, due to my academic interests in History, and I must say I've never seen such an example as yours. Of course, that may be due to my sticking to obscure 'corners' of the Wiki project.

The Talk page that you linked too is reprehensible to say the least. This is why 'real' academic work needs peer-referencing for credibility.

If I ever hear anybody planning to use Wiki as an authoritative source I'll be sure to point them to the Tokamak program example.

--
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:07 · Score: 0

Funny how this doesn't surprise me, since you're an insane racist conspiracy-theory quack. Keep trying Jim. I'm surprised that you're not more of a Wikipedia presence.. the No Original Research rule has your name written all over it.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by ZorbaTHut · 2005-01-07 14:16 · Score: 4, Informative

I went and looked at that link. To be honest, I agree with them. If the letter is genuine it should exist other places than your website, and judging from what else is on your website, I wouldn't necessarily trust you if you said 2+2=4.

Sorry.

I'd ask if you can prove it's from the person you claim it is - to be honest I haven't been able to look at it though (your geocities site is out of bandwidth) and so maybe it's a lot more genuine than I'm imagining it. But in any case, I'd still look for a more authoritative site that corroborates it.

Otherwise we might as well start worshiping Gene Ray as a prophet.

--
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by tpgp · 2005-01-07 14:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

You linked to a scanned image on geocities?

And expected people to take you seriously?

A link to a site where anyone can place material is not a link worth having on wikipedia.

To prove my point - I can put a scanned image up on geocities purporting to be from you, saying you were wrong.

Would that prove anything? No - and nor does your link.

--
My pics.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by slavemowgli · 2005-01-07 14:20 · Score: 1

So, in other words, you made an edit that someone else didn't agree with, and you didn't make any attempt to either put your material in again, resolve the issue on the article's associated talk page etc., and you didn't ever do anything else on Wikipedia either, but you still conclude that because something YOU did was reverted, the whole concept must invariably be doomed?

Congrats on the size of your ego. :)

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by nutshell42 · 2005-01-07 14:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now unfortunatly your pages have exceeded their geocities bandwidth limit but let's assume the whole Tokamak thing was a big scam. You actually believe thousands of scientists around the world are working on a big conspiration with the goal to aquire the billions necessary to build ITER, then build it and then tell everyone sorry, nothing to see here?
Was it part of the McVeigh-UFO conspiracy also reported on your page before geocities axed it?
Fusion power research is known for bitter blood feuds and with nothing but some non-viewable jpgs on a geocities page (the google cache is accessible but it didn't cache the images) I see it as proof of Wikipedia's abilities of self-regulation that your change was reversed.

--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Kafka_Canada · 2005-01-07 14:52 · Score: 1

A link to a site where anyone can place material is not a link worth having on wikipedia.

Rich.

(In all seriousness, you do make a valid point)

--
Fuck it
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Little+Brother · 2005-01-07 14:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Um dude, although I agree with the importance of the importance of your document, I can kinda see their point. You really should find a refrence elsewhere to the document you have, in a newspaper or such, that is hosted by somebody other than geocities. I could type up a confession by Bill Gates that he is a pedophile and buys boyslaves off of Michael Jackson, digitaly affix a signature, post it on gocities and cite it. But Wikipedia SHOULD remove my link in that case. Why is your case different? Well, possibly because your document is real, but how can I tell?
On the other hand, they did treat you like shait on the discussion board page dismissing you instead of telling you what you needed to find to authintisicate your claims. They made ad-hominium attacks against you and were basicly jerks. So see if you can find a link to a newssource that mentions the origional document, if so, link to that newssource and they won't have a leg to stand on.
-LittleBrother

--

Little Brother, watching the watchers
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 15:08 · Score: 0

"a site where anyone can place material"

Hey, that sounds just like that thing I've been hearing about recently called the "Internet"!
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by ratsnapple+tea · 2005-01-07 15:25 · Score: 1

"A link to a site where anyone can place material is not a link worth having on wikipedia."

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by yppiz · 2005-01-07 15:40 · Score: 1

I think the real problem is that you failed to establish your credibility in the discussion. The user who deleted your link looked at your previous contributions and that, combined with his concerns about the contribution in question being unsupported (that is, there was no other site to check to confirm that the content was real) led them to delete your link.
In reading the discussion, I think they could have done more effort to validate the contributed document, but given limited time and energy, they made a justifiable call.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 16:39 · Score: 0

Hmmm, the removal of misinformation confirms to me that wikipedia *IS* working. Rather than relying on what you read, and other people tell you, try going out, reading more broadly and finding some correct facts. Dissipate a bit to of the anger in you. Sure, get angry about stuff but get angry about worthwhile stuff like human rights abuses and keep your thoughts coherent. (Been there, done that myself with being pissed off at the world.)
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Headius · 2005-01-07 17:33 · Score: 1

If the information was so credible and so easily corroborated, there's no reason the Wiki entry needed to link to your personal site on Geocities. How do you answer a charge that this is simply grab for attention when instead of providing these supposedly corroborating sources you continue to battle to have the link to your personal site restored? I don't really see how you can. This is posturing, plain and simple.

Your logic suffers from a serious flaw: you say you know the information is authentic, and therefore you feel you're able vouch for its validity without providing third-party corroboration of any kind. That does not work; you can not vouch for yourself.

Of course, you'll come back with some clever way to justify this behavior, but I and others like me will not be fooled. If the information is authentic and credible, present alternative sources. Otherwise, you are just making noise.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by be-fan · 2005-01-07 18:39 · Score: 1

Your accusation of ad hominem attack are unfounded. Ad hominem is not invalid if it calls into question the legitimacy of the person making the argument. For example:

"Your physics theory is invalid because you are gay" is ad hominem.

"I don't trust your medical opinion because you've said previously that AIDs could be transmitted through tears" is not ad hominem.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by paragon_au · 2005-01-08 00:45 · Score: 1

The point of the internet is anyone can place material on it. Simply because someone pays for hosting and domain doesn't suddenly making the source more trust worthy than someone using a free service.

Your argument has nothing to do with how authentic the document is. Or in fact anything at all.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by epine · 2005-01-08 02:04 · Score: 1

The fact that the "father" of the Tokamak declares that the program was never going to achieve its stated purpose proves exceedingly little. Perhaps the majority of speculative, high budget science is directed toward ancilliary ideas concerning applications the administration does not wish to openly discuss.

I went through the SF airport in the early eighties and there was a grade A kook there handing out these "from another planet" booklets about the Tokamak program. They were about the size of a comic book but with glossy cover sheets, not quite a full magazine. Everything written there made my eyes bug out of my head, as if the author were six time zones and a dateline to the right of Ronald Reagan.

On that same trip I met with a friend at Stanford who had recently attended a lecture by a speaker associated (perhaps tenuously) with one of the right wing think tanks that sprouted up like mushrooms in that era. This guy was smart according to my friend and in his speech he explained that the entire military build-up that was taking place at the time was a ploy to push Soviet Russia over the brink economically. That interpretation of the situation was not widely circulated at the time and IIRC it didn't hit the mainstream media until years later. Meanwhile, people were seriously debating whether Star Wars might possibly work, as if it mattered to the underlying objective.

My view is that the MX missile system, the Star Wars program, the Space Shuttle, and maybe even Tokamak were all elements of a conscious effort on the part of American government to incite Russia to bankrupt itself. Let's not forget that the Shuttle was used to deploy military spy satellites. My opinion is that the shuttle would never have been built in its final form if rolling secret satellites out of the cargo bay was not on the drawing board.

Let's suppose there were Russian scientists sitting around sharing the realization that "that American Tokamak program which is devouring so much of their funds is never going to achieve the public goals they put forward to the American people". The second Russian would have chimed in "and what else can you tell me about the price of tea in China?" No one would have sat there and said "I guess that about wraps it up for fusion power".

If someone wished to advance the position that while large amounts of money have been spent in programs of fusion research, it is not clear for political reasons how much of this money has been directed toward the goal of producing a viable reactor, then it might be interesting to include a link to the disavowal of one of the key Tokamak participants.

There might be other ways to achieve fusion. The US government chose to invest in an approach that involved big ass magnets, plasma confinement systems, and laser ignition systems rather than racks of beakerware stuffed with palladium electrodes. What a huge surprise.

Given that Tokamak served as a political pawn in the final chapter of the cold war it's amazingly disingenuous to pluck any primary document out of its original context.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 05:20 · Score: 0

There might be other ways to achieve fusion. The US government chose to invest in an approach that involved big ass magnets, plasma confinement systems, and laser ignition systems rather than racks of beakerware stuffed with palladium electrodes. What a huge surprise.

Probably because fusion is actually achieved using the former method, and not the latter.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by snorklewacker · 2005-01-08 05:27 · Score: 1

"Your physics theory is invalid because you are gay" is ad hominem.

"I don't trust your medical opinion because you've said previously that AIDs could be transmitted through tears" is not ad hominem.

Well, first of all, the first makes a clear and objective proposition, and the second one does not ("I don't trust X" != "X is invalid"). Secondly, it is technically still ad hominem, but only in the formal logical sense. As rhetoric, it's probably quite sound.

Throwing around accusations of "ad hominem" is quite popular these days. The best rebuttal is to respond "no, no, I'm not attacking you personally, I don't really even know you. I'm simply questioning your credibility." It's cheap, but it works.

--
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by justins · 2005-01-08 07:49 · Score: 1

A link to a site where anyone can place material is not a link worth having on wikipedia.

Anyone can place material on wikipedia, so...

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 09:16 · Score: 0

The basic issue here: The press doesn't really _care_ much about Fusion Power. What makes Baldrson's claim here more credible than just a randome individual off the street, is that Baldrson gave congressional testimony in the area of technology policy--he really does have these sort of contacts and that is verifiable via the congressional record.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 09:27 · Score: 0

Well, there _are_ similar issues in mainstream reference sources when it comes to controversial issues. Look for example how the articles on Mormonism evolved over time in Brittanica. The first articles depicted those folks as a cult.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 09:32 · Score: 0

Henry Ford, Voltaire, William Shockley and Charles Lindbergh all had views similar to Baldrson's. Would you trust them on any issue? I'm not saying that Baldrson is in their class, but holding his other views doesn't mean he's stupid or a liar. The New York Times claimed that Goddard Rocket would never work-and the Smithsonian claimed that Langley beat the Wright Brothers to heavier than air flight. It sounds like your credibility matrix is a bit messed up.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 09:43 · Score: 0

This is part of the strangeness around fusion power. In the 50's, the scientific consensus seemed to be that commercial fusion was "right around the corner". That didn't happen-and there was an explaination needed why it didn't happen. The lawyers running the US said, it was just "too hard"-and various alternative voices including LaRouche and Bowery(aka Baldrson) said that the powers that be really weren't putting the effort into this problem it deserved.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 10:22 · Score: 0

There was no claim made of a vast conspiracy-rather a few folks "went along" with the momentum from a corrupt congress in hopes of getting something constructive done. Have you ever had a boss tell you to do something stupid-and bit your tongue? Well, that is what Bussard said in the letter he did-except in this case, the stakes were _REALLY_ big--like we have hundreds of Americans needlessly dying in a Middle Eastern shithole because some lawyers in congress felt it necessary to take money from utility companies and tell guys like Bussard what to do.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by ZorbaTHut · 2005-01-08 12:37 · Score: 1

I didn't say "Baldrson claims X, therefore X is not true" - I said "I'd want more proof". For every example of a person people were skeptical of that turned out to be right I can give you a dozen examples where the opposite is true. Whichever part you want to make the opposite.

--
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Re:A Prime Example of Wikifailure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 13:27 · Score: 0

Actually, he didn't, someone else created the originally link anonymously-and then Baldrson got dragged into it somehow-and was accused of acting anonymously. All Baldrson did was take a letter that was passed onto him and post it on geocities(a letter that copied some legislation he had originally proposed).

*IndyMedia*'s bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:48 · Score: 0

He talks about his dissatisfaction with IndyMedia's bias

What about Slashdot's bias?

Re:*IndyMedia*'s bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:56 · Score: 0

Slashdot isn't a news site.
Re:*IndyMedia*'s bias? by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 14:10 · Score: 0, Troll

Neither is Indymedia.
Re:*IndyMedia*'s bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:14 · Score: 0

Yep, Slashdot is biased, I suggest that by way of protest you leave and don't come back until the bias is gone.
Re:*IndyMedia*'s bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 15:45 · Score: 0

Yes, the "News for Nerds" in the banner is a typo. It's supposed to be "Nudes for Nerds", "Stuff that goat".

Well... by euphonaesthesia · 2005-01-07 13:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

But what's interesting about the way the wiki process works, and the openness of it, is that if you write something and you want it to survive the process, you have to write it in such a way that is broadly satisfactory to people of many points of view.

But what about issues and facts that may indeed offend a lot of people? One of the problems with mainstream media is that they must retain an audience and so they often frame the information such that it is in a view that is pleases as much of its audience as possible. A single issue has many viewpoints, and each of those viewpoints may be presented with a bias. Take nuclear energy for example--one can explore the dangers of it or talk about its advantages. Both can be reported in a netural way, but by highlighting one and not the other, there is another form of bias. They may circumvent some types of political and opionated biased in this way, but they do not eliminate the bias as to what does and does not receive attention.

Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 19:32 · Score: 0

One must be careful when trying to avoid bias. For surely something generally accepted as true can be written as such, 'accepted fact'. To place, with the goal of no bias, a counter-argument for something with overwelming reviewed and accepted evidence is counter productive, it's bias is towards the conservative, and against change. Especially when reporting relatively new ideas relative to old dogma.

Examples come to mind of evolution, stem cell research and nuclear energy. Where the 'truth' is there are concepts people cannot accept. And rarely write neutrally about.
Re:Well... by winwar · 2005-01-08 00:41 · Score: 1

"Both can be reported in a netural way, but by highlighting one and not the other, there is another form of bias."

Define neutral. If you mean factual, what is the standard for "facts". Or do you mean without bias? The fundamental problem with trying to eliminate bias is that it is NOT possible. ANY report from ANY source will be biased. For instance, the mere act of filming something or taking a picture is a biased act. What the camera points at, what is recorded, where it is set up, etc., all introduce bias. The key is for the bias to be easily IDENTIFIED and stated when possible.

Hear, Hear by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:53 · Score: 0

...everyone has an angle.

The only way to start to form an unbiased opinion by yourself is to have multiple, very different, sources.

The parent was possibly the most lucid comment on /. tonight and it gets a score of 1. D'Oh.

Brain Stuck by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 13:56 · Score: 0

"News-dot-com-dot-com-dot-com..." *SMACK* "Ah, I feel better now."

Damn you /. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:01 · Score: 0

I was wandering through Wikipedia and suddenly pages took forever to load... naturally I figured it was /. posting yet another Wikipedia story.

Surprise, surprise, I was right! Bastards!

Wikipedia with 'Expert-Certified' Articles by davide101 · 2005-01-07 14:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Would it kill a project to have 'expert versions' of pages that have been okayed by a panel (elected by majority vote, of course) of experts? These could be right next to regular pages and inspire a little more confidence in results.... especially in more specialized or scientific areas. Your thoughts?

Re:Wikipedia with 'Expert-Certified' Articles by slavemowgli · 2005-01-07 14:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

It wouldn't kill the project as such, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. Why would you want to *elect* experts? The fact that someone is popular doesn't mean he's an expert in a certain field. Wikipedia already is a meritocracy of sorts where how much you're respected depends on what you do, not what you claim, and I think that's the right idea. Of course, a "stable" branch from the Wikipedia trunk that's being double-checked for factual accuracy and the like by experts is still a good idea for a CD-ROM version or so, for example, but it shouldn't be mixed with the trunk. The fact that anyone can edit a page and have the changes go live immediately is Wikipedia's strength, after all, and the failure of Nupedia should tell us all something. :)

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:Wikipedia with 'Expert-Certified' Articles by burns210 · 2005-01-07 17:28 · Score: 1

For a Wikipedia 1.0, where you could(in theory) order a hardcopy in which each article is ceritified to be accurate, Wikipedia NEEDS a -stable version of articles controlled SOLEY by moderators and admins, and a -current that exists now.

-stable would be where mods get a queue to approve/disapprove of changes to be put into the stable version, such that the -stable is verified to be accurate.

-current would be the wikipedia that we know now.
Re:Wikipedia with 'Expert-Certified' Articles by maxume · 2005-01-08 04:51 · Score: 1

Or at least a way for people to maintain and publish a list of articles and users that they trust. This doesn't directly do much for creating a -stable that people can trust and cite, but I think that it would lay down some good groundwork and at least give people interested in creating -stable somewhere to start. 1 million is a surprisingly big number.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

How to make it credible: by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

Drop that asininely silly "Wiki" moniker. I mean really, how do expect anybody to not bust a gut when the word "wiki" comes out of your mouth?

Re:How to make it credible: by qadmon · 2005-01-07 14:18 · Score: 1

I have to agree with the moniker. Its plain silly.
What grown man is going to talk to his cohorts about something with a name like 'wiki'?
Re:How to make it credible: by hunterx11 · 2005-01-07 18:53 · Score: 1

I assume that Hawaiians at least wouldn't think that their language sounds silly. In fact they might even take exception to someone calling it silly.

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:How to make it credible: by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 19:27 · Score: 1

So your argument is that a name that sounds to most people like baby-talk is okay because that name comes from a language that, at last estimate, is spoken by fewer than 2,000 people?

I'm gonna call "bullshit" on you right there. Nothing personal. I just think you're a little bit full of crap.
Re:How to make it credible: by TheBurningDog · 2005-01-07 20:16 · Score: 1

I bet 15 years ago you'd have gotten the same reaction when you told somebody you were going to google something or ebay your old car.
Re:How to make it credible: by hunterx11 · 2005-01-08 08:32 · Score: 1

Actually I was trying to be rather polite. In reality you're being a ignorant asshole by asserting that something foreign to you deserves derision if you think it sounds silly. Maybe "Microsoft" should rename their company because like Conan O'Brien pointed out, puerile people might associate the name with a flaccid penis.
I'm not saying that the name might not sound silly at first, or that there's anything wrong if you think it does. But it's not a silly name, and if you can't grow up and get over the sound of a word, you have bigger issues the Wikinews.

--
English is easier said than done.

Notice? by ImTwoSlick · 2005-01-07 14:11 · Score: 4, Funny

I for one, welcome our news.com.com.com.com.com overlords.

Re:Notice? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

How many times does this once brilliant but now hackneyed and stupid Simpsons quote have to be used by jwz fanboys like your idiot self before people will realize that INCESSANT REPETITION MAKES SHIT NOT FUNNY? I repeat, NOT FUNNY.
Re:Notice? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 16:30 · Score: 0

I've seen Better complaints about cliche memes
http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=469 15&cid=4818984
Re:Notice? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 16:31 · Score: 0

NOT FUNNY

Settling this issue by Altima(BoB) · 2005-01-07 14:11 · Score: 1

Okay, we've inadvertantly dredged up an instance where the Wikipedia project is useful! Dante's Inferno, according to Wikipedia

Well, I was half right, traitors do indeed go to the very center of hell, but it's they who are put into the frozen lake, as McGarry said. And yes, the neutrals, though not mentioned specifically would probably go someone in the 8th circle with the hypocrites and false advisors.

And the off-topic to on-topic circle is complete.

--
Yup...

Re:Settling this issue by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 15:17 · Score: 0

The neutrals and opportunists aren't actually inside hell. They are in the antechamber before the entrance of hell and are forced to chase a banner while being stung by insects. Along with them are the angels that did not pick a side. They weren't allowed in hell "for fear the damned would glory over them."
Re:Settling this issue by SparklingClearWit · 2005-01-08 06:04 · Score: 1

But how do you know that the wiki is accurate or factual? Do you have a reference copy of the original text to compare to? The abstract presented here represents the author(s) understanding of the material. Do they actually understand it correctly, as Dante intended it? Or are they just posting their best understanding of it?

These are the inherent problems with wikis - that, and the damn name. You can't trust something that can be edited by nearly anyone. If you get someone smart enough, they can/could edit the article to put their own spin on it. Why? Why do people deface websites, etc.? Because they can, or for personal amusement, or just to make sure their beliefs - the "RIGHT" ones - are presented. /still waiting to see some mechanism for credibility on wikis and other shared media sources

We[re very 'neutral" the mans sez by qadmon · 2005-01-07 14:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Yep thats very very true.

I found Wikinews by accident. They had a 'drinking fountain/watercooler' area where anything seemed to be ok as far as metadiscussion.

I made a few posts and was rudely slammed by the clique residing there. They take you post and alter it at will, move it other places and do as they jolly well wish.

You can complain there but the 'mafia' just ignores you.

I decided it was a waste of time.

In my view therefore WikiNews sucks big time.

If you have a place for conjecture on the site then don't trash it with your 'supposed'neutrality. By the way who judges the neutrality? A bunch of folks who make the decisions. This is NOT NEUTRALITY. Its bullying in just a new skin but its still the same.

I repeat...its sucks.

Re:We[re very 'neutral" the mans sez by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 17:55 · Score: 0

What are you, 12? Or just another /. zealot?
Re:We[re very 'neutral" the mans sez by Sirch · 2005-01-07 22:37 · Score: 1

Who neuters the neutrals?

Er.

--
We Build Beautiful Websites
Re:We[re very 'neutral" the mans sez by PatrickThomson · 2005-01-08 01:12 · Score: 1

In all communal efforts on the internet, a pecking order seems to establish itself loosly based on how long someone has been there, even in cases where people were supposedly equal in the eyes of the substrate. To these guys, you probably looked like a troll or an unwelcome outsider, bringing change and/or fresh ideas to steal attention from them.

--
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.

KARMA WHORES! GET MOD POINTS NOW! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:14 · Score: 0

Somebody post this on Slashdot. I'm too lazy.

as of today - ADOBE HAS RELEASED ACROBAT READER FOR LINUX! Yeah, it's official Adobe Acrobat reader.

Re:FUCK YOU MICHAEL SIMS! FUCK YOU HYPOCRIT! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:16 · Score: 0

Careful, you're getting dangerously close to the topic there...

You ridiculous argument... by Baldrson · 2005-01-07 14:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The authenticity of any web document must be corroborated. In the case of this letter, there is more than enough corroborating information that's easily verifiable. For crying out loud there's the author of the letter himself to call if you really want to be a jerk and harrass him.

--
Seastead this.

Re:You ridiculous argument... by tpgp · 2005-01-07 14:31 · Score: 1

In the case of this letter, there is more than enough corroborating information that's easily verifiable

Why didn't you just link to that then?

--
My pics.
Re:You ridiculous argument... by JabberWokky · 2005-01-07 17:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes, however, if you're on Wikipedia linking UFOs and the Oklahoma City bombing... you - *yourself* - are considered a non-reliable source.
I look forward to when Geocities makes your site available again. I use sources like you for various role playing games.
--
Evan

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Re:You ridiculous argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 18:34 · Score: 0

> Why didn't you just link to that then?

Well, maybe he could place a skype:// sorts of links to CALL (as in telephone) the author of the letter... NOT!

RTFPC before replying
Re:You ridiculous argument... by be-fan · 2005-01-07 18:48 · Score: 1

While it's generally a good idea to corroborate anything you find on Wikipedia, it's kind of useless to include material from such an obviously untrustworthy source (geocities), that it *must* be corroborated by the reader. An encyclopedia, in order to maintain its academic integrity, must prove its trustworthiness to the reader, not depend on the reader to prove it themselves.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:You ridiculous argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 05:22 · Score: 0

it's kind of useless to include material from such an obviously untrustworthy source (geocities), that it *must* be corroborated by the reader.

How does the hosting of the image impact its veracity? Is it any different than hosting it on wikimedia?
Re:You ridiculous argument... by be-fan · 2005-01-08 09:04 · Score: 1

Because the hosting location changes the barrier of entry to posting incorrect information. It's the same reason people trust .gov or .edu pages more than .com or .net pages. The barrier to posting something on a .gov or .edu page is higher, and thus the potential of someone knowingly posting a forgery or just plain made-up document on such a page is lower.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:You ridiculous argument... by randall_burns · 2005-01-08 09:19 · Score: 1

The big external source here might be the congressional record. Baldrson posted his testimony-but I don't think the Congressional Record online goes back that far yet.

OMG! OT: by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:26 · Score: 0

look at the new pictures of Apples new iHome /macosxrumors/images/ihome/

Political News Stories - e.g. Gonzales by Tewley · 2005-01-07 14:40 · Score: 1

I think this an intriguing, and maybe impossible idea. When I visited WikiNews, the first page I looked for was a story about the Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearing. It was not a surprise to see the page was requested, but hadn't been written yet.

This is the perfect example of a story where people of divergent political views are going to have an impossible time trying to agree on what makes up bias-free journalism. Lefties are going to see the Democrats questions as upholding some important principles about rights and democracy over the issue of torture. Whereas the Republicans see the hearings as an exercise in political theater designed to discredit a good candidate.

Even news institutions that are filled with supposedly trained (or educated) professionals on the art of "objective" journalism have an impossible time. How can the public do any better? In the best-case scenario there will be some stories where it's possible. But others (like the A.G. confirmation) -- and I mean this honestly -- good luck.

Re:Political News Stories - e.g. Gonzales by qadmon · 2005-01-07 14:49 · Score: 1

I would submit that reporting on the idioticy at Capitol Hill could never be views as NEWS.

More like flummery of the worst sort. And bad flummery at that.

The posturings of the congress-weasels during said committee hearing is more like highend soap than real life.

They tend to make a mockery of anything resembling real life.

a very strange link by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 14:41 · Score: 0

this is a very strange link

Is this the $500 headless mac? by glrotate · 2005-01-07 14:54 · Score: 1

I wonder.

To a man with a hammer... by bcrowell · 2005-01-07 15:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

...everything looks like a nail.

To Jimmy Wales, everything looks like a job for a wiki.

Wikipedia was a smashing success, and that surprised a lot of people, including me. But if we step back and analyze why it was successful, I think there are some very specific things that made it work, and that don't apply so much to other types of work:

instant gratification -- You can be the one to create the article on Green Day, or crustaceans, or whatever you happen to be interested in, and there you go, half an hour later, it's something useful that you've given to the world.
permanent value -- You can tell yourself that your article on crustaceans will be something that will always be there for other people to read, albeit with modifications over the years.
factuality -- The job of an encyclopedia is mostly just to describe the world as it is. You don't need to be creative, you just need to describe the facts.

Well, wikinews fails criterion #2, and probably #3 as well -- its writers probably aren't going to be flying to Fallouja to report first-hand, so all they'll have to contribute is their own opinions about the news. The one place where wikipedia really falls flat on its face is topical and controversial articles, i.e., wikinews' entire prospective subject matter.

Then there's wikibooks, which fails criterion #1. There may be some healthy, thriving books in there, but as for the physics textbook I've been checking on now and then, nobody seems to have the long-term motivation to write anything past the first chapter.

--
Find free books.

Re:To a man with a hammer... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 15:29 · Score: 0

I say we start a Wiki for the sole purpose of trolling. Lately trolls haven't been all that good so we need a WikiTroll Boot Camp.

Fuck it! Linux isn't commuist, it's a kernel.

In Korea, on only old people are communists.
Re:To a man with a hammer... by CarrionBird · 2005-01-08 01:50 · Score: 1

It's not much different than what most news companies do now. Most get thier info from shared sources like the AP.
If they've got enough cash they'll send someone out to the scene, but it's rare that these people "live from the scene" give any more or different information than is available to the guys back in the studio.
Most media sources are all the same, the only differences are in the biases and if they admit them. (FOX with it's nudge-wink admissions of it's bias, or CNN with it's denials of it's bias)
What they seem to be trying to get to is raw facts. I wish them luck, but I doubt they'll succeed. (I think they'll attract mostly people with an activist bent)
About the least biased news I've seen lately is c-span. No useless "anchor" trying to frame reality for you, just the raw feed for you to intrepret. I'd like to see the same model applied wider.

--
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Re:To a man with a hammer... by snorklewacker · 2005-01-08 05:36 · Score: 1

> To Jimmy Wales, everything looks like a job for a wiki.

Not so different than "everything looks like a job for the WWW." Tim Berners-Lee always lamented how the WWW had become very "publication" oriented, instead of feeling like a big connected editor. Wiki helps close that gap a little.

Of course the name, klunky markup, and lack of access control are more than a tad annoying, but Wiki's a tool with a pretty wide reach. I think it's good to experiment with universal access before putting up fences rather than the reverse and letting a trickle of select folks determine all the content.

--
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot

Seems like a good idea overall... by Money+for+Nothin' · 2005-01-07 15:05 · Score: 1

Run with it! Synthesizing various biases in the media into a relatively objective, fair report is something done largely in academia these days, and rarely occurs in journalism.

Perhaps Wikinews, through the variety of biases found in individuals of "the mob", really *can* attain some level of objectivity and agreeability on news items. It'll be a good experiment, anyway. :)

Alternatively, I can see the project failing because of the nature of news -- it's here for a moment, then probably never referenced again by most people. That means that whoever waits a few days to modify the article can say whatever they want, and as time goes on (as they lag their modification), it becomes less-likely that somebody else will change or notice that modification.

Of course, it also means their change has less impact, and hence, the modifying person has less incentive to change the article to begin with. It's entirely possible that somebody could literally "rewrite history" by changing Wikinews, but the question, for practical purposes, is "will somebody, or an organization of somebodies, do so?" I'm rather doubtful (that said, I do worry that the FBI, CIA, NSA, KGB, Interpol, FOX News, MSNBC, IndyMedia, etc. would have reason to change those articles to manipulate public thought. But due to the fact that they would be greatly-outnumbered by the people who would be reading/changing the articles, they would face a long, hard battle to do so, and again, their influence decreases over time, as people reference the article at a decreasing rate. Hence my doubt that this is a probable stumbling block).

I say go for it, and let's see what comes out. :-)

--

Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?

Maybe something like this ... by Ralconte · 2005-01-07 15:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

This site, culls news services for the most common word. Not the best topic, or most important topic, just counts what people are writing about and lets you see the headlines. It may be the closest thing yet to a non-biased news source.

ITS A FAKE by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 16:29 · Score: 0

all those wasted man hours.

Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-left.. by br00tus · 2005-01-07 16:32 · Score: 0

"Unlike some other grassroots journalism type of projects like Indymedia, which is a very far left type of thing written by activists, we strive to be a neutral, high-quality source of basic information." Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black. First of all Jimbo Wales is a millionaire, so if anyone is disconnected with the grassroots it's Jimbo Wales. The closest he has come to grass roots is probably giving some instructions to the people who tend his lawns for him, while reading through some of the Ayn Rand novels he says he loves so much. Of the 100+ admins of English Wikipedia all that are not either apolitical or far-right crazies can be counted on a hand, a hand missing some fingers at that. He usually stays out of Wikipedia day-to-day stuff, but has deigned to come in and drive off left-wing users (and admins, the few there have been, somehow) with nasty e-mails.

If you want to see real grassroots, Indymedia is grassroots. Grassroots is not just a technology, it is a process, and the two are intertwined more than one might see initially. Every Indymedia center is autonomous, and has many individuals contributing to it, if some millionaire comes down and sees that and says it is "very far left", well, I don't even know what the hell a millionaire would think of as very far left, probably everybody outside of his yacht club.

Anyone can post to Indymedia, so it is about as "biased" as Slashdot forums are. Different Indymedia's have different moderation policies, administrators have the option of "hiding" posts, which is like making them have a score of -1, people can still read them, if they want. Some IMC's have user rankings, although they're not up to Slashdot's technical level yet. It really depends on which IMC it is - some of them do no moderation, some of them do more than others. If you don't like it, you can start your own one, there are two in the Bay Area because they disagree over different things such as those policies (and they have enough volunteers in the Bay Area that they can have two IMCs).

Anyone with eyes can see what's happening here. There is a fiscally conservative corporate media but people get fed up with it. Community groups and volunteers start Independent Media Centers, started by, run by and controlled by the community. In walks a millionaire and plops down a lot of money and servers and says what grassroots organizations have done is "very far left" and his will be "neutral" compared to that - I'm not sure how far right a millionaires version of neutral is when he considers the open IMC newswire "very far left".

I'm really not sure of what the point of all of this will be, it's just going to end up being a rehash of the major news stories. It will be combining different sources and rewriting it so it will be GFDL, so that's one small good thing. This whole thing seems stupid, either go to corporate news or Indymedia, this millionaire wanting you to work for him for free while he *subtly* retains editorial control is a joke. Just watch Fox News if you like that, or go on Indymedia if you like that.

Isn't the point of a Wiki News site... by SuperKendall · 2005-01-07 16:47 · Score: 1

its writers probably aren't going to be flying to Fallouja to report first-hand, so all they'll have to contribute is their own opinions about the news.

Isn't the point of a Wiki news site that you might not have to fly there, because someone on the ground in the region could comment on the story?

I don't know how often that will happen, but it seems like a distinct possibility given the amount of real news you can pull from blogs. Perhaps news will be people picking through blogs from topical events looking for a range of reports to coalesce. Basically like treating the blog world as a giant AP, which all is most news sources use much of the time anyway.

You have good points though about the permanent value - something like a WikiNews site needs people working it day in and day out to be valuable, where a WikiPedia can build up over time. Still, even enough rotating news posters could create a range of interesting stories over time.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Why doesn't the author post something somewhere? by SuperKendall · 2005-01-07 16:58 · Score: 1

If the author cared so much about getting the information out, why does he not have a web site proclaiming what he was saying? How did you happen to get a copy of the letter anyway?

I agree with the others that your second-hand post of first hand material does not equal posting first-hand material. The whole Dan Rather document fiasco should have tought everyone that if nothing else, you need original documents if possible (and in this case it is possible).

A more careful prepared bit of material linking to more reputable sources would probably stay in.

I would also have to say that I think Wikipedia entries (meant to stay for a long time) should under no circumstances link to pages as capricious as Geocities hosted sites. Even if it had stayed in WikiPedia, what would have been the good of it when the site ran out of bandwidth? You would have broken that entry.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Learn to think by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 17:24 · Score: 0

and thanks for proving the point about trolls.

It's rather fascinating by Baldrson · 2005-01-07 17:31 · Score: 1

Its interesting that none of the people attacking my credibility have provided identifying information on themselves.

Well, I take that back. There is a single exception: "Zippy". He provides a rather valuable set of data in addition to his real name. He's:

A "Wikipedia administrator" and
Employed "at Applied Minds with Danny Hillis"

He deserves credit for being the most honest of my ad hominem detractors.

--
Seastead this.

This was pre-Web. by Baldrson · 2005-01-07 18:05 · Score: 1

The legislative language was finalized in 1992 and the letter was not sent until mid 1995 -- before most people were aware of the www. Shortly thereafter Dr. Bussard entered a series of health crises. Consider yourself lucky you've read this.

--
Seastead this.

Re:This was pre-Web. by PatrickThomson · 2005-01-08 00:47 · Score: 1

How handy.

--
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.

it's like that in every large online forum by Cryofan · 2005-01-07 18:11 · Score: 1

I have seen the same things you describe as happening in Indymedia, happening in every other large online politcal forum. There is a group dynamic that takes over and bullying and banning becomes the order to the day. THe moderators and admins allow longtime regulars to gang up on newcomners and less frequent posters. Banning and gang-down-modding often is a consequence.

It probably has something to do with regulars making donations to the operating funds of the forums.

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

Re:it's like that in every large online forum by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 19:23 · Score: 1

I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that that stuff happens in every forum. It's certainly true that some fora are carefully constructed echo chambers. While Charles Johnson is a great guy, personally, the character of his Web site has turned it into a place that's very hostile to discussion. And Jeralyn Merritt actively seeks out and removes dissenting opinions from her site, saying with pride that she's only interested in hearing the opinions of people who agree with her.

So you've got some cases where sites sort of become echo chambers despite their operators' intent, and some cases where they are coldly and deliberately turned into echo chambers through judicious application of the delete key.

But it's not true that that's ubiquitous.

Ironically, you know where the best discussions are happening right now? Politically conservative sites. During the election cycle, politically liberal sites slowly devolved into a "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" mindset, ironically squeezing out anybody who even remotely disagreed with them. A lot of conservative sites, on the other hand, seem to have a "hey, let's talk this over" vibe. Which is exactly the opposite of what we're all told to expect.

Funny old world, huh?

Re:biased facts by ExMember · 2005-01-07 18:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

You can also introduce bias by choosing which facts to include and which to leave out.

Police responded to a 911 emergency call at 123 Maple Ave yesterday. Arriving at the scene they found three dead from shotgun wounds. When questioned by police, Raymond Maynard admitted to committing the shootings. Mr. Maynard claims to have fired in self-defense, but every one of his victims was shot more than once, aand at close range from Maynard's 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun.

A police spokemen has already stated they do not expect to file charges against Maynard.

The families of the deceased are barred from filing wrongful death suits by new bill recently signed into law by Governor Letgodsortemout. The bill was widely denounced by concerned citizen groups.

This is fun. Let's try it again.

Raymond Maynard, the 48 year old homeowner and 23 year resident of 123 Maple Ave. dialed 911 yesterday at 3:22am to report an attempted invasion of his home in progress. When the police finally made it to the scene they found that the intruders, all convicted felons with violent records, had already entered the Maynard home. Maynard reports that he was able to repel the armed invaders with the help of a shotgun he keeps in his house for defense. All three intruders were found dead on the scene from multiple shotgun wounds.

Maynard's wife of 30 years, Edith Maynard, 49, and his 8 year old niece Emma Freely were both in the house at the time of the incident. They were visibly shaken, but unharmed. Emma still intends to perform in her ballet recital tommorrow night.

Maynard will recieve a special commendation from the neighborhood watch group he has captained for the past five years, in a ceremony Thursday night.

Instances of home invasion have dropped 62% in the fist year alone, since the city mandated each homeowner be armed.

Same story. Nothing but the facts, but very different slants.

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by queef_latina · 2005-01-07 18:29 · Score: 1

"This whole thing seems stupid, either go to corporate news or Indymedia ... Just watch Fox News if you like that, or go on Indymedia if you like that."

I have a cool link that you might want to check out

--
Slashdotters: You are all a bunch of faggots.

Do you hear me, you repulsive faggots? NO DIGG.

A challenge to my detractors by Baldrson · 2005-01-07 18:43 · Score: 1

If you twerps want to really get my goat, why don't you get a notarized letter from Robert W. Bussard at Energy Matter Conversion Corporation denouncing the letter I report him as having sent to Congress and the research labs around the country. I've gone far enough out of my way to make it falsifiable. Do your Popperian duty and contact him at the address of his company, Energy Matter Conversion Corporation, as reported by a government contracting awards list website:

Energy/Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2)
9705 Carroll Center Road
Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92126-6505

I know if I get a notarized letter it will do me no good because you'll just say I fabricated it like the kooks you are.

--
Seastead this.

Re:A challenge to my detractors by snorklewacker · 2005-01-08 05:29 · Score: 1

I don't need a notarized letter, kook, I just need a public statement. Or any statement that might serve to bolster the claim rather than contradict it. Why should we pester the poor fellow because one dumbass kook told us to?

--
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot

"I'm being censored!!" -battle cry of a wikinutter by deglr6328 · 2005-01-07 19:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

I feel I should chime in here, as the person who originally removed the geocities links from the article.

I removed the link because; number one - wikipedia does not publish original research, two -Jim Baldrson has been a known trollish crazy on Kuro5hin for years and a troll on Usenet for over a DECADE landing himself on a kook-of-the-month list way back in 1994, three -The ideas expressed on his geocities site (which is down now but I'll link anyway, maybe it'll be back up) are just plain insane. Here's a real gem: "Immigration Causes Autism" a lovely little racist tract (also, racist extremists endorse his views), fourth -he started editing wikipedia articles in suspicious anti-semitic and racist ways (see here, though these are merely revivals of his MANY earlier anti-Jewish ramblings) though his changes were reverted by other users fairly quickly, fifth -he seems to go "underground" when he's noticed by others as a problem and then starts posting changes to articles using only his IP. So in conclusion I think its quite clear that neither he nor his ideas or motives are trustworthy. He is closely watched on wikipedia right now and I doubt he will get away with too much shenanigans.

One hilarious bit of irony I can't help but relish is that he came here to cry a river about how he was being "censored" on wikipedia and then had four +5 comments posted below him agreeing with his opposition after recognizing him for the kook he is. Wow, congrats Jim!

--
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 19:12 · Score: 0

Wow. When did having money make someone the devil incarnate?

You speak like someone who has been successful can't possibly be down to earth. Millionaire isn't a dirty word. Stop treating it like it is.

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 19:21 · Score: 0

Oh, come on. I'm on the dovish liberal left, but Indymedia makes the lot of us look like a set of complete loons.

Sure, in theory, it can be "unbiased," in practice, it's a left-wing LGF, due to the systemic groupthink installed in it.

Wikipedia / wikinews / wiki* slashdot template by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 19:23 · Score: 0

a. I started wiki* because I wanted to save the world.
b. Evil conservative came in an put in content that wasn't up to my liberal ideals
c. Others agreed with the evil conservitive that my views were too liberally biased
d. I became sad
e. I quit wiki*
f. I gave www.*news*.net this interview

And "deglr6328" is a liar to boot. by Baldrson · 2005-01-07 19:26 · Score: 2, Funny

To the best of my knowledge the last time I posted anything anonymously was the Plato network circa 1980 when I did a bit of fiction under a pseudonym. Since then everything has been easily identifiable as the person I am -- in stark contrast to "deglr6328" who, for all we know, may be a refugee from The People's Temple. I think I know who is posting as IP 164.116.47.178 but I did not consult with said person concerning the fusion power article prior to his/her editing of that article.

As to the rest of his ad hominem attack, my challenge still stands: falsify the quite readily falsifiable claim of presenting a genuine letter from Robert W. Bussard, co-founder of the United States fusion energy program, denouncing, as an originator of that program, the Tokamak.

--
Seastead this.

Re:biased facts by Leo+McGarry · 2005-01-07 19:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

You have an interesting understanding of the word "facts."

I've always said that the obvious slant found in most newspaper articles should be attributed not to any systematic imposition of bias but simply to the fact that most newspaper and wire service reporters couldn't write themselves out of a paper bag if you gave them a really sharp pencil.

If you're a lousy writer, but your job is to design jet engines or something, that's fine. But if your job is to write and you're a lousy writer, we have a problem.

But whichever it is, here's a friendly tip for you: Words like "claims" and "denounced" and "finally" and "repel" and "invaders" don't belong in a story that runs under the headline "nothing but the facts."

Baldrson calls someone else a kook by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 20:55 · Score: 0

Mark this day in history!

Re:Why doesn't the author post something somewhere by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 20:56 · Score: 0

The letter was originally directed at some GOP congressional leaders. What is important is what this means a few years later.

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 21:17 · Score: 0

Indymedia hides posts from grassroots right wing activist groups like ProtestWarrior all the time. While anyone can post on Indymedia, try posting endorsing a right wing group, you'll be censored in minutes (literally).

No falsification? I thought not. by Baldrson · 2005-01-07 21:20 · Score: 1

You still lack the crucial letter of falsification, yet yammer you must. That fits the description of a "kook" quite well.

--
Seastead this.

Re:"I'm being censored!!" -battle cry of a wikinut by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 21:22 · Score: 0

Jim, believe it or not, actually has friends and supporters. The document on his website _does_ appear to be real(or at least Jim thinks it is real and it probably would hold up as evidence in a court of law). That is the _real_ question here: is a primary source(not original research) appropriate to support a claim for a wikipedia article? It isn't like this thing is a "holy relic", it is a letter that was purportedly sent by Bob Bussard to some congressional folks, around an issue that hte press doesn't care very much about at all--and letters are explicity suggested in the wikipedia article to which you referrred as an example of appopriate sources. Whatever you think about Bowery, Bowery _did_ testify before congress(this is documented in the congressional record)-so he had some contracts with other folks interested in scientific policy. This wouldn't be the first time that some "non-mainstream" folks got heard on this kind of issue-simply because many of the "mainstream" folks of repute don't want to risk their reputation dealing with a topic around which there are a lot of unknowns. There are a certain number of "racists" that are prominent in scientific/technical circles-Shockley, Lindbergh come to mind.

According to yoahoo people search, there are two Robert Bussard's in California:

Santa Clarita, CA (661) 296-3698

541 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA (858) 350-0438

Why don't you consider calling these and see if either of them are _the_ Bob Bussard? Would you have the guts to apologize if it turns out the letter is real?

I see nothing in your post that shows Bowery is a liar or untrustworthy. He may be _wrong_ at times-and certainly many of his ideas are not mainstream. However, your paranoid, untested claims throw into question your own character.

Garbage by Baldrson · 2005-01-07 21:26 · Score: 1

How do you answer a charge that this is simply grab for attention when instead of providing these supposedly corroborating sources

The corroborating sources are provided.

The name of the company is on the letter head. The company still exists. The name of the author is given. The name of the person who handed me the letter is given. The names of the Congressional recipients are given. All of these are public figures.

--
Seastead this.

Re:"I'm being censored!!" -battle cry of a wikinut by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-07 21:38 · Score: 0

Who do you think you're fooling jim? Shit, are you that much of a pathetic twat that you think posting anon. in support of your own previous posts is going to make people think "ooh look this guy agrees with him!". I don't even want to begin to imagine how much of an unbelievably huge looser you must be to do these things.

Take an average by sammyo · 2005-01-08 02:12 · Score: 1

Do both extremes hate you? Good, close enough.

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 02:27 · Score: 0

Regardless of how IndyMedia is theoretically set up, the final result is what is interesting. Whatever the intentions originally were, IndyMedia has become little more than an outlet for people that believe that putting a bandana over your head and lobbing a molitov cocktail at a police officer is acceptable and justifiable behavior.

Fox News sucks. Indymedia sucks. Maybe WikiNews will be better.

Cause-Effect by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 02:41 · Score: 0

If the authorities can bring to a protest march:

- Police in body armour, with shields and other heavy equipment and weapons.
- Water cannons and tear gas.
- Armoured cars.
- Or even the Army.
How serious is it then to tell people to bring a brick?

Now, do people take bricks because the authorities bring police, tear gas, etc?
Or is it more likely that the authorities bring police, tear gas, etc, because some people take bricks?

Re:Cause-Effect by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 03:08 · Score: 0

You'd be surprised.

Futurama Reference by ragingtory · 2005-01-08 02:43 · Score: 1

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold, power, or was he just born with a cold heart full of neutrality?

He recovered but he didn't become a web presence. by Baldrson · 2005-01-08 02:49 · Score: 1

This isn't convenient for my detractors. He recovered. It certainly would not have been conveneint for those who genuinely care about history were he to have died, as the document is genuine, very valuable and apparently in dispute for reasons that are not related to the content of the document but the unpopularity of another associated person's views.

However, I can believe that he might not want to waste time with the www after an experience like that since he's got funding and not much time before he needs to retire. I can especially believe he might not want to waste time with characters putting themselves out as "wikipedians" if they are at all represented by the "contributors" to the fusion power article and this thread here at /..

--
Seastead this.

I can see only one problem with this... by Momoru · 2005-01-08 03:33 · Score: 1

Grandma and Grandpa will call and tell me they were checking WikiNews, and did I hear that Sollog is our new overlord?

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 04:03 · Score: 0

The truth is that I do not want "grassroots" - I want unbiased. Fox News fails miserably in this regard, and so does IndyMedia. If grassroots media like Indymedia could provide it, then that would be great. Unfortunately, it does not - instead of hearing right wing loonies, we get a bunch of left wing loonies. Read IndyMedia watch if you want to no more about this cesspool of journalism that is IndyMedia.

You just invalidated your own point... by Baldrson · 2005-01-08 04:16 · Score: 1

"I don't trust your medical opinion because you've said previously that AIDs could be transmitted through tears" is not ad hominem.

Fine. So let's come up with the analogous statement here:

"I don't trust your corroborating sources listed in the primary historical document because..."????

You sure are a long way from showing evidence that Robert Bussard, Robert Johnson or any of the Congressmen are untrustworthy -- as you must for your argument to be applicable. Cited sources presented by wikipedia contributors whose identity, let alone personal credibility, is open to question doesn't just make up a _lot_ of wikipedia's content -- it makes up _most_ of wikipedia's content.

--
Seastead this.

Re:You just invalidated your own point... by be-fan · 2005-01-08 09:01 · Score: 1

"I don't trust your corroborating sources listed in the primary historical document because..."????

It's not quite the same. Better:

"I don't trust *you* to provide accurate primary historical documents without third-part corroborating sources."

Ie: When I run md5sum on some Linux software, it's not that I distrust the people who released the software, rather, I distrust the vector through which I acquired the software.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:You just invalidated your own point... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 18:25 · Score: 0

You may have a rather different value system than Baldrson. However, what makes you think Baldrson is unreliable as a witness of facts to which he had direct experience?

The Uncivil Never Apologize by Baldrson · 2005-01-08 04:33 · Score: 1

Would you have the guts to apologize if it turns out the letter is real?

Civil behavior from these people?

I sincerely doubt they would apologize under any circumstance other than the world transforming into a place where my opinions and speculations were considered mainstream -- in which case they would just go with the flow as they are doing now and maybe "confess their sins" since they seem incapable of anything but religiousity.

--
Seastead this.

Contact the cited sources by Baldrson · 2005-01-08 04:39 · Score: 1

Why is your case different? Well, possibly because your document is real, but how can I tell?

There are multiple corroborators mentioned not the least of which is the author of the letter himself who, unlike Gates, is likely to be accessible.

--
Seastead this.

Let's see what aspect of your argument is valid? by Baldrson · 2005-01-08 04:52 · Score: 1

Is my presentation of some strange correlations with McVeigh's activities -- not even offering any theories therefore -- grounds for discounting a cited primary historical document? If so -- how?

Is the fact that a site has limited bandwidth grounds to ignore a cited primary historical document there hosted? If so -- why?

Is a founder of the Tokamak program denouncing the program he started just another "bitter blood feud" for which "Fusion power research is known"? If so, are the other such situations, outside of the Tokamak, in which a founder of a technical approach has put his reputation on the line to denounce the program he originated?

Is your claim that I believe there are thousands of scientists working on a massive conspiracy grounds for actually believing that I hold to such a theory? If so, where is the documentation of my conspiracy theory of fusion power research -- as opposed to my theory -- often stated -- that incentives drive behavior and bad incentives drive bad behavior among the unethical?

--
Seastead this.

You fail to see the big picture by brunes69 · 2005-01-08 04:56 · Score: 1

Why would A Wikinews writer even fly over to Faluja when someone who *lives in* Faluja can give a first hand report?

This is what is blatantly missing from big media, and why WikiNews will succeed. A big media journalist flys into the middle of a conflict (often at least 24 hours after it has begun - too late!), and starts reporting. However, he doesn't *live* there. The people who live and work in the area should be the ones filing the reports. They are the ones with first-hand access to the information.

Sure, there is bias when locals do the reporting. But it is no different than the bias that occurs when a foreigner does the reporting, it is just usually the opposite side of the bias. This way you get both sides of the story and a more balanced viewpoint than you ever would by relying on big media alone.

Re:You fail to see the big picture by bcrowell · 2005-01-08 10:12 · Score: 1

Why would A Wikinews writer even fly over to Faluja when someone who *lives in* Faluja can give a first hand report?
Say a professional reporter from France flies to Fallouja and sends back news from there. This has a lot of advantages, IMO. The reporter is good at writing. The reporter is educated. The reporter is willing to take risks and work hard to get a story.
I really can't imagine how a person living in Fallouja could possibly contribute to wikinews. I doubt that there is any internet access in Fallouja. The people there are probably busy trying to put food on the table and keep from getting killed, not sitting in front of a computer. Very few of them can write well in English, and, sorry, I don't read Arabic. And assuming we could get over all those hurdles, experience with wikipedia leads me to believe that any such post to wikinews would lead to an instant flame war and revert war.

--
Find free books.

Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 05:23 · Score: 0

I've yet to hear any person off slashdot use those words in that way. Why do you want to become an advertising vehicle for those corporate giants???

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 05:30 · Score: 0

You speak like someone who has been successful can't possibly be down to earth. Millionaire isn't a dirty word. Stop treating it like it is.

People with lots of money have different interests to people with less money. In many cases their interests are diametrically opposed. People generally act out of self-interest and their actions are generally influenced by their position in society. Wales doesn't have to be an evil monster in order to be biased by his background.

Then you should be satisfied. by Baldrson · 2005-01-08 05:43 · Score: 1

The statement was certainly public enough since he sent it to all the major congressmen and major national and university labs -- who then copied and forwarded it to farflung colleagues.

The real question for you little shits to face:

What does it mean when the mainstream sources of vital historical information miss something like this while someone like myself provides it?

--
Seastead this.

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by br00tus · 2005-01-08 07:26 · Score: 1

There's no such thing as unbiased.

Re:Wales the millionaire calling Indymedia far-lef by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-08 07:42 · Score: 0

Fair enough; in that case, I want my news to be as unbiased is possible. And news sources like Fox and IndyMedia are probably the most biased news sources out there.

It's hard for Wikinews not to succeed by danila · 2005-01-08 09:57 · Score: 1

I think the only problem for Wikinews could be the simple lack of contributors. They are not paying enough to have fulltime writers/editors, so they need many times more contributors than a newspaper or even a news agency.

The knowledge, the bias, these are all non-issues. It's hard to do worse than the mainstream media does. Nobody does factchecking and original research anyway, it's either from the wire or just printing a press release almost verbatime. There are of course some interviews, editorials and in depth coverage, but for 90% of the content you don't need any skill, talent or contacts.

And the biggest problem of all news outlets, the studpidity and ignorance, can be easily fixed the Wiki way.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Grassroots is not necessarily good... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-09 05:24 · Score: 0

The KKK was a grassroots movement, founded by grassroots southern whites trying to stop the Radical Republicans and their agenda of racial equality.

And they were successful for almost a century at maintaining segregation.

Baghdad Burning by Pan+T.+Hose · 2005-01-09 08:03 · Score: 1

I really can't imagine how a person living in Fallouja could possibly contribute to wikinews. I doubt that there is any internet access in Fallouja. The people there are probably busy trying to put food on the table and keep from getting killed, not sitting in front of a computer. Very few of them can write well in English, and, sorry, I don't read Arabic.

See Baghdad Burning.

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

Slashdot Mirror

WikiPedia Founder Wales Speaks About Wikinews

246 comments