Wikipedians as a culture have a habitual weakness of assuming that everyone who contributes is Joe-Schmoe-from-Iowa-in-his-bathrobe. A year ago Jerry Avenaim came to the attention of Wikipedia's featured picture program with this nomination.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Mark_Harmon It was nearly speedily closed until I realized the photographer was an active editor and wrote to request a larger version, and even afterward some editors refused to support because they wanted to change the size requirements. They weren't seeing the significance of getting material from a leading Hollywood portrait photographer.
Last week I was talking to Noam Cohen and mentioned Jerry Avenaim's contributions. Showed him Jerry's Wikipedia volunteer work. Noam loved the idea and apparently Noam's editors did too. Thank you, Slashdot, for also 'getting it'. Let's hope this story encourages more photographers to donate their work.
The WikiScanner automated only one of my most basic sleuthing techniques. People who go out of their way to manipulate the site look that much worse when they get caught.
Why don't you ask Jayjg and Musical Linguist whether their actions had anything to do with SlimVirgin? Those logs took place a full year after her last edit to the page so it's highly doubtful that there was any relation.
If you think the article is biased then by all means balance it with citations from other sources.
And I find it highly unlikely that pure content edits would ever get Oversighted. A typical reason for Oversight is when some child posts a home address; Oversight is done for privacy.
My original reply to this wound up at a different subthread.
What would he have Oversighted at her request? I've already demonstrated that the article author neglected to check the history files and the information he wanted remained available there. No one has pointed to another serious omission at either "Operation Entebbe" or "Pan Am Flight 103". If you know something that ought to be in these articles, go ahead and add it with a line citation to a reliable and verifiable published source.
Supposing everything you say is true (which is like believing unicorns exist), what would he have Oversighted for her?
The basis for the news story is that a professor failed to read a Wikipedia history file. The thing he wanted to find was always available and no one has proposed that anything else went missing. So if something is missing that ought to be there, find a reliable source and add it with a line citation. And if you really want to cover your bases send me a copy of your edit.
I have exactly as many permissions as SlimVirgin has. I'd be able to read any action she had taken. And no, the logs don't clue to Oversight use. I've already explained that.
It's true that I wouldn't be able to see an Oversight action, but Jimbo would and he's already weighed in on this story. It's groundless.
If you really are interested in chasing down improper government edits at Wikipedia, go check up on recent activity from the IP addresses identified in that Wikinews story. I'd be glad to follow up on any well documented report; please supply specific IP addresses and page diffs. I can be contacted on Wikipedia at my user talk page or via Wikipedia's link to my e-mail.
Jimbo's got every level of permission Wikipedia can offer and he's called this whole thing nonsense.
Really, the basis for the story was that one professor misconstrued a page protection and a history file. He could have asked any of nearly 1300 administrators what he was seeing, and in five minutes any of us could have freed up the page and shown him where to find the historical version he wanted. He should have done his homework before writing the piece. And anyone in the world with an Internet connection can confirm that his basic assumptions were wrong.
So now these elaborate conspiracy theories are springing up, all in order to explain exactly what? Nothing's missing from either article. And if you know of something that ought to be there but isn't, find a reliable source and put it in. This isn't the Pentagon Papers; it's Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has two levels of deletion: regular sysop and Oversight. There are good reasons for that but the main point here is that Oversight is in very few hands. Here's the list of Oversight privileges. As you can see, SlimVirgin isn't on it. I could view any action she's taken.
Sorry, that's not a red flag to an Oversight action. I know a few things about how Oversight works. When a pile of edits get deleted that could be a sign that a rank-and-file sysop found something potentially libellous and performed a manual delete. I would have been able to read the deleted version if that had happened, and it didn't.
I'm not sure why those logs appeared, but I suggest you ask the sysops who created them. It's a huge leap to suppose that a couple of log entries by other sysops, at an article that had been edited thousands of times, necessarily mean that admin SlimVirgin is a spy.
Perhaps that's adequate for folks who think NASA faked the moon landings, but for the rest of us human beings who know "The X Files" was fiction, it's a laugh. Or it would be if one very diligent volunteer weren't getting dragged through the mud in the process, and probably also whoever that unfortunate person is who got misidentified as her. The research I can verify on this story is complete hokum. I have no faith in the rest.
As a followup to Jimbo Wales's post I'll set forth some of the reasons why the story is baseless and Slashdot has been trolled.
First, regardless of Dr. De Braeckeleer's credentials, he doesn't know how to read a Wikipedia history file. His piece starts with a complaint that information had vanished, but two or three mouse clicks would have led him to what he wanted in a historical version of the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&diff=137747616&oldid=137745019
Then he jumped to a conclusion that something sinister had happened because the page happened to be edit protected when he read it. Here's a historical version of the page as it appeared at press time, along with the notes of both the protecting administrator (who performed a routine action to quell an editing dispute) and me freeing it up for editing immediately after the story ran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&diff=next&oldid=137748352
I also affirmed at the original story's comment lines that SlimVirgin had never edited the "Operation Entebbe" article. As a sysop I can read deleted edits and nothing has been deleted from that page. The main history file itself is open for viewing for anyone who wants to search for SlimVirgin's username.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&limit=500&action=history
Immediately after I posted those explanations someone came along and said she had edited the "Pan Am Flight 103" article, as if that were relevant to the accessibility of the other article. Okay, she did edit...two full years ago. I've looked up the page with my sysop tools and there are no deleted edits hidden away there. There's nothing sinister in the logs: some edits did get deleted a year ago and fully restored. The Flight 103 article has never even been edit protected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan_Am_F light_103&offset=20060121160944&limit=500&action=h istory
It's not surprising that SlimVirgin edited that page a bit. She's made over 60,000 total edits and she's among the 50 most prolific contributors to Wikipedia. Common sense ought to say that's a lot more activity than a spy would need to engage in, if the aim was to infiltrate the site. And isn't a basic tenet of espionage to keep a low profile? SlimVirgin tussles on policy issues all the time and has sitebanned quite a few rules-violating editors. That's an effective way for an honest volunteer to collect a small army of offsite trolls, but it's a terrible way for a secret agent to keep a cover. If she actually were a spy and I were her boss, I'd be calling her out on the carpet right now.
And for a glimpse of how ineffective they are on a subject that really matters to them, have a look at the "Q clearance" article history. A lot of edits resolve to government IP addresses and claim Wikipedia's image of the badge is illegal.
htt
It's pretty interesting that a school district chooses to block Wikipedia at this time
Over at Wikipedia I'm a sysop and a couple of days ago launched a project where experienced editors offer guidance to teachers and professors who incorporate Wikipedia writing assignments into their classrooms. It gives the students a chance at publication (which is more satisfying than leaving an old term paper to crumble in a drawer) and, we hope, will foster more well cited improvements to the online encyclopedia.
The project is called WikiProject Classroom coordination and its Wikipedia search abbreviation is WP:WPCC.
Parents and educators are welcome to pay us a visit.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedians as a culture have a habitual weakness of assuming that everyone who contributes is Joe-Schmoe-from-Iowa-in-his-bathrobe. A year ago Jerry Avenaim came to the attention of Wikipedia's featured picture program with this nomination.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Mark_Harmon It was nearly speedily closed until I realized the photographer was an active editor and wrote to request a larger version, and even afterward some editors refused to support because they wanted to change the size requirements. They weren't seeing the significance of getting material from a leading Hollywood portrait photographer. Last week I was talking to Noam Cohen and mentioned Jerry Avenaim's contributions. Showed him Jerry's Wikipedia volunteer work. Noam loved the idea and apparently Noam's editors did too. Thank you, Slashdot, for also 'getting it'. Let's hope this story encourages more photographers to donate their work.
You'd think in all these years of bashing Wikipedia they would have checked Wikipedia's core policies before writing the press release.
The WikiScanner automated only one of my most basic sleuthing techniques. People who go out of their way to manipulate the site look that much worse when they get caught.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova/The_dark_side
I've been waiting for this to happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova/The_dark_ side
I deal with this stuff all the time.
Why don't you ask Jayjg and Musical Linguist whether their actions had anything to do with SlimVirgin? Those logs took place a full year after her last edit to the page so it's highly doubtful that there was any relation.
If you think the article is biased then by all means balance it with citations from other sources.
And I find it highly unlikely that pure content edits would ever get Oversighted. A typical reason for Oversight is when some child posts a home address; Oversight is done for privacy.
My original reply to this wound up at a different subthread.
What would he have Oversighted at her request? I've already demonstrated that the article author neglected to check the history files and the information he wanted remained available there. No one has pointed to another serious omission at either "Operation Entebbe" or "Pan Am Flight 103". If you know something that ought to be in these articles, go ahead and add it with a line citation to a reliable and verifiable published source.
Supposing everything you say is true (which is like believing unicorns exist), what would he have Oversighted for her? The basis for the news story is that a professor failed to read a Wikipedia history file. The thing he wanted to find was always available and no one has proposed that anything else went missing. So if something is missing that ought to be there, find a reliable source and add it with a line citation. And if you really want to cover your bases send me a copy of your edit.
I have exactly as many permissions as SlimVirgin has. I'd be able to read any action she had taken. And no, the logs don't clue to Oversight use. I've already explained that. It's true that I wouldn't be able to see an Oversight action, but Jimbo would and he's already weighed in on this story. It's groundless. If you really are interested in chasing down improper government edits at Wikipedia, go check up on recent activity from the IP addresses identified in that Wikinews story. I'd be glad to follow up on any well documented report; please supply specific IP addresses and page diffs. I can be contacted on Wikipedia at my user talk page or via Wikipedia's link to my e-mail.
Jimbo's got every level of permission Wikipedia can offer and he's called this whole thing nonsense.
Really, the basis for the story was that one professor misconstrued a page protection and a history file. He could have asked any of nearly 1300 administrators what he was seeing, and in five minutes any of us could have freed up the page and shown him where to find the historical version he wanted. He should have done his homework before writing the piece. And anyone in the world with an Internet connection can confirm that his basic assumptions were wrong.
So now these elaborate conspiracy theories are springing up, all in order to explain exactly what? Nothing's missing from either article. And if you know of something that ought to be there but isn't, find a reliable source and put it in. This isn't the Pentagon Papers; it's Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has two levels of deletion: regular sysop and Oversight. There are good reasons for that but the main point here is that Oversight is in very few hands. Here's the list of Oversight privileges. As you can see, SlimVirgin isn't on it. I could view any action she's taken.
e rsight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers/ov
Sorry, that's not a red flag to an Oversight action. I know a few things about how Oversight works. When a pile of edits get deleted that could be a sign that a rank-and-file sysop found something potentially libellous and performed a manual delete. I would have been able to read the deleted version if that had happened, and it didn't. I'm not sure why those logs appeared, but I suggest you ask the sysops who created them. It's a huge leap to suppose that a couple of log entries by other sysops, at an article that had been edited thousands of times, necessarily mean that admin SlimVirgin is a spy. Perhaps that's adequate for folks who think NASA faked the moon landings, but for the rest of us human beings who know "The X Files" was fiction, it's a laugh. Or it would be if one very diligent volunteer weren't getting dragged through the mud in the process, and probably also whoever that unfortunate person is who got misidentified as her. The research I can verify on this story is complete hokum. I have no faith in the rest.
As a followup to Jimbo Wales's post I'll set forth some of the reasons why the story is baseless and Slashdot has been trolled.
First, regardless of Dr. De Braeckeleer's credentials, he doesn't know how to read a Wikipedia history file. His piece starts with a complaint that information had vanished, but two or three mouse clicks would have led him to what he wanted in a historical version of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&diff=137747616&oldid=137745019
Then he jumped to a conclusion that something sinister had happened because the page happened to be edit protected when he read it. Here's a historical version of the page as it appeared at press time, along with the notes of both the protecting administrator (who performed a routine action to quell an editing dispute) and me freeing it up for editing immediately after the story ran. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&diff=next&oldid=137748352
I also affirmed at the original story's comment lines that SlimVirgin had never edited the "Operation Entebbe" article. As a sysop I can read deleted edits and nothing has been deleted from that page. The main history file itself is open for viewing for anyone who wants to search for SlimVirgin's username. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&limit=500&action=history
Immediately after I posted those explanations someone came along and said she had edited the "Pan Am Flight 103" article, as if that were relevant to the accessibility of the other article. Okay, she did edit...two full years ago. I've looked up the page with my sysop tools and there are no deleted edits hidden away there. There's nothing sinister in the logs: some edits did get deleted a year ago and fully restored. The Flight 103 article has never even been edit protected. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan_Am_F light_103&offset=20060121160944&limit=500&action=h istory
It's not surprising that SlimVirgin edited that page a bit. She's made over 60,000 total edits and she's among the 50 most prolific contributors to Wikipedia. Common sense ought to say that's a lot more activity than a spy would need to engage in, if the aim was to infiltrate the site. And isn't a basic tenet of espionage to keep a low profile? SlimVirgin tussles on policy issues all the time and has sitebanned quite a few rules-violating editors. That's an effective way for an honest volunteer to collect a small army of offsite trolls, but it's a terrible way for a secret agent to keep a cover. If she actually were a spy and I were her boss, I'd be calling her out on the carpet right now.
Yes, Wikipedia does see some infiltration attempts from the CIA. They dabble in baseball articles and complain that their jobs are boring. Here's a report from Wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_States_Departme nt_of_Justice_workers_among_government_Wikipedia_v andals
And for a glimpse of how ineffective they are on a subject that really matters to them, have a look at the "Q clearance" article history. A lot of edits resolve to government IP addresses and claim Wikipedia's image of the badge is illegal. htt
It's pretty interesting that a school district chooses to block Wikipedia at this time
Over at Wikipedia I'm a sysop and a couple of days ago launched a project where experienced editors offer guidance to teachers and professors who incorporate Wikipedia writing assignments into their classrooms. It gives the students a chance at publication (which is more satisfying than leaving an old term paper to crumble in a drawer) and, we hope, will foster more well cited improvements to the online encyclopedia.
The project is called WikiProject Classroom coordination and its Wikipedia search abbreviation is WP:WPCC.
Parents and educators are welcome to pay us a visit.