First, it will be too unwieldy for wide-spread use, and will fade into history. Second, it will be useful and will be incorporated into typical Wikipedia reference activity, and then the bitches of the world will start locking down articles in order to game the program.
We should all hope with all our hearts that SlimVirgin really is Linda Mack. (I would put the odds of this at 95%+, so don't get too worked up.)
But if SlimVirgin is NOT Linda Mack, then she is someone on whose account: alumni information at Cambridge was created and then deleted; contact was made with a former colleague of Linda Mack asking that he make no further disclosures of information about her after his discussion with Daniel Brandt; and most ominously, the real Linda Mack has "declined" to come forward and deny the link, which, given what an a$$hole SlimVirgin has been to so many people, would probably be a very prudent thing for her to do (please note this if you are reading, real Linda Mack). And probably a dozen other minor disinformation efforts.
In short, if SlimVirgin is NOT Linda Mack, she's probably part of a large and potentially dangerous conspiracy.
Quadraginta, you clearly don't know anything about how US Presidential Elections work, nor do you care about anyone who has been killed in the Iraq War.
The reason children are supposed to be seen but not heard is not so much for the convenience of adults as it is so that the children will not embarrass themselves in ways that they may long regret. Please think about that before you post again.
Dan, I'll defer to your superior knowledge of Superman.
But there are a couple of points to be made here.
First, Durova is either a moderately skilled liar or a very poor logician/observer of facts. And, let me be clear, I don't mean to be personal here, except with my comments about that worthless piece of crap Jimmy Wales - I hope Durova doesn't take things so seriously that she can't have fun reading my comments.
Anyway, in just my brief exchange with her, she has gone from an insistence that there was no change to article history, with an invitation to show a "reliable source" indicating otherwise, to insisting (based on crap logic) that it is "highly doubtful" that the changes to article history that turned out to be there after all have anything to do with the claims made, somehow sidestepping the information provided to her elsewhere that Jayjg and Linda Mack/SlimVirgin are "on reasonably friendly terms" and that "the two do seem to co-operate in controversial areas quite a bit." I believe it was John Meynard Keynes who first said, "When the facts change, I change my opinion - what do you do, sir?"
But I really do admire Durova's tone. She has an excellent tone for lying. She is matter-of-fact, unemotional in her presentation. The most important thing in successful lying is feigning indifference, and Durova has that mastered very well in her tone. The energy she has put to presenting the same conclusion to a changing set of facts, however, betrays that something other than indifference is at work with her. You should take that into account more when you lie in the future, Lise.
Second, consider the process here: truly open discussion. Sometimes insulting, sometimes profane, but uncensored. On Wikipedia, probably I would have been admonished for making a personal attack the first time I suggested that Durova's conclusion might be wrong, and I likely would have been banned if I insisted that her clearly pathetic logic not be accepted as irrefutable truth, with a half-dozen other sysops jumping in to express their outrage that I would dare to suggest that Durova's "logic" sucks, which obviously it does.
Now Durova has apparently decided that open discussion is not really her cup of tea. I sort of wonder if she didn't get some contact from other Wikipedia sysops - maybe one Linda Mack! - indicating that she wasn't moving forward "the agenda" in her comments here, and that perhaps she should retire to the frightfully inbred understanding of the truth that persists at Wikipedia.
But, supposing that our interest is in finding the truth, is there not some value in truly open discussion, even with all the insults and profanity? Which begs the question, why does someone like Linda Mack do so much - from blocking editors to blanking talk pages - to avoid truly open discussion? Good God, why was WCityMike ass-raped at Wikipedia like he was?
Man, I thought Linda Mack was a bitch even before I saw this. This is Kafka-esque. Is that c%&t Jimmy Wales around to see this? Damn, I've heard of people owning articles at Wikipedia, but this bitch takes over people's personal talk pages. And the prick FeloniusMonk decides that he doesn't want to be involved in an arbitration dispute WHERE HE IS BEING ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING, and the moronic administration of F*^kyoupedia is perfectly okay with that.
Jimmy, you kucking funt! Maybe the coked-up porn models you dealt with at Bomis put up with this kind of s#!t, but the real world isn't like porn. Jimmy, it just isn't. It's not okay in the real world to let your underlings force people to blow them before hearing grievances.
"Excellent Wikipedia administrator!" You should go back to the porn, Jimmy.
I doubt that Linda Mack is currently working directly for any intelligence agencies. They might use her, as needed, but she's too screwy for any reasonable organization to rely on her. Nor is SlimVirgin's real identity an indication of any wrongdoing on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin's wrongdoing on Wikipedia is in her abuse of Admin authority, her thoroughly uncivil behavior, and her use of these transgressions in controlling content. That she is in fact discredited former journalist Linda Mack only adds some background to her misbehavior, as well as dispelling the cloak of anonymity behind which she has operated.
That Jimbo Wales has overlooked the many, many complaints about SlimVirgin and others is probably due to him pursuing his own secret agenda: figuring out how to get some coin out of the contraption that is Wikipedia. Had he really believed in the hippy-ish notions of free information that he so often parrots (notions probably contrary to his self-professed following of Ayn Rand's sophistry), he would likely have been very alarmed at suggestions that his "encyclopedia" was being manipulated to promote outside agendas; instead, he apparently was more worried about collecting receipts somehow after the early idea of selling advertising on Wikipedia was shot down by editors. Sadly, when Wikipedia could have used a principled leader, it instead had a human cash register.
Jimmy, you've been looking the other way while your Wikipedia project has been going up in smoke. SlimVirgin/Linda Mack is an unbalanced control freak with an agenda to push. Multiple agendas, really. But to you, she's "an excellent Wikipedia administrator."
Pierre Salinger, who only gave her a job, a platform, resources and instant credibility, decided that he couldn't trust this duplicitous bitch. But you think Wikipedia can because -- ?
It's because you're a dumb-ass, Jimmy. It's possible that systemic problems with the wiki format will always lead to a wiki becoming crap if it expands too much, but your stewardship has actively advanced destructive forces at Wikipedia. You should've stuck with the porn, Jimmy. Instead, you've made yourself permanently associated with a crap enterprise; Jimmy, you're the Ahab of the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
First, it will be too unwieldy for wide-spread use, and will fade into history. Second, it will be useful and will be incorporated into typical Wikipedia reference activity, and then the bitches of the world will start locking down articles in order to game the program.
We should all hope with all our hearts that SlimVirgin really is Linda Mack. (I would put the odds of this at 95%+, so don't get too worked up.)
But if SlimVirgin is NOT Linda Mack, then she is someone on whose account: alumni information at Cambridge was created and then deleted; contact was made with a former colleague of Linda Mack asking that he make no further disclosures of information about her after his discussion with Daniel Brandt; and most ominously, the real Linda Mack has "declined" to come forward and deny the link, which, given what an a$$hole SlimVirgin has been to so many people, would probably be a very prudent thing for her to do (please note this if you are reading, real Linda Mack). And probably a dozen other minor disinformation efforts.
In short, if SlimVirgin is NOT Linda Mack, she's probably part of a large and potentially dangerous conspiracy.
Better that she be Linda Mack.
Quadraginta, you clearly don't know anything about how US Presidential Elections work, nor do you care about anyone who has been killed in the Iraq War.
The reason children are supposed to be seen but not heard is not so much for the convenience of adults as it is so that the children will not embarrass themselves in ways that they may long regret. Please think about that before you post again.
Dan, I'll defer to your superior knowledge of Superman.
i a:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=5319613 6#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.2 80.2F2.2F0.2F0.29
But there are a couple of points to be made here.
First, Durova is either a moderately skilled liar or a very poor logician/observer of facts. And, let me be clear, I don't mean to be personal here, except with my comments about that worthless piece of crap Jimmy Wales - I hope Durova doesn't take things so seriously that she can't have fun reading my comments.
Anyway, in just my brief exchange with her, she has gone from an insistence that there was no change to article history, with an invitation to show a "reliable source" indicating otherwise, to insisting (based on crap logic) that it is "highly doubtful" that the changes to article history that turned out to be there after all have anything to do with the claims made, somehow sidestepping the information provided to her elsewhere that Jayjg and Linda Mack/SlimVirgin are "on reasonably friendly terms" and that "the two do seem to co-operate in controversial areas quite a bit." I believe it was John Meynard Keynes who first said, "When the facts change, I change my opinion - what do you do, sir?"
But I really do admire Durova's tone. She has an excellent tone for lying. She is matter-of-fact, unemotional in her presentation. The most important thing in successful lying is feigning indifference, and Durova has that mastered very well in her tone. The energy she has put to presenting the same conclusion to a changing set of facts, however, betrays that something other than indifference is at work with her. You should take that into account more when you lie in the future, Lise.
Second, consider the process here: truly open discussion. Sometimes insulting, sometimes profane, but uncensored. On Wikipedia, probably I would have been admonished for making a personal attack the first time I suggested that Durova's conclusion might be wrong, and I likely would have been banned if I insisted that her clearly pathetic logic not be accepted as irrefutable truth, with a half-dozen other sysops jumping in to express their outrage that I would dare to suggest that Durova's "logic" sucks, which obviously it does.
Now Durova has apparently decided that open discussion is not really her cup of tea. I sort of wonder if she didn't get some contact from other Wikipedia sysops - maybe one Linda Mack! - indicating that she wasn't moving forward "the agenda" in her comments here, and that perhaps she should retire to the frightfully inbred understanding of the truth that persists at Wikipedia.
But, supposing that our interest is in finding the truth, is there not some value in truly open discussion, even with all the insults and profanity? Which begs the question, why does someone like Linda Mack do so much - from blocking editors to blanking talk pages - to avoid truly open discussion? Good God, why was WCityMike ass-raped at Wikipedia like he was?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiped
Let me see if I can use the same logical form:
A. Superman is weakened by kryptonite.
B. Kryptonite is green.
C. Lex Luther's favorite color is red.
Therefore, it is "highly doubtful" that Lex Luther is responsible for Superman being poisoned by kryptonite.
How did I do?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007 -July/078241.html
7 -July/078242.html
Or this?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/200
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedi a:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=5319613 6#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.2 80.2F2.2F0.2F0.29
Man, I thought Linda Mack was a bitch even before I saw this. This is Kafka-esque. Is that c%&t Jimmy Wales around to see this? Damn, I've heard of people owning articles at Wikipedia, but this bitch takes over people's personal talk pages. And the prick FeloniusMonk decides that he doesn't want to be involved in an arbitration dispute WHERE HE IS BEING ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING, and the moronic administration of F*^kyoupedia is perfectly okay with that.
Jimmy, you kucking funt! Maybe the coked-up porn models you dealt with at Bomis put up with this kind of s#!t, but the real world isn't like porn. Jimmy, it just isn't. It's not okay in the real world to let your underlings force people to blow them before hearing grievances.
"Excellent Wikipedia administrator!" You should go back to the porn, Jimmy.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=fe0aed1f75c 97449f83f7c37d4a85e37&showtopic=10991&view=findpos t&p=39104
I doubt that Linda Mack is currently working directly for any intelligence agencies. They might use her, as needed, but she's too screwy for any reasonable organization to rely on her. Nor is SlimVirgin's real identity an indication of any wrongdoing on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin's wrongdoing on Wikipedia is in her abuse of Admin authority, her thoroughly uncivil behavior, and her use of these transgressions in controlling content. That she is in fact discredited former journalist Linda Mack only adds some background to her misbehavior, as well as dispelling the cloak of anonymity behind which she has operated.
That Jimbo Wales has overlooked the many, many complaints about SlimVirgin and others is probably due to him pursuing his own secret agenda: figuring out how to get some coin out of the contraption that is Wikipedia. Had he really believed in the hippy-ish notions of free information that he so often parrots (notions probably contrary to his self-professed following of Ayn Rand's sophistry), he would likely have been very alarmed at suggestions that his "encyclopedia" was being manipulated to promote outside agendas; instead, he apparently was more worried about collecting receipts somehow after the early idea of selling advertising on Wikipedia was shot down by editors. Sadly, when Wikipedia could have used a principled leader, it instead had a human cash register.
Original appointment: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005 -July/026675.html
Second appointment: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006 -January/037980.html
Election results prior to second appointment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mathbot/Results
ADL deals with content control; AIPAC has its hands full with Congress control.
Jimmy, you've been looking the other way while your Wikipedia project has been going up in smoke. SlimVirgin/Linda Mack is an unbalanced control freak with an agenda to push. Multiple agendas, really. But to you, she's "an excellent Wikipedia administrator." Pierre Salinger, who only gave her a job, a platform, resources and instant credibility, decided that he couldn't trust this duplicitous bitch. But you think Wikipedia can because -- ? It's because you're a dumb-ass, Jimmy. It's possible that systemic problems with the wiki format will always lead to a wiki becoming crap if it expands too much, but your stewardship has actively advanced destructive forces at Wikipedia. You should've stuck with the porn, Jimmy. Instead, you've made yourself permanently associated with a crap enterprise; Jimmy, you're the Ahab of the Internet.