| Author |
|
Mark McConnell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: 15 September 2005 at 8:50pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Steve's running for congress? Well, if that ain't progress.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Drew Vin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: 15 September 2005 at 9:00pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
FYI, if anyone is actually wondering who Jesse Baker is, he reviews at comicsnexus.com. This AVENGERS FINALE review: http://www.insidepulse.com/article.php?contentid=29114
He's also known for going around message boards and posting rather inflammatory stuff. Just scroll down to find the post by Baker (or use the "find" option):
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/fanboyrampage/1118167923922 58656/
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Tishman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 July 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: 15 September 2005 at 11:04pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Dave Pruitt wrote:
| Let me address one thing here, the use of real
names. That was something JB insisted on since later in the AOL days,
IIRC, and I think it's good. |
|
|
I think it's fine. However, my point is that it's very, very far from
the norm online, and it's indicative of the distance between the norms
of the JBF and the norms of the rest of the internet. Which isn't to
say anything about one or the other, except that it's a bad idea to
make generalizations about one based on info about the other. The fact
that a lot of people on here don't seem to know about Wikipedia, what
it is, and how it works, can't and shouldn't be taken to mean that
these things are not common knowledge elsewhere.
Matt Hawes wrote:
| The only place I've heard of Wikipedia is in this
forum. I wouldn't have known it existed, otherwise. It's not like it's
a household name, or anything. |
|
|
Well, yeah, it is, actually, among people who spend a fair amount of
time on the internet. The fact that you don't know that is exactly my
point.
Joe Zhang wrote:
| Just because Wikipedia allows anyone to write their
articles does not mean Wikipedia has no obligation to provide accurate
information. |
|
|
Yes, actually, it does mean exactly that. Wikipedia as a community
makes a good faith effort to keep things legit. There are pretty solid
and publically posted policies and guidelines here
and here.
The Wikipedia entry on
Wikipedia says this:
"The status of Wikipedia as reference work has been controversial.
It has been praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide
range of topics, and criticized for alleged systemic biases, preference
of consensus to credentials, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of
accountability and authority when compared with traditional
encyclopedias...
...By the nature of its openness, "edit wars" and prolonged disputes
often occur when editors do not agree.[13] A few members of its
community have explained its editing process as a collaborative work, a
"socially Darwinian evolutionary process"[14], but this is not
generally considered by the community to be an accurate
self-description. Articles are always subject to editing, such that
Wikipedia does not declare any article finished...
...Wikipedia requires that contributors observe a "neutral point of
view" when writing, and not include original research. Neutral point of
view, itself a "non-negotiable" policy,[15] articulates the
encyclopedia's goal as "representing disputes, characterizing them,
rather than engaging in them."[16] If achieved, Wikipedia would not be
written from a single "objective" point-of-view, but would fairly
present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a
neutral way. The policy states that views should be given weight equal
to their popularity. This policy has been criticized as having an
unattainable goal, being unnecessary with widely discredited material,
and allowing the representation of "morally offensive" views...
...Critics argue that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an
unreliable work. Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for
fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the
topics they write about."
Wikipedia is pretty open about what it expects from users, makes no
bones about the problems that may arise with a collaborative model, and
makes a good faith effort to abide by its own publicly-posted policies.
That's pretty much the entirety of their obligation, legal, moral, and
otherwise, as far as I can tell.
Joe Zhang wrote:
| Long story short : if you want to edit that article,
be prepared for endless inane arguments with the same sort of trolls on
other forums (and here too.) |
|
|
Long story short: if you don't want to fight those battles, you're
essentially ceding them to the trolls. Wikis help those that help
themselves, and if we can't be bothered to participate, we shouldn't
expect our side of the story to be told.
Dave Pruitt wrote:
| Snapdragon, how about fixing it so trolls can't post
their opinions in your "encyclopedia"? IS that clear enough? |
|
|
Should there be a question upong login? "Are you a troll?" People who click yes get booted?
Joe Zhang wrote:
| How the heck does Wikipedia expect us to "work" with
this guy, and others like this? How can we even find common ground with
this? |
|
|
How the heck do any of us work with people every day that we disagree
with? Who knows, but somehow we make it happen. That's the world for
you.
I know you'd like not to have to deal with people like this. I know
I'd like not to have to deal with people like this. But wishing
doesn't make it so.
Joe Zhang wrote:
| I think this will ultimately not be a thing for "contributors" to decide, but for the courts to settle. |
|
|
My guess is that you wouldn't like the way the courts would settle that one, Joe.
Roger A Ott II wrote:
| It's this rule that makes me want to have no part in it, though. |
|
|
If you don't want to have any part in it, then don't. Just don't expect
to see the things you would like to see things go in or come out
reflected in the entry. If you don't vote, you can't bitch about the
guy who ends up in the White House.
John Byrne wrote:
| With ponderous slowness, the internet is becoming a
place where people are actually held accountable for their statements.
Lawsuits have been launched, and with some degree of success. When
Wikipedia finds itself on the receiving end of someone's massive libel
suit, will you consider that "a little fuss"? |
|
|
John, no offense, but that's just not a realistic outcome. Most of this
would fall under fair comment and criticism, and it would be damn near
impossible to prove a causal link between a Wikipedia article and lost
revenue on your part. The standard for actionable libel is pretty high
as I understand, and you're totally overstating the degree to which such suits have been successful in the past.
Also, if someone posts "Fans hate John Byrne" somewhere, they wouldn't
have any problem citing posts by numerous anti-Byrne posts by trolls
elsewhere to argue that they're simply arguing the truth. Quotes of
yours taken out of context about things like the whole Jessica Alba
fiasco would probably back up any claims someone made about you
regarding Latina hookers or whatnot, at least enough to get them off on
a libel case.
Besides, who would you sue? Wikipedia? The guy who posted? What would
you say when they asked why you didn't just edit and upkeep the article?
Edited by Mike Tishman on 15 September 2005 at 11:14pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 15 September 2005 at 11:14pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
"
Long story short: if you don't want to fight those battles, you're
essentially ceding them to the trolls. Wikis help those that help
themselves, and if we can't be bothered to participate, we shouldn't
expect our side of the story to be told."
Tishman, I've actually "fought" those "battles". Instead of being a blowhard, why don't you try editing that article too?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 15 September 2005 at 11:18pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
"That's pretty much the entirety of their obligation, legal, moral, and
otherwise, as far as I can tell."
That's an idiotic statement. Wikipedia is free to libel just because they are a "Darwinian experiment"?
Edited by Joe Zhang on 15 September 2005 at 11:21pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Charles Jensen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1127
|
| Posted: 15 September 2005 at 11:19pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
If Wikipedia is a "community of journalists" essentially, then couldn't you sue the specific individual or individuals who wrote the piece in question?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John W Leys
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 April 2004
Posts: 1143
|
| Posted: 15 September 2005 at 11:23pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Well, yeah, it is, actually, among people who spend a fair amount of
time on the internet. The fact that you don't know that is exactly my
point.
I spend a fair amount of time on the internet and have heard a lot
about Wikipedia. Mostly I've heard how completely unreliable and
useless it is as a reference tool because of the way the information is
added and edited. Anybody I know that does any kind of research on-line
avoids Wikipedia and other such sites like the plague. Its not that
people don't like it because they don't understand it, its because they
do understand it all too well.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Troy Nunis
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4598
|
| Posted: 15 September 2005 at 11:26pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Since there are "Editors" or "Moderators" who prevent the removal of the potentially liable statements, it seems they would also be culpable -- and you possibly could try for some kind of cease and diciest court order against the whole of the site, perhaps.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Mike Tishman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 July 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 12:25am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Joe Zhang wrote:
| Tishman, I've actually "fought" those "battles".
Instead of being a blowhard, why don't you try editing that article
too? |
|
|
Because I really just don't think it's worth it. I think you're
overreacting dramatically, but if it's making you this upset, why not
do something constructive about it instead of sitting here bitching? I
can understand bitching about things you have no power to change,
because you've got to let off steam somehow in that sort of situation,
but you're perfectly capable of fixing things but instead seem intent
on making someone else (Gamaliel Twinklebutt, or Jim what's-his-name)
fix it for you, and bitching that it isn't getting done to your
satisfaction.
Also, I think trying to get people in here to see reason before they
embarass themselves is probably more productive. You seem to want to
stop people from spreading more gossip about JB, whereas I'm trying to
dissuade people here from doing something which is a Bad Byrne story in
the making and giving the trolls more ammo. Same goal, ultimately.
Thank you, also, for calling me a blowhard. I'd like to point out that
you're
the first person in this thread that I'm aware of who's started calling
other people in the thread names, but since you insisted on going
there, I think it's highly amusing that someone making all these
blustering posts full of piss and vinegar and moral indignation about
libel suits and the like which are so out of touch with reality as to
be comical is calling anyone else here a blowhard.
You keep shouting, Joe. Go to every board on the internet and scream to
the rafters about the trolls. I hope it keeps working out for you as
well as it has so far.
Joe Zhang wrote:
| That's an idiotic statement. Wikipedia is free to libel just because they are a "Darwinian experiment"? |
|
|
One, you're tossing the word "libel" around way too casually. If you
think this meets the standards for libel, you don't know what the
standards are.
Two, Wikipedia isn't doing this. Some troll out there is. You seem to
be refusing to acknowledge or accept the difference. DC Comics is not
responsible for whatever some dickhead posts on their boards, Wikipedia
is not responsible for the things contributors post in the forum they
offer for the sharing of information. That's not how the internet
works, it's not how it's ever worked in the past, and it's not how it's
ever likely to work in the future.
John W Leys wrote:
| I spend a fair amount of time on the internet and
have heard a lot about Wikipedia. Mostly I've heard how completely
unreliable and useless it is as a reference tool because of the way the
information is added and edited. Anybody I know that does any kind of
research on-line avoids Wikipedia and other such sites like the plague.
Its not that people don't like it because they don't understand it, its
because they do understand it all too well. |
|
|
That may be true in your experience, though it isn't in mine. I think
it's more likely that my experiences are more representative, because
Wikipedia has millions of users and that many people don't use things
that they don't find to be reliable, but either
way, however, in both our cases, people are aware that they need to be
skeptical about things that are posted there, which was my point.
Edited by Mike Tishman on 16 September 2005 at 12:30am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Gamaliel Snapdragon
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 September 2005
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 12:40am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| When did I ever ask you for anything? You really can't read, can you? And you're an editor, I understand? |
|
|
Wow, and to think the people here are worried about trolls on other sites.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Gamaliel Snapdragon
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 September 2005
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 12:44am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| With ponderous slowness, the internet is becoming a
place where people are actually held accountable for their statements.
Lawsuits have been launched, and with some degree of success. When
Wikipedia finds itself on the receiving end of someone's massive libel
suit, will you consider that "a little fuss"? |
|
|
IANAL, but I'm not terribly concerned. We can't prevent people from posting things, but we
remove libel when we notice it and when it is pointed out to us.
Jimbo removed most of your article on your request and you apparently
didn't even tell him what specific problems you had with it. I
think we're doing fairly well all things considered.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Melissa Ashton
Byrne Robotics Member
Nudge
Joined: 15 April 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1379
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 4:27am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I'm really disappointed over all this. I've previously been using Wikipedia as a source of information, trusting that the 'pedia' bit means that it's accurate. Guess I was naive, and to be honest, didn't read all the guff about its purpose etc.
I'll know better in future, and seek a reliable source for info.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
