power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely... or so the saying goes... and it seems that at least in this case, power has corrupted. If they want to be a respected encyclopedia... which they are not currently (just ask a teacher)... this is not a way to score points with people. A project like this needs external checks and balances from those with nothing to gain or lose from the position. This is currently not the case, and until it is... inconvenient truths (according to the "inner circle" at least) will be censored.

Patrick Byrne's problem is that he can't squeeze a single quarter's profit out of this tired old dog of a company, which he has financed primarily by secondary stock offerings.

Your own publication wrote one of the first detailed articles questioning Overstock's business model, and described Byrne's bizarre behavior.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/03/overstock_issues/

Nothing has changed since this article came out two years ago, except that Byrne has gotten more loony and delusional.

A couple of corrections to you very interesting piece (and I will look at the referenced articles shortly).

1. There are *no* "secret mailing list(s) used by top administrators to silence inconvenient voices". Wikimedia editors and admins are freely allowed to communicate with each other however they wish to do so, be it email, IRC, blogs or old-fashioned telephone, just as I am sure you (Cade Metz) do with your Reg colleagues and outside sources.

2. David Gerard does, indeed, look after media relations in the UK but his activities on Wikipedia are, just like every other editor new and old, as an individual, not as the representative of any body or organisation. Every individual editor can be called upon to justify their actions, and that is clearly as it should be.

3. Wikipedia is a charitable non-profit foundation and does not pay editors to edit nor does it have the resources to investigate claims and counter-claims other than using publically accessible information. Mistakes and misunderstandings can therefore happen. Having not heard of this case before this could be the situation here and I'm certain that your raising the issue on The Reg will get more eyes looking at the article histories and reviewing the situation.

Just as naked shorting can hurt companies, so can old-fashioned misleading reporting. Let's hope both are on the decrease.

Alison Wheeler

Chair, Wikimedia UK

"When Bagley attempted to level the playing field, he was banished immediately," Ainsworth continues. "Obviously, there's something seriously wrong with the way Wikipedia is being managed and administered. I don't know if it threatens the long-term viability of the project or not, but it is cause for concern among those of us who spend a lot of hours actually trying to write quality articles."

Writing quality articles for Wikipedia is tantamount to polishing a turd; maybe you really can make it look shiny on the outside, but no matter how shiny you make it, under the surface it's still shite, and it stinks.

...they can do whatever they like with their content.

However, the more they do this sort of thing, the less popular they will become. Which is fine by me :-)

Bravo.

Many of us have known for a while that Wikipedia was shite. Thanks for illuminating the fact that it's organized shite. Too bad there isn't a law against this.

Absolutely fantastic!

..That is all.

You see this same evolution in any group. There are two kinds of people: Those who believe in heirarchies, and those who don't. Those who do, when presented with a heirarchy-free situation, don't know how to behave; they immediately set about creating a heirarchy. Even if they aren't at the top; in fact, they very seldom put themselves at the top. It's not about personal power; it's about a herding instinct.

Wackipedia has gone through this in several areas I have an interest in, most notably miniature wargames, where one genius managed to hold off a bevy of experts in the space for months before arbitration backed him down - but only somewhat backed him down.

My concern: Teachers are beginning to use this as a teaching tool, and my experience is that the coverage is likely to be slanted on nearly every topic.

make a contribution to the reported posts along lines of "el reg - a time honoured free speak evangelist" has observed some shortcomings in contributions.

Then see who edits those, what the edits may be and track 'em back accordingly?

how well a link placed in the Reg wiki-thang(tm) to this article would go down?

What Wikipedia is not: "fun, anymore!"

Most of us wanting to get reliable information goto a reliable source. The only thing WP was good for was stuff not contained in reliable sources, ie trivia. video-game characters, old comic-books & obscure bands, etc.

Now WP is to be "taken seriously" all that good, fun stuff is being deleted & what we have left is a glorified dmoz of citation links with uninspiring narrative to connect them.

Hello Alison, thanks for taking the time to contribute.

I was wondering, since you've already been good enough to add to this discussion, whether you could clarify point 2 a little. Specifically, should David Gerard be called upon to justify his actions as an editor, would he be subject to the same degree of scrutiny and accountability as any other editor? If so, would you be able to give some idea of the systems/checks wikipedia has in place to ensure this?

I hope you will have the time to reply; I appreciate you must be busy.

No "secret mailing lists"? Yet it has been reported and confirmed elsewhere that there ARE secret mailing lists... hmm. Who to believe?

Not Wikipedians, it seems [excised by Reg moderator].

The whole site is a fraud based on lies. It went from "we want to be an authority on everything" to "please don't quote us as a reference". It went from "we freely allow edits" to "we only allow edits if the clique agrees with them". It markets itself as a democracy or meritocracy, yet acts like the most narcissistic, censorship enamoured dictatorship I've ever seen, where merit is nothing, merely brown nosing with "those in charge".

It's a bloody joke, and it's about time more people realized that.

All users are equal, some are just more equal than others.

I haven't trusted anything I read on Wikipedia without at least two independent sources saying the same thing for quite some time now.

To put it as basically as possible, there is simply no way to know where bias has crept in without regarding anything on the site as useless until proven otherwise.

Because not every Reg reader might speak it as fluently, here is a translation of Wikispeak to English:

>>> A couple of corrections to you very interesting piece (and I will look at the referenced articles shortly).

"I really wish we could delete your piece just like any unpleasant Wikipedia entry and wipe it from the edit history, but unfortunately not the entire world is yet under our control, so we have to put up with this".

>>> 1. There are *no* "secret mailing list(s) used by top administrators to silence inconvenient voices". Wikimedia editors and admins are freely allowed to communicate with each other however they wish to do so, be it email, IRC, blogs or old-fashioned telephone, just as I am sure you (Cade Metz) do with your Reg colleagues and outside sources.

"Wikipedia admins are actively encouraged to form power circles and if you'd be pretending to be an encyclopedia, wouldn't you do the same?"

>>> 2. David Gerard does, indeed, look after media relations in the UK but his activities on Wikipedia are, just like every other editor new and old, as an individual, not as the representative of any body or organisation. Every individual editor can be called upon to justify their actions, and that is clearly as it should be.

"David Gerard is the guy we call when the shit hits the fan. Of course when it comes to being responsible for something, he behaves like all of us Wikipedians and tells you to suck a monkey. Because there can't be anyone responsible, as we are a collective that works cooperatively for the good of mankind".

>>> 3. Wikipedia is a charitable non-profit foundation and does not pay editors to edit nor does it have the resources to investigate claims and counter-claims other than using publically accessible information. Mistakes and misunderstandings can therefore happen. Having not heard of this case before this could be the situation here and I'm certain that your raising the issue on The Reg will get more eyes looking at the article histories and reviewing the situation.

"We do charitable work, how dare you to shed a bad light on that? We work our asses off for the good of everyone, whether you want it or not, and if something goes wrong there, it is for the greater good of all, especially ours. But now that you brought this shit, that should've stayed in the closet just like everything else we better hide, to the attention of the public, we will make double sure that we delete any incriminating evidence that hasn't yet been published".

>>>Just as naked shorting can hurt companies, so can old-fashioned misleading reporting. Let's hope both are on the decrease.

"Your interpretation of reality is way too realistic and not what we at Wikipedia would like to see. Maybe its time to block the entire Reg IP range and the surrounding neighbourhoods from editing Wikipedia".

In response to your comments:

1) Your phrasing is quite peculiar. You deny that a mailing list exists "to silence inconvenient voices". It is not outside of the realms of possibility that mailing lists are used for this purpose but merely have their function described in an alternative, more palatable fashion. A spanner is a spanner, no matter what you use it for.

2) It is unfortunate that your statement "but his activities on Wikipedia are [...] as an individual, not as the representative of any body or organisation". This is patently false. Your previous actions in removing access to editors has been to block-ban entire places of work and entire ISPs. Furthermore, it is nieve to think that the actions of your Media Relations Manager would not be analysed by the media that he is to work with? By effectively nailing his colours to the mast through a litany of recorded edits and notes, he declares an overwhelming bias in this subject. It is a natural extension therefore to feel that this view is shared with Wikipedia administration to some level.

3) Your statements around mistakes and misunderstandings are irrelevant in this context. It is already abundantly clear from reports that Wikipedia Arbitration is incapable of acting in an impartial, unbiased way. The way that senior members of your administration have behaved while enjoying the full support of executives is, quite frankly, appalling. To claim such incidents are mistakes and misunderstandings is grossly irresponsible. Encouraging more people to take part in the Wikipedia Project to perform quality control is largely pointless when any effort to perform this can be reversed and locked at the merest whim of your organisation. In short, what is the point?

Finally, your throwaway comment speaks volumes of your unprofessionalism. El Reg trades at the sharp end of journalistic controversy, a concept that is understood and often enjoyed by it's readership. The Wikipedia Project trades itself on the democratic archiving of facts, something that it's current structure, practices and people seem to be at odds with. With that in mind, it is obvious to see who is being misleading here.

Kind Regards,

An Ominous Cowherd

When Bagley's link was removed from the encyclopedia he should have politely discussed the merits of the link on the talk page of the article - not harass another editor and vandalize an article he was working on. Irregardless of the merit of his points he does not have the skills to be involved with a COLLABORATIVE encyclopedia which requires polite collaboration, not craziness and drama. Wikipedia was right to ban him - he did much more harm than good.

Strangely, in neither the artical nor in these subsequent comments, no-one seems to be asking the obvious question: IF wikipedia IS actively sheltering any and all references to Mr Weiss from public scrutiny or editorial, WHY would it do that? Does the wikipedia/wikimedia complex have some vested interest in Mr Weiss? Has anyone ever asked how wikipedia is funded?

Would allowing Mr Weiss and the naked shorting practice to be subjected to too much scrutiny amount to biting off the hand that feeds etc? Even if not true, such agressive and vindictive attacks on anyone looking too hard at Mr Weiss does raise a significant spectre of suspicion...

Sorry for the shameless plug, but over at wikipediareview.com we've been tracking this story for about a year and a half now. Our main interest has always been the SlimVirgin-Mantanmoreland connection - why did she jump to his defense so quickly, even to the point of sharing information with him that was supposed to have been supplied to her confidentially in her role as a Wikipedia administrator? At first we thought it was because Mantanmoreland had assisted her and her other wiki-friends in making controversial "tag-team" edits to certain articles, such as the notorious addition of Nazi references to the introductory paragraphs of the article on Martin Luther (which remain in place to this day).

But as we got further into it, the story just got weirder and weirder, to the point where the term "WTF?" barely describes the general tone of near-disbelief. And yet the evidence was definitely there, and it all added up. What it all boils down to is that the person known on Wikipedia as "SlimVirgin" knew Patrick Byrne at King's College, Cambridge, and apparently didn't like him much - not much at all.

And the rest, as we say, is history.

Just gotta be careful; the independent sources might have consulted Wikipedia...

The answer to the "obvious question," which presupposes a conspiracy, is that the premise of the obvious question is wrong. Wikipedia is not "covering up" for anyone; it is reporting the life of a dull journalist, which of necessity is less gory than the chief executive of a company as wracked in pain and losses as is Overstock.

I have an even more obvious question: Why does Overstock.com perspire over its employees not being allowed to edit Wikipedia? They are paid, we presume, to sell goods, or to maintain the website, not to add content to Wikipedia.

It surprises me that the reporter did not ask this obvious question in his interview with Mr. Bagley.

let Jimmy Wales and his henchmen teach the 'truth' to the next generations.

and Wikiality is even more so.

any power matrix distorts information that passes through it (credit: Robert Anton Wilson). where there is hierarchy, there will be multiple conflicting public and private agendas.

an undemocratic, opaque caste system of mostly anonymous, unpaid idealists is THE perfect set of conditions for this sort of problem. in such a situation, many idealists tend to become ideologues, and that's how today's Wikipedia version of reality probably evolved.

it is not a completely flat organization, so one should expect all the dysfunction of a large, distributed, stratified entity (think UN or any large government bureaucracy), nurtured in isolation, secrecy and anonymity (SlimVirgin indeed), as if in a hothouse.

makes for a very interesting study in pathology. just pretend you are an anthropologist, or a shrink, and enjoy their plethora of amusingly distorted "facts", presented as truth. see the world through a funhouse mirror - kinda looks like the real thing, but different...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

[quote]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Look up conspiracy in

Wiktionary, the free dictionary.Conspiracy may refer to

An act of two or more parties working together to combine in such a way as to achieve a particular result often one of harm or inconvenience to a third party. Secrecy is not necessary for there to be a conspiracy. However, some 'unknown' may be involved.[1]

A group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act.[2]

An act of working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.

[/quote]

By Wikipedia's own definition of the word it is plainly obvious that there is a conspircay at work here - it has just not been determined with specificty which of the parties involved has been or is being conspired against

Wikipedia is faced with tow or three totaly irreconcilable internal contradictions.

The two major complaints in the comments:-

1. The articles are not accurate/tureful/neutral enough.

2. Its not democratic enough. i.e. The wiki equivalent of "A man from Mars" is not allowed to edit millions of articles.

You cannot have it both ways either you have total editorial control where a self selecting elite reflects thier version of "the truth" which is pretty much the situation with the "Dead Tree" encyclopedias, or, you have a complete free for all where the few useful/good posts are devalued by an avalanche of propoganda, revings and self promotion.

As I regard "boring but reliable" as a good thing in an encyclopedia I would go for the editorial control option, but, with a more transparent structure. Some of the current uber-editors would clearly be better of spending thier time "Getting a Life".

I heartily agree. Consider it done.

This is an excellent example of the politically motivated censorship which many, including I, feel is endemic within Wikipedia. Anything which can be done to focus attention on this issue must surely be a good thing. To this end I've made a modest addition to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship .

You can watch the inevitable censorship in action here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=176337040&diff=

Should Wikipedia's thought control department see fit to delete and permanently expunge any trace of my efforts to improve said vessel from the annuls of their aforementioned organ, it read:

In a review published on the 6^th December 2007, [[The_Register|The Register]] raises concerns of [[Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage|systemic bias]] and abuse of administrative authority.

The article centres around investigations into the disagreement between [[Judd Bagley]] ([[User_talk:WordBomb]]) and users [[User:Mantanmoreland]] and [[User:SlimVirgin]] which Bagley alleges to be "[[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry|sock-pupet]]" accounts opperated by [[Gary Weiss]]. The article illustrates systematic [[censorship]] of articles and editors by [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Wikipedia's administrators]] up to the highest level.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/ |title=Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain |accessdaymonth=6 December |accessyear=2007 |last=Metz |first=Cade |authorlink=http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Cade%20Metz |year=2007 |month=12 |day=06 |work=[[The Register]] |publisher=Situation Publishing Ltd. |pages=pp. 1–5 |quote="We aren't democratic." That's how Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales described his famously-collaborative online encyclopedia in a recent puff piece from [[The New York Times Magazine]]. }}</ref>

...anyway, I'm off to power cycle the old modem / router now as I'd rather not be persecuted, 'though, hopefully, before anyone sets out to get me they'll pause to contemplate how and why they are alienating so many people. I hope that I haven't got you BADSITEd El Reg. ;-)

PS @Reg. How is quoting something you read in a magazine "Exclusive"?

I am in a similar situation, everything I write or do on Wikipedia, whether it is relevant or not, is removed within 24 hours...

If you want reliable, accurate information on a given subject that isnt going to change halfway through reading it because of some palyground-esque falling out, you go look at a book. Simple as.

Wikipedia is frequently ludicrous and the Reg has only scratched the surface, but there's no need to stretch an edit war on an obscure topic out to five pages.

Still, it's good to know from this and the comments here that everyone's eyes have been opened, that Wikipedia is too disorganised/too authoritarian, too inaccurate/too obsessed with footnoting, too full of pop culture/too bent on deleting everything obscure and fun (strike out complaints that do not apply - or don't, a lot of people are perfectly happy accusing it of all of the above in the same post). I guess tomorrow all its traffic will be gone then and they'll shut down. Fun while it lasted, time to start looking for a new browser homepage.

Or not. Wikipedia is an easy target and deserves to be, but it's still managed to produce a usable, broad reference. As a quick reference on a much broader array of subjects than any other single work it does its job perfectly well. As a source for writing your history essay it's the equivalent of asking your mate or your senile grandfather and basing everything on that. Use it for what it is and stop complaining that the apple doesn't taste orange-y enough.

.... with an elitist attitude, that pretty much sums it up for me.

I'll stick to getting my facts from a reputable organisation that has been publishing encyclopedia's for years.

(although the whole saga has a "High School Drama" tinge, it does supply amusement, usually I don't get this until the missus switches over to some American car crash TV)

Does this quote from the BBC News website (sorry El Reg, occasionally I do look elsewhere for my news!) concern anyone else other than me?

"He [Jimmy Wales] said he now thinks that students should be able to cite the online encyclopaedia in their work. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7130325.stm

When I grew up and someone said "I read it in the Sun so it must be true" we at least understood their humour. For the current generation growing up, the equivalent might be "I read it in wikipedia so it must be true" but worryingly, perhaps people will actually start believing that statement.....

but earlier this year I heard an English Academic on Radio 4 complaining about a science (IFIRC) piece on Wikipedia that was incorrect. He knew it was incorrect because it was about his science and his own work.

So doing the natural thing he corrected it. The next day his edits were removed and the piece went back to being incorrect.

So he edited it again and so on. He complained that there was no authority attached to the incorrect facts and there appeared to be no way to find out who the "scientist" or "dustman" was who was removing the facts.

Me. The only think I take for granted from Wiki is that the Capital of Greenland is an oak tree.

between a 'free for all' and allowing 'nutters' to add rubbish and total editorial control where a few admins dictate policy to suit their own ends, would be to have Slashdot like moderation system. Users and entries have points awarded by users. This would help prevent a ruling cabal arising. And moderation of general editors should to a large extent weed out the bad editors and reward good ones.

If this system was applied across the board it would prevent a lot abuses of editors and admins and indicate to people which article are well written. And it would become an 'by the people for the people' thing, instead of the power trip the admins are turning it into.

Just a thought

"I am in a similar situation, everything I write or do on Wikipedia, whether it is relevant or not, is removed within 24 hours..."

Darren,

The BBC have an even more draconian blanket ban on some posters who would dare to question other posters posts on their now quite useless news message boards. Mention something simple like the Truth is flexible and only an imagining acted upon and they can't handle the Spin. At least El Reg is prepared to lead with stories rather than be frightened/petrified by them, which bodes well for El Reg. [although there are, I'm sure the odd occasions whenever they bottle out. [Sh] It happens.]

Free Speech as long as you follow the Script is never Free Speech and impossible to follow if the Script/Plot is lost or cannot be Shared.

In those cases, a new Script is always written to be Shared and expanded upon by ITs readers 42 Lead. It is not Rocket Science, IT is a lot Beta than that.

I read that article and thought - phew - these guys and gals at Wikipedia must be pretty sad, and defo. not getting enough (if any).

Jxx

...or did our friendly neighbourhood Martian's comment make complete sense there (well, more or less).

Or have I just got so used to reading banal rubbish on Wikipedia that pretty much anything makes sense now?

Actually, I guess I'm being a bit unfair to Wikipedia. I do sometimes check out entries on there and have found them to be broadly OK, but often lacking in real depth or detail. I've also been puzzled on one or two occasions when I've seen articles that have editorial notes about citations being needed or weasel words being used when the article does, in fact, seem to have perfectly good citations from reputable sources. Is that the whole editing cabal thing at play perhaps?

"Mention something simple like the Truth is flexible and only an imagining acted upon"

It might be simple, but it's wrong. You're thinking of religion (or Wikipedia pages).

They need to be very careful of how this is handled. If that teacup gets any more stormy there is a risk of spillage. Nobody likes spilled tea.

It seems that you CAN fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot foll ALL of the people all of the time....hooray!

I for one will never waste time on Wikiwacky again.....

Just hope that teachers are NOT using this peversion.

.....but only to look up pictures of animals. Want to know what a tasmanian devil looks like? Wiki. Want to know want a kiwi bird looks like? Wiki. Want to know anything remotely scientific with actual, fact based research quoted? Maybe by the scientist who did the experiment rather than some gimp who thinks he knows the subject? Library.

If a kid comes into a class room quoting wiki and only wiki, that's an F right there. Not even going to read his research. If he comes in quoting wiki AND other sources of info, then we'll see.

It was a pile of carp when it started, it's still a pile of carp. Who knew?

According to your article, not only are Patrick Byrne's claims about "naked short selling" not being taken seriously by the mass media, but _The Register_ itself takes a dim view of them.

Given that, it would seem to be reasonable for Wikipedia editors not to wish to have their articles modified to reflect a point of view that has not won general acceptance, but is instead seen as lacking in credibility.

When, furthermore, this point of viwe includes serious allegations against respected financial figures, there could even be a question of it being actionable.

So, while some details of the response might seem a bit overblown, it's hard for me to fault their decision to take this particular issue seriously

It includes this little gem:

'Journalistic Integrity, Under the motto "Integrity - we've heard of it" The Register claims that, for a price, they print any story and for an even higher price they remove any story. They published the tariffs in an article "Official Register 2000 PR tariff". Maybe this is not an in-joke, however.'

hmmmmmmmm....

One of the best I have read in a while. Keep it up!

Quote:

"Given that, it would seem to be reasonable for Wikipedia editors not to wish to have their articles modified to reflect a point of view that has not won general acceptance, but is instead seen as lacking in credibility."

right here you are already mentioning exactly how it shouldn't be!

Galileo also seemed to lack credibility about the world rotating around the sun rather than the sun around the world.

just because it's not right out obvious doesn't mean that it's wrong!

Quote:

"When, furthermore, this point of view (this word has been corrected from the original) includes serious allegations against respected financial figures, there could even be a question of it being actionable."

You are saying a respected financial figure! well even that is very subjective, since you may respect him, and some others may, but I don't respect him at all, because I personally think, that there is a good chance, that he is a crook!

In summary, as long as there is no clear evidence, to the contrary, there should be no banning unless it really is obvious that there is something malicious or, right out lies being told.

I can't see that in any way, as a matter of fact, the way these people are behaving it seems more like these admins are trying to cover up either own mistakes, (who really wants to take any sort of responsibility these days anyway?) or they may have in depth knowledge of criminal on goings or maybe involved with people who are involved in such things.

I know this sounds more like a conspiracy theory, but I don't think that it is that far fetched.

Best regards from a Krautlaender!

I heartily agree. Consider it done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship

or, should it be censored (irony alert)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=176337040&diff=

This is just another example of the politically motivated censorship which so many people seem to feel is endemic within Whackopaedia. Anything which can be done to focus their attention on the problem must surely be a good thing.

Off to power cycle the old modem / router now as I'd rather not be persecuted, 'though, hopefully, before anyone sets out to get me they'll pause to contemplate how and why they are ailenating so many people.

Is El Reg one of those "BADSITE"s yet? ;-)

I notice that there is no wikipedia page for amanfromMars, I'm sure this omission will be corrected soon

Meanwhile, posts to Wikipedia show that David Gerard has a personal beef with Bagley. "Bagley's case is that he's been stalking people with quite some viciousness for commercial gain. He even got writeups in the NYT and NY Post, so I can state he's an odious stalking arsehole with Reliable Sources!" Gerard writes. "I urge you to start reading up - he's really at a new and exciting level of odiousness." Elsewhere he adds: "ps: Fuck off, Bagley."

^ What kind of respectful Media Relations manager talks like that publicly to start with?

I can't say that any of this has surprised me at all. Wikipedia is a joke.

I've just read the wikipedia entry about El Reg and while it they refer to the In jokes on RoTM and Capt Cyborg for some reason seem to have left out the Reg's oft used term 'wiki fiddler'

"The Register claims that, for a price, they print any story and for an even higher price they remove any story."

Andrew,

That would suggest that the latter story is a gold mine they are being denied/are denying themselves. I often wonder if there is a pathetic rate for not printing stories ..... Advanced IntelAIgents Virtual Defence..... AIdDutch Intelligence* ?

By amanfromMars Posted Friday 7th December 2007 07:19 GMT ..... because of Political Sensitivities/Quintessential Quantum Quandaries.

I'm all for the Publish 42BDSM Root .... Be Damned Servering Manana Route. IT is so much more Enlightening.

It's always worth remembering that there is no true objectivity. Everything you read or write is biased, often unintentionally, often deliberately.

Assuming that something written is independent or even true without cross-checking is short-sighted and naive.

Wiki is no better or worse than any politically motivated newspaper or journal.

Just my biased opinion, of course.

Ms Wheeler,

Please look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive295#Overstock.com.2FWordBomb.2FJudd_Bagley

also, look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=prev&oldid=157139762

If Mr. Gerard does, as you state, "look after media relations in the UK," you guys have some SERIOUS problems. I am HORRIFIED that someone in such a position is allowed to be such a potty-mouth. I come from an international diplomatic background, so I can very authoritatively state that this is a truly disturbing stance.

Simply by acknowledging his position, you have colored your ENTIRE organization; from top to bottom. You are trying to act as an authoritative academic source, yet you support people with public behaviour unbecoming of spotty-faced adolescents.

Also, the fact that you introduced a typo into a response in a highly-read international publication, even if it is a "red top," speaks VOLUMES for the quality of Wikipedia.

It looks like you tried to "take the high road" with your response, but it actually came off as a brokedown model T with the wheels come off. You should be embarrassed. I'm not even on your side, and I'm embarrassed for you and your organization.

The fact that Mr. Wales supported Ms. "Durova" so vehemently (You guys didn't clean out the German pages, so his comment is still around), and, as we've seen, Ms. "Durova" is pretty much a loony, tells me that you guys have a serious "Corporate culture" problem.

A fish rots from the head down.

You guys need to seek professional help. I suggest using referral services other than Wikipedia.

You missed an interesting bit - as I recall, users have been banned for claiming that Matanmoreland is Gary Weiss because giving the real names of Wikipedia editors is a violation of their privacy, even when it's to point out that they're editing their own articles. (Of course, with less well-connected users it's the user editing articles about themself that gets in trouble.)

"I read it in wikipedia so it must be true" - time for a T-shirt methinks.

I spotted this in the edits for The Reg's wiki entry

"The Register" has been known to occasionally publish a harsh opinion on Wikipedia, pointing out the latter's failings and errors. One then may ponder upon "The Register's" own veracity or reliability, seeing how their material depends on the judgement of a few individuals, who lack the experience and education of the countless thousands who read, review, and are allowed to correct the content of Wikipedia. Doubtlessly, the editorial staff of "The Register" possess as good credentials as any journalist, but one might assume that only mature individuals, who are confident in the nature of their fellow humans, would empower anyone to make contributions to a wikiwiki -- but this is obviously just one point of view. Because Wikipedia embraces a policy known as Neutral Point of View, it is obvious that no one in the Wikipedia community would express a harsh judgement upon individuals who are simply attempting to earn a living in the best manner they could find.

And for the thinkers, Sean .... "I read it in wikipedia so is it true?"

I'm sure the people who criticize Wikipedia's administration couldn't do a better job of administering things. The "critics" of Wikipedia who run web sites like Wikipedia Review are mostly nutters.

The argument that it's a private company is not great...

Google is a private company but we're allowed to know who's running it. If we weren't you can imagine that various bodies would be all over it like a rash.

So why should Wikipedia get to operate as a cabal?

If Wiki is doing nothing wrong why should it defend its secrecy so rabidly?

Posting Anon as I fear the wrath of Wiki - they are the latter day Jesuits but without the broad-mindedness.

The reason it's a big deal, you jackasses, is because we are are talking about a (basically fraudulent) business practice that can make you a million dollars, or euros, for those who prefer hard currency, in 4 minutes flat. There are three hundred and sixty 4 minutes in EVERY DAY.

The reason it's on the front page of "Ol Rag", you blazing geniuses, is because we are talking about vast amounts of cold hard cash being stolen, public companies being sacked and sunk on the reef of Wall Street, with, if one may be permitted to conclusively murder the metaphor, letters of marque from Wikipedia's Crown Royal, for purposes unclear but in all likelyhood VERY CLOSELY RELATED to the shenanignans performed by TV envangelists in the bosom of the buckle of the Bible Belt in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Creflo Dollar is watching in unctous, pious, secret envy, green as a lemon frog.

This crap happens every goddamned day on Wikipedia, you crop-eared, pig-nosed, flap-handed short bussers, only it's usually Lithuanian red-harbled hopdragons or similar; you are hearing about it because it involves Real Money, and Wikipedia has real influence in the world, enough to sway stock prices, cause fortunes to rise and fall, etc.

What if this happened with Coca-Cola or Vivendi or your dizzy-double-be-God-damned-to hell's-infernal-crappers retirement fund? Would that make you sit up straight?

Was that unclear? Because I got it right from the opening graph. Is today Moronathon Day?

No hard feelings then?

Late entry for FotW I feel...

...El Reg took away amanfromMars's icon! even as much as i like litte Tux, i say it's heresy!

After having read articles posted on Theregister, Slashdot and a host of others. I have come to agree with some of the people mentioned in the articles. Wiki has become a website where you can post your thoughts and if they conflict with the supposed "Elite" (I refer to them as the paranoid nutjobs at Wiki), they get edited or removed and if you do it again...banned.

Wiki is no longer a place to put up actual facts for the public or users. It has been a propaganda machine for the NUTJOBS at wiki. I can no longer put 100% trust in anything that is posted on Wiki. Not that anything is ever 100% true anywhere, but when it is obvious that there is self motivation for editing or banning posts by those with opposing views, then it has in truth become not an "open" website, but a "facist" website.

Maybe the servers and the admins for wiki should relocate to China or North Korea? They would fit in perfect there! No freedoms and you can silence your critics.

Well Whibley, I tried...

I placed a small reference to this article in the little section entitled "Censorship" lies deeply buried in the surprisingly large but difficult to find Whackopedia (TM)(R) page "Criticisms of Wikipedia". Seemed highly appropriate and permanent to me.

A certain Whackopedian who calls himself "JzG" seems to have disagreed however and proceeded to brand my contribution "trolling", censor my edit into oblivion, "block" my (dynamic) IP address and "protect" the "Criticisms of Wikipedia" page. "Protect" it presumably from, heaven forfend, any further outbreaks of "criticism of wikipedia".

He doesn't seem to have very much regard for El Reg either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&diff=176374689&oldid=176337040

It would seem that Wikipedia is run with the same closed ideology as Microsoft Windows. You can't see how it operates, you can't see if the decisions it makes are based on solid data and it quite often fails spectacularly (And publicly).

What are these people hiding in there?

There is now, let's just see how long it lasts

>>'I'm sure the people who criticize Wikipedia's administration

>>couldn't do a better job of administering things. The "critics"

>>of Wikipedia who run web sites like Wikipedia Review are

>>mostly nutters.'

Speaking as one of the "nutters" (and hey, thanks for the free psychological diagnosis!), I'd have to agree with you. Luckily, we're not trying to take over the administration of Wikipedia, as some Wikipedians seem to assume for some reason. (Most of us want nothing to do with it, in fact.) The majority, perhaps even the VAST majority, of WP administrators are decent, fair-minded, competent people - they may all be in over their heads, but everyone knows it's a big website, and nobody's perfect.

The problem is that a small group of very bad apples has gained too much power and influence, becoming far too abusive and secretive in the process, and there seems to be no way to make them go away. In fact, the system seems to be designed in such a way as to make it easier for the bad apples to entrench themselves, not leastwise by their ability to cry "harassment!" and get off scot-free any time someone criticizes their actions. There do seem to be some positive developments in recent weeks, though - but only at the expense of a significant PR backlash against WP that they may not recover from for quite a long time.

What we've found is this: The *real* problems Wikipedia has, which are far more serious than just the behavior of a few bad apples, can't be constructively dealt with as long as the bad apples dominate the agenda - squelching constructive attempts at reform, and generating tons of time-wasting, useless "drama." Getting them to leave the "project" is a prerequisite to anything good happening over there, like it or not. That's just how it is.

I see the folks at Wikipedia also want to edit articles being written by senior Cade Metz for The Reg. Have they nothing better to do? I hope they don't see this post and alter my college transcripts! Better post anonymously.

Calm down, calm down, peef,

We know the Fed and Wall Street are fronting a global scam and vapourware. Don't panic, the problem is theirs, not ours. Having lost all their credibility and a whole host of friends, we await their Intelligence to kick in with a Request for SMARTer Information before they completely destroy themselves.

But hey, don't be holding your breath, it may be a lost cause requiring a new lead from a regime who can handle the Truth rather than hiding from IT.

Is it just me or the coments from our own inhouse ET are geting more coherent and pertinent by the day?

Amazingly enough, the mind hasn't blogled from reading his last post.

ps: I shall be iconless, because we need a AmanfromMars icon. (thats not really true, I cant say which checkbox is what icon posting from Lynx :(

Wikipedia's core problem is they really don't know who has posted what articles or made what edits, and they have no way to prevent people who have been banned from coming back under new usernames, etc.

The solution would be for them to have a process of vetting and verifying the identity of anyone who wishes to edit Wikipedia. Something like the way SSL Certificate providers verify your identity. Sure, it would cost money, but it would also save oodles of time wasted on problems like this one.

Once Wikipedia has a good grasp on the identity of its editors, it can set up policies to avoid conflict of interest. Basically, it would identify for each author a set of articles for which that author has a conflict of interest. And in such cases, it would restrict or prevent edits by that user.

This would be done systematically and automatically, BEFORE problems arise. For example, Joe Schmoe would not be allowed to blithely edit the article on "Joe Schmoe", whether or not he's ever mis-behaved. A process could be set up to add and remoe conflict-of-interest restrictions as appropriate.

wikipedia. the last time I will use it was yesterday

+1 reinstate AmAnFromMarsIcon

Please.

I've run into this on more than one occassion. Very bigotted and/or power-mad people squat on vast expanses of intellectual territory in an attempt to control the range of public discourse, and access to facts. Wikipedia is their propaganda platform. Most wikipedia contributors are well-meaning individuals trying to contribute to a public commons, but Jimbo and the cabal, in the spirit of corporate rapine, have taken advantage of those people to exert power in the interests of a few, and to the great loss of the many.

Wikipedia is still useful for math, physics, and chemistry, but once you get into soft domains, it's pure crap.

Hmm, I looked at the latest updates to the "naked short selling" article, and found some interesting stuff. Is "JzG" a new account for "JayJG"?

16:46, 7 December 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) protected Naked short selling ‎ (Bagley meme in Register [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 16:46, December 21, 2007 (UTC)))

# (cur) (last) 16:43, 7 December 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) m (22,213 bytes) (Reverted edits by 128.61.125.158 (talk) to last version by Mantanmoreland) (undo)

# (cur) (last) 16:23, 7 December 2007 128.61.125.158 (Talk) (24,148 bytes) (Undid revision 176362538 by Mantanmoreland (talk)) (undo)

# (cur) (last) 13:53, 7 December 2007 Mantanmoreland (Talk | contribs) (22,213 bytes) (undo)

It's not like you can trust wikipedia. I invented a whole airport a few months ago...

Seems quite obvious to me, there are a select group of ultra-rich behind the scene manipulators. They never do anything for themselves, but they find a way to coerce others to do their dirty work. And to the outside world it just looks like these people just exhibit odd behavior. Naked Shorting certainly seems to qualify as an issue that would have some financially interested parties... those that might influence others...

Is it really that hard to believe?

Really, I don't, but somehow I find I have read all five pages of the article and then all the comments.

That's just weird.

Maybe I need to drink more.

...and when we perceive an agenda we don't like, we're inclined to rename it "disinformation". The question is, who filters the information and hence the agendas?

The notion of a shared public reality doesn't stand up under close inspection, and hiding editors behind handles is an attempt to evade such examination and pretend that they somehow represent this chimerical fantasy.

I think that purported "democratic" social media should borrow a page from source code versioning systems as follows:

1) All is kept, nothing is thrown away.

2) Self-registration is allowed but posting and editing only allowed once meatspace identity has been verified and published.

3) Filtering out of comments/posts/edits by people you sincerely dislike should be at the option of the reader, not an inner circle.

This would have a number of salutary effects, to wit:

a) People would be less inclined to besmirch their public reputation with ridiculous posts/edits because they could be looked up in the future.

b) Sock puppeting and invisible editors would become a thing of the past since handles (if used at all) would be easily traceable back to real authors. This benefit is synergistic with that in a) and would encourage a higher level of responsibility as well as civility in public discourse.

c) A free Internet will always be a compendium of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The best we can do is filter out the last two, though this needs to be at the receiving end to avoid the collective blindness that centralized censorship guarantees. There would probably be a booming market in colored spectacles (prefab filters in popular colors like NeoCon, Liberal, Conservative etc.) for those willing to use them, but independent thinkiers will inevitably want to take responsibility for their own filters.

(In grateful memory of Marshall MacLuhan, who I believe used the phrase "news from nowhere" to reveal the prejudice that unattributed news is impartial news.)

I'm in no position to judge if the story about nakes short selling is true (no financial background) but there are some entertaining logical consequences here.

If the story is proven (and it only takes ONE Attorney General to eventually pick up on it) the quest will begin for who has assisted in keeping the scam going, a bit like Enron where there were all of a sudden a *LOT* of uncomfortable people.

At that time I think the sale of popcorn may go through the roof as everyone enjoys a baddie getting his/her dues. It'll be a matter of sitting back and watch the misery begin for the Wikipedia top. Sure, some 'low life' editors will probably get a few questions, but logging everything has its price - anyone with a decent knowledge of forensics can work backwards on the logs. Worse, if they are somehow deficient it'll result in automatic suspicion a la Andersen, and paper is easier to shred than multiple automatic backups.

I'm not worried. I'll just go and get the popcorn, because this could provide a *lot* of entertainming in 2008..

I'm in a profession that demands an extremely high level of ethics. People who find that restrictive have never felt the satisfaction of delivering to someone who is a little bit more 'liberal' in applying ethics to their MO his/her comeuppance (there's no conflict between high ethics and an evil mind - it's all about application :-).

Yum..

and for the drinkers... "I read it in wikipedia. So it must be. True."

Links to the El Reg article (unreliable by nature, as it seems on wiki) are rapidly removed, but a Wikipedia official sees the need to react on this forum?

Well, at least now I have a more realisitic idea on book reviews on Amazon, thanks to mr. Weiss (not so blank if you ask me, dankeschön).

Probably whatever shape the Wikipedia administration takes you'll complain about agendas, bad apples, or reds under the bed.

From the Wikipedia Overstock.com history page:

05:15, 7 December 2007 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) (16,280 bytes) (→AntiSocialMedia.net - The Register is a gossip rag, and does not come close to meeting WP:RS.)

and

12:44, 7 December 2007 Bramlet Abercrombie (Talk | contribs) (16,564 bytes) (Wikipedia has 1,874 links to this "gossip rag" - looks like it's considered a reliable source and that you just don't like this particular article) (undo)

I imagine the Wikgilantes (yes, Reg, you can use that word) are already removing your name from the One True History....

Encyclopedias and books are just as biased, and their authors have much less of a check and balance system imposed. I see the truth as the collective opinion of millions and the conclusion of the scientific method. If it's on Wikipedia it might not be fully accurate, but for most articles it's as accurate as any other source.

"Oh my God people are disagreeing and abusing their power" = so should we stop listening to people talk as well, since it came out of their mouths it's grossly inaccurate and the "last time I'm going to hear someone argue was yesterday"?

A lot of you are a bunch of egotistical elitists that think they have the right answer to everything and no one else does. The internet is the wrong place for you.

Naked shorting sounds like fun! How does one go about it?

I don't think it's necessarily the uber rich that are mucking up Wiki, as most of them have better things to do, like make more money. My guess is that it's a bunch of self-proclaimed intelligentsia or well funded "intellectuals", who think it's their moral obligation to censor the unwashed heathens, should their edits be unflattering to people (or their interests) in ring 0.

When you combine that with the fact that they really want to be taken seriously, even though they allow people to post "factual" information under aliases, it's just really difficult for me to consider them a credible source on anything.

I will concede that there is some good anecdotal reference material there but without full references and objective editing, Wiki is nothing more than just one giant opinion.

Oh, and count my vote in favor of returning the manfrommars icon.

>>> Encyclopedias and books are just as biased, and their authors have much less of a check and balance system imposed. I see the truth as the collective opinion of millions and the conclusion of the scientific method.

The "collective opinion of millions" AND the "scientific method"?

>>> If it's on Wikipedia it might not be fully accurate, but for most articles it's as accurate as any other source.

In ten minutes you'll tell us "if you see something that's wrong, correct it, that's how Wikipedia works".

>>> "Oh my God people are disagreeing and abusing their power" = so should we stop listening to people talk as well, since it came out of their mouths it's grossly inaccurate and the "last time I'm going to hear someone argue was yesterday"?

No person I met has claimed to be an encyclopedia.

>>> A lot of you are a bunch of egotistical elitists that think they have the right answer to everything and no one else does.

That is, I'm afraid, the impression more and more people have of those that participate in Wikipedia.

>>> The internet is the wrong place for you.

I know, how can we spurn the gift that is Wikipedia.

You get what you pay for.

Regarding the reliability of El Reg. Yes, in so much as it is impartial, El Reg is unreliable. However, unlike Wikipedia, it is reliably unreliable. There's a big difference.

That's what the names at the tops of the articles are for. Works brilliantly.

that confers too much credibility. it's more of a blogging site

I read the article and comments. These are the conclusions I came to.

* The Wikipedia critics (here) are a collection of post-modern, relativist, conspiracy theorists.

* If I want to find something out it's much faster to use Wikipedia than Google, and both are much faster than going into central London to visit the British Library.

PS: Why are Wikipedia critics posting anonymously here?

Note to Bob:

* You're excluded from my first generalisation about critics, made above.

* I don't think they'd need secure certificates. Wouldn't a GUID do just as well? However I fail to see how Wikipedia is supposed to get hold of a "good grasp on the identity of its editors", or why a secure certificate would even help in that regard. People will always be able to set up multiple (pseudo-anonymous) identities on the internet.

>> * The Wikipedia critics (here) are a collection of post-modern, relativist, conspiracy theorists.

You're one of THEM, aren't you?

>>* If I want to find something out it's much faster to use Wikipedia than Google, and both are much faster than going into central London to visit the British Library.

Especially for me. I live in the US.

>>* You're excluded from my first generalisation about critics, made above.

I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy. <sob> I'll just crawl into a corner and decompose...

>>

Personally, I think the folks at WP are pretty much a standard bog-issue cargo cult. They aren't on any über-rich payroll. They just want to be accepted by the "in" crowd.

They are the types of people who had their lunch money stolen every day for 12 years and received a few power wedgies. They will spend the rest of their lives on a mission to recover from it by taking their bitterness out on the rest of the world (and walking funny).

WP isn't unique in this regard. Look at just about any Internet community, and you'll see the same behavior. I see it all the time in the OSS community. It really upset me the first couple of times I ran into it, but it is now almost background noise.

>> PS: Why are Wikipedia critics posting anonymously here?

Hmm...maybe because of the proven vindictiveness of the Wikipedia crowd? (See "power wedgies and lifelong vendettas, above").

But you do have a point.

Alacrity Fitzhugh, at your service (Someone snagged Morley Dotes before I could get it -I am not a Saucerhead Tharpe type of guy, although I did consider Goblin).

Is that better?

Mark,

I've used Wikipedia as a discussion topic with my English (as a foreign language) classes and it's scary how many of them know the site but don't realise anything about its editorial policy. I have never met a single person outside of IT who even thinks about the arbitration procedure.

I'll put that more simply:

The Vast Majority Of The Population Trusts Wikipedia Unquestioningly.

I have several classes of students at one of my region's most prestigious research companies, and they take the superficially more pragmatic approach: they check the references. However, Wikipedia editorial policy often seperates argument and counter-argument so far that one is not linked to the other. Verification of reference is falaciously taken as proof of reliability, missing out on all proper scientific debate.

Now I don't care who says Wikipedia is reliable and what metrics they've used: the fact that there is any evidence of an "emergent elite" makes it dangerous. "Whose truth do you want?" isn't even the question here, it's "Whose truth do you think you're getting?"

There are two commonly believed answers:

1) The crowd

2) Professional, impartial editors

Neither of those appear to be accurate. Yes, the partiality of "traditional encylcopedia editors" is questionable, but at least we know what we're getting. But The Public Don't Know What Wikipedia IS, so they Can Not Judge Its Reliability.

Wikipedia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma and shrouded in fog, walking aimlessly around the cliffs that separate Mount Knowledge from The Sea of Ignorance

Why are we posting anonymously? Are we paranoid? Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a number of VERY paranoid people at Wikipedia and it's not worth the hassle letting them develop a grudge against us.

"A lot of you are a bunch of egotistical elitists that think they have the right answer to everything and no one else does. The internet is the wrong place for you."

I laughed so hard I nearly ruptured something. Talk about a PKB.

I have no idea what planet you're on, but the last time I looked, the internet was absolutely packed solid with this type of person. From usenet to the blogtards through the pediaphiles, it's the perfect media for them.

Not quite sure why you would think otherwise, possibly you are one of these morons who think the net is in some way 'democratising'. It isn't, but even if it was, in a democracy people have the right to call a you a fucktard and you just have to deal with it.

I suspect you get plenty of practice with an attitude like that.

it's that it's directly misleading, they have a way to denote disputed entries and really nothing to gain otherwise by editing links in this way. Aside from that how sure are we that money does not change hands. I have never seen this sort of shuffle anywhere _but_ when a corporation is involved in a semi legal con like some of the spyware companies in the past. I have seen forum links to security sites corrupted by these lovelies - this seems more like that, just what sort of business did Jimbo really come from. I don't care to figure it out but if all wikipedia is a huge pay for play propaganda machine it needs to be outed and extinguished with extreme prejudice. BTW Tux is prettier than Mars, and more generally useful, but I use the pirate one more it fits the mood.

Hmmmm... that's a tough one...

Could it be because the more whacko whackopedia admins arbitrarily block editors with whom they disagree, as part of their censorship regime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:69.228.2.14

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=JzG

Has it occurred to you that the people who choose to post anonymously here may have the same username on both sites?

Does it irk you that you can't find out their IP addressed and block them?

There's sometimes a fine line between cowardice and wisdom but I think it may be the latter.

"Why are we posting anonymously? Are we paranoid? "

Good question. Heaven forbid that anyone take responsibility for their thoughts? Methinks that is more fear than paranoia and probably more than a little to do with protecting their wage cheque too, making any who recognise themselves in those few words shared, nothing more than slaves.

Flames away, if you will, ACs.

What is a lot more interesting, of course, is that which is posted to but not published on the Register for then you get a valuable insight into their leadership leanings. It makes for an interesting tale whenever you have a string of such posts.

OK, what have you done with him?

You are clearly an imposter. Not only did I understand all that, but I actually agree with it!

Especially the last part, although interestingly, I have noticed that my only comments to have been declined have been posted during the daytime here in the US, presumably when all the Limey type mods are tucked up in their beds. Reposting them later, once the situation has reversed, they have always got through. Makes me wonder if this is more of a cultural phenomenon than a political one - the Yankee types certainly seem to have a penchant for censorship and oppression and whackopedia is clearly becoming a great bastion of American cultural imperialism.

The "secret mailing list" is almost certainly friends-only posts on Livejournal, as the majority of the "ruling clique" use this as a blogging tool.

I think the problem stems from the fact that Wikipedia users assume that it is an open and democratic resource usable by everyone, perhaps because of some of Wikipedia's own claims about what they do.

Like any moderated site the views of the moderators are reflected in the articles, although to be fair to Wikipedia the views of the moderators are typically very open/liberal, which has lead to the vast majority of articles being unbiased. This is probably why Wikipedia is where it is today.

Funnily enough the views of the editors of el Reg tend to be quite open and liberal, this is probably why el Reg is where it is today.

In the great tradition of previous El Reg corporate renames, I give you...

...Wikitrivia

...Wikitripe

...Wikitoss

Anyone got any others?

Please collate a list and hold an El Reg Survey to select the chosen one...

I've been following the Gary Weiss talk page on Wikipedia with a borderline obsession. It seems The Register is now being purged as a reference as it's now considered an 'unreliable source'. The Hive-Mind feels you can now no longer authoritavely say anything regarding Weiss/Overstock/Bagley etc.

Sorry to break it to you.

...your Wiki are belong to us!!

on a side note didnt Jasper Carrot do a sketch about his mate who used the word "Wiki" to bullshit his way around China?

Jasper Carrot certainly did - it's been a source e of some amusement to see all the wki's pop up over internet. I almost bust a gut when I came across my first wiki - I thought someone was on a wind-up.

Right first time it seems.

If you visit wikipedia's Overstock.com page, in the history tab, they say:

"The Register is not a reliable source"

"The Register is a gossip rag, ..."

Well, we all know that... Especially since they were bought by Micro$oft.

Despite many of the commenters here, I greatly enjoy wikipedia for what it is: an extremely quick way to get a general overview of virtually any subject. Wikipedia admin corruption has happened in the past, but I'd say that it definitely matters more and more as the site's popularity spreads. I'd like to see two things happen in the future:

1) a stronger push to educate readers on the site's editorial policy

2) SOME kind of check and balances system for admin corruption

Of course, this is their organization and they'll do whatever they want with it. We can just only hope that events such as these are enough to put enough pressure on those in control of the power to make changes for the better.

P.S. - Kudoz on the article! Despite its length, it read extremely well.

I do like that the reg doesn't mind waving a flag and going "hey guys - something might be up here."

Anyway I don't often use wikipedia (except to look up lists of episodes for stuff and other trivia but I'm finding more specialist sites for that kind of thing now) becouse it has never struck me as very reliable (lack of central oversight and lots of crazy zealots who are alot like "the guy down the pub that knows EVERYTHING.") People power tripping? Never seen that before... except on almost every single forum and irc server I've ever been on.

Even so - one of the few things I learnt at school is that you should never use a single source, having one source to prove something is more or less the same as having no sources. You should have several different sources also preferably some contradicting sources to allow greater analysis. Also make sure your sources don't actualy just reference each other - if everything is sounding like a carbon copy keep hunting until you're sure you aren't being fed a line.

O and I'm an anonymous superstar becouse I know how much it pisses people off for no reason at all.

Anon forever!

So this all amounts to info found on the Internet not being totally "reliable", no surprises. What would be Wikipedia like if it contained every single opinion on a given article? Maybe like this commentary track, longer than the article itself.

Like freetards, to expect different is to live in a fantasy. Wish they wake up.

So, this all amounts to information found on the internet not being completely reliable.

Wonder what Wikipedia would be with all readers posting and fighting over every single article, like this, longer that the article itself.

Like freetards, expecting different is childish. Grow up.

joke..right?

I don't know what's worse. The whole sorry mess or that I've spent 30 minutes of life reading through it all.

Wikipedia is at best a joke, at worst a disinformation tool. Choose 5 topics that you're reasonably well versed in and then check out the corresponding pages on wikipedia.

You'll either laugh and cry yourself to sleep.

"O and I'm an anonymous superstar becouse I know how much it pisses people off for no reason at all."

Is that thinking, psychologically flawed, AC? I love the oxymoron though ...anonymous superstar. Very droll/smart idiot troll. And there's no offence meant there. It is just an observation from another viewpoint/perception.

Does Microsoft do Metadata trawls of techie/geek sites for goodies? .... ""The Register is a gossip rag, ..."

Well, we all know that... Especially since they were bought by Micro$oft."

Are they then vulnerable to pharming/phishing/courting/steering in A.N.Other direction or even of spawning themselves into A.N.Other Entity boldly going in A.N.Other Correction? They are painfully slow at doing anything Good Virtually other than closing the Windows on their Vista plans. Is that a Bum Steer to Kill, Bill? Were you led up the Garden Path with an immaculate Hook on that one?

Those wiki-wankers are convinced The Register is part of the Tabloid press.

and no one dared change it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Register#Tabloid_Journalism

Lets see how long it takes until a Wiki Admin decends and reverts

Good spot, Just Some Dude. It's been reverted already, FYI. I note that none other than David Gerard contributed to that article and talk page way back in '04...Maybe I'm falling down the rabbit hole here.

"but we are assured by its Programmer that he is not. It would also like to express how very bizarre it considers the thought to be/to have been. In further enlightening defence of that submission/admission, he would ask you to ponder on the unlikelihood of an automated program thinking to Share ...." The Rise of IntelAIgently Designed Machines and SMARTer Bots, El Reg, or just Enriched Processing of HyperRadioProActive Material in Information 42 Render CyberIntelAIgent Core Services. A stupid question I know whenever IT is already answered. I Think therefore I am AI Thinking Turing Virtual Machine?" ..... for whoever heard of an automated program with AI Virtualised New World Order Project 42 Sell as an Open Source Shell Program for an XPanding Mutual Intelligence Service [MuI7]in dDutch Initiatives. MeThinks you gotta get out more..... for you cannot be thinking straight. :-) And now y'all know about ITs Program." ...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Register

The Truth ....unexpurgated.

Ooops..... the above edit of the Register wiki obviously didn't suit their Admin team which sort of proves the point of Cade Metz's Register article?

Ah well.

And a black helicopter because it's appropriate?

> It seems The Register is now being purged as a reference as

> it's now considered an 'unreliable source'.

A perfectly accurate description, IMHO.

Did any one of you bother to actually check the claims made in this article? It's not like it's a lot of work, it might take five whole minutes, starting with the links here. If you do bother to check, you'll notice that Bagley appeared in the naked short article and started making libelous attacks on "nameless" traders while re-directing links from existing articles in major magazines to his own site. People removed these edits, as they should have, and he re-added them. Over and over again.

When people told him to stop, he started attacking anyone that edited the articles or his user page, eventually trying to "out" one of the editors (laughably). That brought in the admins, who he immediately abused as well, and that led to a block. All of this happened in _one day_. Not to be stopped by that, he then started creating account after account after account so he could continue to abuse people for almost a month. That led to a ban, not when he "was merely writing about the site, from his own domain", but wayyyy back in 2006 when all of this was actually happening.

Read it for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/WordBomb

This well recorded reality contrasts rather harshly with the claims in this article. The Reg claims Bagley "hadn't edited" in a year, which is a rather nice spin on "banned". It then goes on to say the "address was banned because Judd Bagley has accused Wikipedia's uber-administrators of skewing the contents of four online articles", which is obviously not the case -- he was banned over a year ago due to a variety of well recorded reasons.

But let's not let publicly recorded history get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, eh? Then what we do on the slow news days?

You don't get it, do you? I know, it's hard for you to adjust yourself to reality as it really is: This is not about defending some nuttiness concerning naked shortselling, this is about how Wikipedia handles problems.

What Marco said.

Though I'd like to know, Mr Markowitz, was that some sort of naive PR or damage limitation effort?

You'd do much better focusing your attentions on Wikipedia - the damage is being done at your end, not here.

Of course I "get it". _My_ point is that an article complaining about a super-secret cabal controlling "the truth" had better try to, you know, get to "the truth".

I'm completely familiar with the problems that societies have with the idea that there's some sort of gatekeepers of "the official knowledge", whether that "official knowledge" is the latin bible under the protection of the Vatican, philosophy of 13th century universities, or, in this case, some sort of half-baked collaborative blog site. And pointing out problems with these generally self-serving organizations has been going on for thousands of years - literally.

But is _this_ the right way to point them out? By creating skewed articles are filled with innuendo and misrepresentations? I think I need to say this again; this article states in black and white that the ban was "because Judd Bagley has accused Wikipedia's uber-administrators of skewing the contents of four online articles". But the reasons for the ban are clearly recorded on the site and have absolutely nothing to do with this. Bagley created dozens of accounts to continue arguing long after he had been repeatedly told to stop. The more recent activity was about blocking IPs apparently owned by the company in question. That's it. That's the _entire_ story. This is some sort of smoking gun about the abuse of power? Whatever.

You can't simply ignore these problems and say that's not the issue. This IS the issue. "Old media", of which El Reg is a member, _is_ one of those "gatekeepers of truth", one that makes pretensions far in excess of anything the wikipedia has ever claimed. The wiki has problems dealing with conflict? Big deal. Aren't problems accurately reporting reality just a tad more important?

Maury

Perhaps predictably, after his attempt to adjust reality here, one Maury Markowitz went on to successfully adjust the reality of "naked short selling" on wacopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naked_short_selling&diff=prev&oldid=177550873

Perhaps he's part of their problem.

"And pointing out problems with these generally self-serving organizations has been going on for thousands of years - literally.

But is _this_ the right way to point them out?"

Maury,

It has certainly been very effective in pointing them out/raising awareness to the problem they are causing. Take a bow, Wikipedia, .... and as for naked short selling, you can bet your last bottom dollar it is rife and the markets have lost control of it, which is why the market place is shifting out of the traditional brokerages/banks and into the Underground Banking System, which has caused the Establishment Systems to inject paper into the Market Place rather than fix their dodgy Systems. That'll soon disappear too unless they get their act together and sort themselves out, for robbing Peter to pay Paul aint workin' and aint gonna work either.

Some might argue that they deserve all the grief that they get for the abuses they have been privy to and perpetrating for centuries, if not even millenia ["has been going on for thousands of years - literally."] but IT can fix it with a new Script to Follow.... Never Ending Tale Really ...... but it has to be a Credible and Viable Alternative Reality and their Concerted and Collective Solution ..... http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3042957.ece .... is devoid and bereft of anything even remotely likely 42 Help. The System has lost the Plot completely because the are in Denial of their Failure to Control IT..... but then IT is not their Game, the hoarding of Money is their poison.

Put in Place AI New System and they will then have, at least, a proxy Control of IT. Presently they are still digging a hole and compounding their incompetence in AI New World Order System in Programming.

No you don't. It's pretty obvious you're shilling, and trying (unsuccessfully) to divert the conversation.

I'm assuming that this is deliberate, and not due to bad reading comprehension.

You should have helped out Ms Wheeler when she stuck her hand into the blender early on.

"You can't simply ignore these problems and say that's not the issue. This IS the issue. "Old media", of which El Reg is a member, _is_ one of those "gatekeepers of truth", one that makes pretensions far in excess of anything the wikipedia has ever claimed. The wiki has problems dealing with conflict? Big deal. Aren't problems accurately reporting reality just a tad more important?"

I disagree with the second sentence. Allow me to quote Jimbo, from his user page:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing."

I think that is somewhat more pretentious than this site, self-deprecatingly referred to as "hack-central". And if you were saying that The Register is a "gatekeeper of truth" unlike Wikipedia, I note that if I google naked short selling, Wikipedia is the very first result. If I google Gary Weiss, Wikipedia is the fourth result (although a Gary Wiess blog about wikipedia is 2nd).

In that context, the biases, conflicts and political games (for both sides of this Judd Bagley issue and beyond) in Wikipedia's editing process is a big deal; it sets itself way above 'old media' and is massively more prominent than most other websites for virtually all proper nouns and technical terms. People are often well aware that The Daily Mail is feeding its readers bullsh*t about immigrants and house-prices and the smelly EU and readers are appropriately critical. But they don't know what really goes into Wikipedia. To quote Jimbo again:

"[Wikipedia is] like a sausage: you might like the taste of it, but you don't necessarily want to see how it's made."

An apt metaphor because, like a sausage, the consumer will have no idea about the nutritional content either without guidance.

Maury's understanding of events surrounding my "banning" from Wikipedia resembles a fourth-hand version of an out-dated urban legend retold by a 10-year-old with a gnat's attention span.

In other words, his version only roughly resembles the truth, although I'll concede that it's quite faithful to Wikipedia's officially endorsed version of the WorbBomb Chronicles.

So, I don't blame Maury. He's only repeating what he's been told by those in charge at Wikipedia. Furthermore, he's never heard my version of events, because my version is strictly forbidden. Those who attempt to tell it are banned. As are the thousands who live near me or work in the same place I do.

Indeed, I forgive you, Maury, because you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's not your fault. However, if you're open to learning a little, please see the WordBomb Manifesto, at http://antisocialmedia.net/?page_id=116

Having said that, I'd like to point out that even if everything Maury says were true, it does nothing to change my message (backed by incontrovertible evidence), which is that the most powerful Wikipedia admins have systematically abused their tools to hide their own violations of policy. And while that's bad enough, what's worse is that they regularly ban others for doing the same thing they've been doing for years.

So feel free to continue attacking me, Maury. I'm numb to it by now. If you'd like a bigger challenge, get over your issues with me and try to disprove the evidence presented at AntiSocialMedia.net.

Good evening Mr Bagley, we've been expecting you (said slowly whilst menacingly stroking my pussy)...

Well, actually, I for one wasn't expecting you but it's good to hear from the other side. Assuming it's really you.

You're quite correct of course, the point here isn't the detail of your dispute. The crux of the problem with wackopedia which this article highlighted (there are, no doubt, many others) is the way in which well organised clique can operate with such speed and efficiency to censor material of which they disapprove. The process being almost invisible to other wackopedians. Sure they leave tracks but can anyone be arsed to follow them? Does anyone *without* a vested interest in a particular subject really care enough to put that much effort into wackopedia's take on it? It seems that if you're organised and motivated enough you can manipulate the thing as you please. Makes a bit of a mockery of the whole wikipedia premise really.

The over zealous over reaction to this article just proves the problem.

Perhaps one day they'll stop being so aggressively defensive and turn their attention to get their own house in order. Until they do it all seems pretty hopeless to me, just more bunker mentality BADSITES, mass blockings, locked pages, etc as they disappear further down the rabbit hole. Bye bye wackopedia. It was a nice idea.

When I read 'said slowly whilst menacingly stroking my pussy', first thing that sprung to my mind was an image of naked SlimVirgin, one-handedly typing a reply from a wp fortress... but you meant Dr.Evil, right? right?

"The Register is a tabloid blog with a tiny audience and of virtually no importance outside a certain subculture" - Jimbo Wales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Overstock.com

I...I can't get enough of this stuff...

Will reality adjust to suit Mr Wales' vision, please?

Sounds like old Jimbo might be re-cycling a description of his own site there. Nice to see him doing his bit for the environment.

@Maksim:

I hate to be the one to shatter such a beautiful illusion but that "SlimVirgin" you're picturing is very likely to be Gary Weiss :-&

EWWWwwwwwwwwwww.............................

Now go and wash your mind out with soap and water. Dirty boy.

I decided to upload a photo to Wikipedia last week and signed up. I try to be as self taught IT literate as poss for work and pleasure but found it difficult and clunky, a bit like some of the hierachy appear to be. I read El Reg in much the same way I used to read Private Eye (God, he's old), as a probably credible insight into areas of life about which I know nothing, and laugh as I read it. Being work idle until 2008 I have used the recent dark days to crawl all over this Wiki/Overstock/Stein/!!/SlimVirgin/Patrick Byrne web and its been hilarious. Dont we get carried away? Shouldnt a lot of people be? As a time waster the net is great. Please go and see bogritz.com and scroll down to paragraphs 11-15 to see The WikiAntiChrist come back from the dead.

Sorry, the particular page I referred to just now is /notintotemptation.htm at that link.

!!Paranoia attack!!; am I meant to post link linked stuff? ; maybe theyll think I m a Ukrainian bot zombie? The FrakSpncerWorm?

"Good evening Mr Bagley, we've been expecting you (said slowly whilst menacingly stroking my pussy)..."

Am I "Unanimous" in being the only one to have Mrs. Slocum come to mind?

Man are you ever right... The scary part is trying to figure out if Amanfrommars is finally acclimating to earth speak, or if after reading so many comments by him, he is seasoning our brains to understand WTF he is saying...

How about this contender?

"I wrote it on teh Wikipedia so now it R true"

Lots of words for a site used primarily to settle bar bets.