Guest blog post: Wikipedia's War Against Journalism

[CrowsNest]

I'll make no apologies for that. [...] It is possible to laugh at the thought of Dennis being cleaned out by his addict wife [...] I could have sympathy for Dennis too, if he was a sympathetic individual. [...]

Hmm. Liking likeable people, being nice to nice people or sympathetic to sympathetic people is a pretty low bar. I'm inclined to think that having sympathy for human beings with problems takes a higher priority in the scheme of things than you do, it seems. Still, it's your blog post and your opinion, and everyone else's level of sympathy for you will be informed by your position.

That you and I have different morals and priorities, is not news. As was made clear, I have sympathy for all the potential victims in this affair. Do you?

Would you have me lie to our readers, to pretend I don't know things that probably have a material effect on the harm people like Dennis Brown and Wikipedia might be capable of? All because you can't bear the thought of Dennis or his wife being embarassed. Even though the only reason I know this is because Dennis broadcast it to the world on Wikipedia. One of his faults being that he clearly sees it as a replacement for an actual emotional support network.

Is that who you are? Is that how you intend to draw sympathy to your view? Asserting there are good people on all sides here? I might go and see precisely what Dennis said about his wife, since I seem to recall it was not very supportive, her issues evidently interrupting his love of his hobby, as he had to concentrate on earning money and finding new place to live, not playing mall cop. So you may have difficulty making your case he deserves any sympathy at all. Certainly if I write more posts about his behaviour in other, unrelated areas.

As I have said before, I care not if people adjust how they interpret the information I am bringing them, based on the relative triviality of how I say it and who it might embarass. Such people are of no use to me. I do not write for them. I write for people with the capacity to think, to be stirred into action by obvious injustice and actual harm. We are not in the business of sparing people's feelings, we are in the business of taking people by the scruff of the neck and shaking them until they see the true nature of the cult. Critics up to now, having sucked at this task.

You are reminded when you visit this site, you can expect to see things that might offend your sensibilities. Just like when you visit Wikipedocray, you will find Dennis Brown in pipe and slippers, drink in hand, talking about the things he wants to talk about, and having people like me ejected for harshing their buzz. Perhaps they're more your kind of people. Sympathetic people.

[AndrewForson]

Would you have me lie to our readers, to pretend I don't know things that probably have a material effect on the harm people like Dennis Brown and Wikipedia might be capable of?

Lie, no: pretend, no: select what is relevant, yes.

All because you can't bear the thought of Dennis or his wife being embarassed.

Sadly, like most people, I can bear other peoples' misfortunes only too well, although you seem to be better at it than I am.

Asserting there are good people on all sides here?

No, and I think that you must be aware of that.

So you may have difficulty making your case he deserves any sympathy at all. Certainly if I write more posts about his behaviour in other, unrelated areas.

I made no such case about Mr Brown, although it suits your rhetoric to pretend that I did. My case would be that people such as Mrs Brown with problem such as gambling addiction, and who are not Wikipedia actors or critics, do not deserve to have their issues broadcast to the world at large and sneered at by people like you with the ostensible purpose of criticising other people about other things. My comment, not my case, is that your conduct on this specific point is obnoxious.

As I have said before, I care not if people adjust how they interpret the information I am bringing them, based on the relative triviality of how I say it and who it might embarass. Such people are of no use to me. I do not write for them. I write for people with the capacity to think, to be stirred into action by obvious injustice and actual harm. We are not in the business of sparing people's feelings, we are in the business of taking people by the scruff of the neck and shaking them until they see the true nature of the cult. Critics up to now, having sucked at this task.

You are reminded when you visit this site, you can expect to see things that might offend your sensibilities.

You assert your right to say what you want without caring. I assert my right to say that you're behaving like a jerk and a bully. Does that offend your sensibilities? Too bad.

[CrowsNest]

Have you made your case?

Tell me why it matters more to you to spare the feelings of his (presumably now ex) wife, than properly informing the past, current and future victims of Wikipedia? Bearing in mind, she may well be one.

Do you suppose she even knows her husband was a Wikipedia addict? Do you suppose she even knows he spread her troubles all around the internet? Maybe I am doing her a public service. You don't know, do you? You don't want to know. You assumed it would simply be the right thing to do, to keep her out of it.

Dennis Brown is an active Wikipedia Administrator. He has, to this day, said nothing about this issue other than he was correct, and fuck you if you disagree. He's said more about his home life than this block. If he hadn't reacted to legitimate complaints in this manner, I'd not have remembered that incident, and so not likely written this blog post, and thus not needed to included the relevant context of his real life situation.

Dennis knew who he was telling to fuck off when I raised this to him directly at Wikipediocracy, and he chose to do it anway. Laughed about it. Just like he knew he was off reservation when he blocked that journalist. He did it anyway. Dennis knew who was watching when he posted about his wife's private affairs on Wikipedia (anybody and everybody). He did it anyway.

You need to start remembering who you are talking to. If you are offended by jerks and bullies, it would be in your interests to realise who it is I write about. If Dennis Brown is a jerk and a bully to people on Wikipedia because he hates his life, hates his wife, and hates me for holding a mirror up to it all, then people need to know that. If you think they don't, then give a reason beyond what you have offered so far. Seriously, convince me.

Nothing I do here is as casually offensive as you seem to want to assume. Your conduct offends me only insofar as I have hopes this forum can be a venue for serious critics, people who can think for themselves. Show me you have thought about this issue more than you seem to have so far.

[AndrewForson]

Tell me why it matters more to you to spare the feelings of his (presumably now ex) wife, than properly informing the past, current and future victims of Wikipedia? Bearing in mind, she may well be one.

Sneering at people whom you do not know to be Wikipedia actors conveys precisely no information of value to those victims -- or indeed anyone else in the entire world.

Do you suppose she even knows her husband was a Wikipedia addict? Do you suppose she even knows he spread her troubles all around the internet? Maybe I am doing her a public service. You don't know, do you? You don't want to know. You assumed it would simply be the right thing to do, to keep her out of it.

If you have further information relevant to the discussion about Mrs Brown that you provoked, then that information would help you to explain why sneering at her addiction advances your criticism about Wikipedia, you could have revealed it. Your response allows me to assume that you did not know of any and make it a good working assumption that in fact there is none.

Dennis Brown is an active Wikipedia Administrator. He has, to this day, said nothing about this issue other than he was correct, and fuck you if you disagree. He's said more about his home life than this block. If he hadn't reacted to legitimate complaints in this manner, I'd not have remembered that incident, and so not likely written this blog post, and thus not needed to included the relevant context of his real life situation.

Dennis knew who he was telling to fuck off when I raised this to him directly at Wikipediocracy, and he chose to do it anway. Laughed about it. Just like he knew he was off reservation when he blocked that journalist. He did it anyway. Dennis knew who was watching when he posted about his wife's private affairs on Wikipedia (anybody and everybody). He did it anyway.

So you agree that you're dragging up stuff about people who you have no business criticising just to get back at someone you have a grudge against. That does little to refute the charge of being obnoxious.

You need to start remembering who you are talking to.

OK, remind me -- to whom, exactly, am I talking?

Nothing I do here is as casually offensive as you seem to want to assume. Your conduct offends me only insofar as I have hopes this forum can be a venue for serious critics, people who can think for themselves.

I don't think that an admission of being deliberately offensive does much to rebut the accusation of being needlessly offensive. It seems to me that you want "people who can think for themselves" who are simultaneously people who agree slavishly with you on every single point, jumping through every hoop you hold up for them. You're not going to get both: choose one.

[CrowsNest]

As usual, you've reverted to type. For a brief second there, I thought you were going to at least try. I really am amazed, after all this time, you think I'm the sort of dumb fuck who might spend the next twenty posts debating with you what you think you saw me say, what you think you saw me not say, and what you have assumed it all means so as to support your characteristically unsupportable conclusions. All because you just can't admit you were wrong and there is no moral basis for your outrage, not if you want to claim common cause with serious and capable Wikipedia critics. You don't have to like it, but to deny/distort reality so as to try and discredit it, that's just ridiculous. Seriously, you really do need to start paying attention to who you are talking to. I'm the same guy who shut you down the last time you did this. It doesn't fly with me. You need to start appreciating what it is you do that signals you're about to be told to stop wasting my time and go find something else to do with yours. This is that time.

[AndrewForson]

Seriously, you really do need to start paying attention to who you are talking to.

I think I've got that sorted out. An obnoxious bully who is driven into (admittedly amusing) spasms of rage by any form of disagreement.

[CrowsNest]

Seriously, you really do need to start paying attention to who you are talking to.

I think I've got that sorted out. An obnoxious bully who is driven into (admittedly amusing) spasms of rage by any form of disagreement.

Rage? Don't be ridiculous. The only bullying has apparently been to ask you to justify yourself.

[sashi]

Meanwhile KP's bombs have fallen on a sleepy little sign post in a corner of the village. Gorilla Warfare, TNT, & of course Drmies & Carrite are on the scene already. ^^

Some guy named Gamaliel, too.

Sometimes the biggest act of resistance is just pushing the buttons and watching the explosions.

[AndrewForson]

The only bullying has apparently been to ask you to justify yourself.

Tell me, do you favour thorium mantles for your gas lights?

[AndrewForson]

Meanwhile KP's bombs have fallen on a sleepy little sign post in a corner of the village. Gorilla Warfare, TNT, & of course Drmies & Carrite are on the scene already. ^^

Some guy named Gamaliel, too.

Sometimes the biggest act of resistance is just pushing the buttons and watching the explosions.

Yes, oncologist Guy is there too. A pity that the insiders get some heavy blows in while the outsiders rant about their right to sneer at bystanders.