Vanity of vanities
full context restored
Soon people will discover no living person wants a wiki entry about themself, notable or vanity. The very creation of an article, keeping with human nature, will always gravitate in the direction of negativity. Any 'puff piece' short of that is suspect.Spoken by one with a reputation of being ominous: "I know where the bodies are buried..."
You don't really believe that though, do you?
Thing is, if you've been reading what's posted here on Wikipedia Review fairly regularly, it would be very easy to get that impression, I should think. But the reality of it is that most people do want articles about themselves, and most such articles aren't really negative at all. In cases where people have done bad things, or who have skeletons in their closets that have recently been revealed, those peoples' enemies will occasionally target their bio articles... but I'd say that's a tiny minority of cases.
Another thing: You yourself, Nobs, have a history of adding negative information to BLP articles - or at least one or two in particular - and it's ultimately the reason you're here, as I understand it. It may be that the information you added is true and well-sourced, that the subjects deserve to be exposed in that way, and that "the people" deserve to know - and you may very well be right. But again, that's still a tiny minority of articles, and even in those cases I doubt that all but a few would want to risk the additional attention they'd get by asking for an opt-out deletion.
At a minimum, Wikipedia must allow for the fact that it is capable of damaging people out of spite, pettiness, and vindictiveness, often having nothing to do with the "notability" of the subject. In other words, it must make allowances for serious flaws in the very nature of its underlying concept. Only if it does that can we even bother to consider the question of whether or not it's a net-positive to society.
nobs
It's human nature; "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...see above...
Yes and no. My dispute arose prior to official BLP. In fact, BLP came into existance largely based upon the Siegenthaler/Berlet/ Brandt controversies (Marsden was in infancy). BLP was created 17 Dec 2005; me, a "problem user", was hounded out 6 days later. Mr. Harry Magdoff was the living person whom my dispute was over. Venona 687 specifically identifies Harry Magdoff as "KANT". NSA Archives release states,
Other WP:ATT sources nobs used to verify Magdoff as "KANT" were
(of course many of the persons named above have since had negative wiki bios created about them to impugn their credibility). To top it all, Magdoff up and dies on us 31 December 2005.
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th February 2007, 8:49am)
... these people are now "notable" enough for their own articles. If they don't want articles written about them, then that should be their right - but they should extend that right to others as well, in the interest of fairness. They should extend that right to everyone.
Soon people will discover no living person wants a wiki entry about themself, notable or vanity. The very creation of an article, keeping with human nature, will always gravitate in the direction of negativity. Any 'puff piece' short of that is suspect.Spoken by one with a reputation of being ominous: "I know where the bodies are buried..."
QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 8th February 2007, 11:43am)Somey
Soon people will discover no living person wants a wiki entry about themself, notable
or vanity. The very creation of an article, keeping with human nature, will always gravitate in the direction of negativity. Any 'puff piece' short of that is suspect.
You don't really believe that though, do you?
Thing is, if you've been reading what's posted here on Wikipedia Review fairly regularly, it would be very easy to get that impression, I should think. But the reality of it is that most people do want articles about themselves, and most such articles aren't really negative at all. In cases where people have done bad things, or who have skeletons in their closets that have recently been revealed, those peoples' enemies will occasionally target their bio articles... but I'd say that's a tiny minority of cases.
Another thing: You yourself, Nobs, have a history of adding negative information to BLP articles - or at least one or two in particular - and it's ultimately the reason you're here, as I understand it. It may be that the information you added is true and well-sourced, that the subjects deserve to be exposed in that way, and that "the people" deserve to know - and you may very well be right. But again, that's still a tiny minority of articles, and even in those cases I doubt that all but a few would want to risk the additional attention they'd get by asking for an opt-out deletion.
At a minimum, Wikipedia must allow for the fact that it is capable of damaging people out of spite, pettiness, and vindictiveness, often having nothing to do with the "notability" of the subject. In other words, it must make allowances for serious flaws in the very nature of its underlying concept. Only if it does that can we even bother to consider the question of whether or not it's a net-positive to society.
nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th February 2007, 11:18am)
You don't really believe that though, do you?
It's human nature; "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th February 2007, 11:18am)
most people do want articles about themselves, and most such articles aren't really
negative at all. In cases where people have done bad things, or who have skeletons in their closets that have recently been revealed, those peoples' enemies will occasionally target their bio articles...
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...see above...
Another thing: You yourself, Nobs, have a history of adding negative
information to BLP articles - or at least one or two in particular - and it's ultimately the reason you're here, as I understand it. It may be that the information you added is true and well-sourced, that the subjects deserve to be exposed in that way, and that "the people" deserve to know - and you may very well be right.
Yes and no. My dispute arose prior to official BLP. In fact, BLP came into existance largely based upon the Siegenthaler/Berlet/ Brandt controversies (Marsden was in infancy). BLP was created 17 Dec 2005; me, a "problem user", was hounded out 6 days later. Mr. Harry Magdoff was the living person whom my dispute was over. Venona 687 specifically identifies Harry Magdoff as "KANT". NSA Archives release states,
QUOTE
The release of VENONA translations involved careful consideration of the privacy interests of individuals mentioned, referenced, or identified in the translations. Some names have not been released when to do so would constitute an invasion of privacy.
Other WP:ATT sources nobs used to verify Magdoff as "KANT" were
- Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States;
- John Earl Haynes, Library of Congress Manuscripts Division;
- Robert L. Bensen of the National Security Agency Archives;
- Michael Warner, CIA History Staff; National Cryptological Museum, Custodian of Documents for the Army Signals Intelligence Corp;
- Hayden Peake, Curator of CIA's Historical Intelligence Collection;
- Counterintelligence Reader, National Counterintelligence Center, Frank J. Rafalko, ed.
(of course many of the persons named above have since had negative wiki bios created about them to impugn their credibility). To top it all, Magdoff up and dies on us 31 December 2005.
posted by Press Reports at
12:04 PM
<< Home