Subject: Re: [off topic] Wikipedia & Jimmy Wales

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:35:49 +0200

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "[off topic] Wikipedia & Jimmy Wales":
> I recommend reading this article (in Hebrew), and looking at the
> websites below:
> http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3180710,00.html
> 
> http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
> http://www.google-watch.org/

Can you explain why you recommend reading those sites, much of which appear
to be the writings of a nudnik at best, or a raving lunatic at worst?

Wikipedia's method of operation is well-known. Nothing written on it comes
with any promise of being correct. But, unlike much of the rest of the
Internet which contains falsehoods and half-truths by the millions, in
Wikipedia you can actually correct these falsehoods yourself. You don't
need to resort to "anti"-sites which cry about the falsehoods, or to
law-suites to force the site owner to change something.

This guy's view of Wikipedia reminds me of SCO's view of free software.
They think that the fact that someone *can* put stolen copyrighted material
into some free software project, means that free software is inherently
evil, and that they don't need any proof (like showing an actual case of
stolen code) to win a lawsuit. Similarly, just because somebody *can*
put libel in wikipedia does not prove that a specific article about Mr.
Dan "paranoid" Brandt is in fact libel, or that Wikipedia is evil.

These views make as much sense as charging every cook with murder, because
he uses knives who can be easily used to kill people.

This guy's rambling have started to annoy people, and one of them even
created a "Google-watch watch" site: :-)

	http://www.google-watch-watch.org/

> By the way, www.google-watch.org has a Google PageRank of 6, and appears
> #17 when searching "google" on Google.  The first 14 websites are
> operated by Google, so it's #3 site which is not operated by Google.

Ok, and that says what?

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Wednesday, Dec 7 2005, 7 Kislev 5766
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |All those who believe in psychokinesis,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |raise my hand.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:45:54 +0200

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [off topic] Wikipedia & Jimmy Wales":
> Wikipedia is not free.  Wikipedia is operated by people, with hierarchic
> ranks, who control it.  Anything in the articles which doesn't fit their
> agenda will be removed or modified, and any person whom they don't like
> (for any reason) will be banned from Wikipedia.  Believe me, I know.

But the fact is that anybody (including you and me) can go to Wikipedia
and fix what we find wrong. If you decide to go to Wikipedia's site,
you can set its agenda. This is very different from other sites, like
http://google-watch.org itself, where I cannot modify what they say if I
don't like them. So perhaps google-watch.org is more "dangerous" than
Wikipedia?? Personally, I think neither is dangerous.

It's ironic how this guy's main blaim of Wikipedia is that anybody can come
in and write a article badmouthing him. And this when this guy's job and hobby
is writing sites that badmouthing others (politicians, Google, and now
Wikipedia)? At least in Wikipedia, the "victim" can correct the errors - on
his sites, his victims have no recourse.

By the way, your comment about Heirarchic ranks is wrong. There are no ranks,
just tens of thousands of editors (anyone can be one, you can even be
anonymous), and there is one layer of "system operators" who have very
few special privilages (among them, the privilage to delete a page, something
which an ordinary user cannot do). Any computer system I know of have
such operators, and it doesn't make every such system a "dictatorship".

> Wikipedia is not objective, and not free.  It reminds me the book
> "Animal Farm".  Remember the sentence "All people are equal, but some
> people are more equal than others"?  That's Wikipedia.

All projects run by humans, including Wikipedia, have their share of power
struggles and people who try to enforce their opinions on others. But unlike
any other site where the site operator can easily force their opinions on
others (e.g., try getting a controversial announcement into "slashdot"),
on Wikipedia its far easier for any Tom, Dick and Harry to write opinions
which differ from those of the "owners" of Wikipedia.

> You can't correct falsehoods in Wikipedia.  Believe me, I tried.  If the
> editors ("system operators") don't like what you wrote, it will be
> changed back and you will be banned.

If you can't convince others that your change is worthwhile, then maybe
they were right and your change shouldn't be on Wikipedia. After all,
Wikipedia is not your personal site and not a soapbox.

I've been editing on Wikipedia, and using it, for about two years, and
nothing even close to what you described ever happened to me.

> There are excellent articles in Wikipedia, in areas such as mathematics,
> science etc.  But when it gets to politics or to anything else where
> there are different opinions - Wikipedia is not neutral.

Wikipedia is not perfect, and some articles are crappy because of such
"edit wars" between people of opposing political views. But from that
to saying that Wikipedia is evil, there is a long way.

> www.google-watch.org is the third most popular site about Google, which
> is not operated by Google.  And that says something.

It doesn't say anything to me... It looks like a totally unimpressive
statistic. Heck, my own site had pagerank 7 until recently, beating this
"google-watch.org".

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Thursday, Dec 8 2005, 7 Kislev 5766
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 23:11:53 +0200

This doesn't have much to do with Linux, but since most people interested
in free software are also interested in free content, I hope that people
aren't too upset about this thread of discussion.

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [off topic] Wikipedia & Jimmy Wales":
> There is no absolute "incorrect information".  There are opinions.  I
> tried to change something that was wrong in my opinion, and it was
> reverted.  I changed it again and I was banned.  I don't have a problem
> with my change being reverted, but I do have a problem when I was
> banned.  Some people have the right to ban other people in Wikipedia,
> and some don't.  Which means, not everybody is equal.

When you want to join some society, it has the right to impose some rules
that make that society work, or stop it from collapsing. In this case,
to make Wikipedia work and keep it from turning into more of a mess than
it already is, Wikipedians developed a set of rules, ettiquettes and
procedures, that a civilized Wikipedian is supposed to abide by. These
rules were developed over the years by dozens or hundreds of wikipedians,
and by no means they were "dictated" by a dictator.
If you don't follow these rules, you won't get jailed, won't get fined.
All that happens is that you won't be welcome in Wikipedia, because you're
ruining everybody else's resource. It's as simple as that.

One of the most established rule in Wikipedia is the "three revert rule"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_revert_rule). It says that you must
not try to revert a single page more than 3 in 24 hours. This is probably
exactly what you did: you changed something to fit your opinion, and somebody
changed it back. You changed it again, and someone changed it again. You
did it for the third time... and you were banned. What were you supposed
to do instead of writing your opinion over and over? If you'd had spent
some time learning about Wikipedia procedures before engaging in edit wars,
you'd have realized that the first thing you should have done after somebody
un-edited your edit, is to explain your position in the "discussion" page
and wait for the other person's reply. Argue all you want on that discussion
page until a resolution is reached with the other interested editors. You can
also try conducting a servey, and when you give up, even can look for
arbitration. For more information, see
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

> In Wikipedia, like in any other system or society, some people have more
> power than others.  Sometimes these people abuse their power.  It
> happens in Wikipedia and it happens in the police, army or any system
> where people have power.  But in Wikipedia there is nowhere to complain.
> Nobody will do anything to people who abuse their power.  So
> eventually, I think Wikipedia is corrupt.

You couldn't be more wrong. In wikipedia, there are a lot of venues to
complain, and almost any editor (basically, any body) can help you solve
your problems. Compare this to a closed site (say, http://www.google-watch.com)
in which one person has absolute power to write anything he wants, and
there you *really* have nobody to complain to if you don't like what's
written there.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Thursday, Dec 8 2005, 8 Kislev 5766
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |vendor? Make me one with everything.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 23:20:32 +0200

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [off topic] Wikipedia & Jimmy Wales":
> OK, you asked for an example, you got it.  Look at the history of
> "שיחה:אריאל שרון" from 28 May 2005.  There were comments by an anonymous
> user which were deleted by the system administrators.  Read the
> discussion and then read the comments that were deleted.
> 
> http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F&action=history

I can't for the life of me understand what you're complaining about. It
appears that a few children (or adults acting like children) continuously
blank the page and replace it by complaints. They also appear to have used
sock-puppet accounts (the same person using multiple accounts to disguise
their identity). I really hope that these people were banned from Wikipedia.
I really hope this wasn't you...

> Also, check why "משתמש:שי דוד" was deleted.  Can you find any
> explanation?  Or is the explanation deleted too?

Again, what are you trying to say??? You simple wrote his name wrong! His
name is "דוד שי", and not "שי דוד". See 

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%A9%D7%99

This David Shay guy is a well-respected member of the Hebrew Wikipedia
community, and contributed dozens of articles to the Hebrew Wikipedia.
Have you contributed more to it?

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Thursday, Dec 8 2005, 8 Kislev 5766
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |I have an open mind - it's just closed
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |for repairs.

---

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:24:45 +0200

On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 23:11 +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> to do instead of writing your opinion over and over?

Question to Wikipedia lawyers:

Does Wikipedia have a rule about allowing people to add to an opinion
page a link to a dissenting opinion in another Web site, in the
"External Links" section.  If yes, do such links get better protection
than dissenting content in the page itself?
                                              --- Omer
-- 
Jara Cimrman.  A name to remember.
My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/

My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:12:01 +0200

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [off topic] Wikipedia & Jimmy Wales":
> If somebody registers "david-shay.co.il" and you want to register
> "shay-david.co.il" or "davidshay.co.il" or "david-shay.com" or anything
> similar, you're allowed to do so.  Nobody will stop you.  The only way
> to stop you is with legal means, such as an arbitration or court order.
>  There are laws and there are ways to enforce the laws.

And these laws always seem to favor those who are strong, or have a lot
of money, not who is right. Forgive me if I don't join you (and Oleg) in
cheers for our (or perhaps, the American) legal system, where a guy molests
children can get away with it if he's famous enough and has 270 million
dollars to pour into his defence, and another guy can literally get away
with murder in criminal court, and yet be found guilty in a civilian court.
(for those who don't follow famous American cases, I referred to Michael
Jackson and O.J. Simpson respectively).

One of my random signatures defines it succinctly:
 "Jury: Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer."

> But in Wikipedia, there are no laws.  If a system administrator (esp. a
> strong one, such as David Shay or "Gilgamesh") doesn't like you for any
> reason - he can delete you, ban your username, ban your IP or just make
> your life miserable until you leave Wikipedia.  Don't believe me?  Try
> for yourself.  Make them angry and see what happens.

Like I told you, in Wikipedia there are "laws", like there are in any
community. After you (or whoever you're retelling this story for) broke
the three-revert law, you apparently broke several other rules. One of them
is do not impersonate; You are free to be completely anonymous on Wikipedia,
but if you want to choose an identity, at least don't choose a confusing
one (choosing an *identical* name is not the only way to confuse).
Calling yourself "Shay David" when that is NOT your name and you only chose
it to cause confusion is a despised behavior in any civilized society,
as well as in Wikipedia. Imagine, for example, that you came to this list
(linux-il), calling yourself "Torvalds Linus" ("not" Linus Torvalds, but
Torvalds Linus). Don't you think this "trick" is going to annoy people?
And what gives you the right to annoy people??

And even if that was your *real* name, imagine this: a real person called
"Even-Chen Uri" joins a group that you were very active in. Wouldn't you
expect this new guy to agree to choose some sort of nickname, alias,
or address, which reduces confusion? If he doesn't do so, and even uses
the resulting confusion for his favor, then, well, he wouldn't have my
sympathy.

> By the way, a person (who's name is NOT Bruce Springsteen) registered
> the domain name <brucespringsteen.com>.  Bruce Springsteen didn't like
> it and filed a complaint against him (UDRP).  The arbitrators decided
> that the man is ALLOWED to keep the name.  Read it:

And this proves that... ??? To me, it just proves that in America, lowlifes
and creeps can misuse the justice system to bully on other people. Someone
who was not strong enough as a kid to steal other kids' lunch money, grows
up and learns that he doesn't have to be strong, because he can (mis)use
the justice system to bully other people. He starts with squatting (of
physical property), cybersquatting (of "virtual property"), patent lawsuites,
and, if he really has the balls, suing IBM (I'm referring to SCO vs. IBM).

It is obvious that if a guy buys "brucespringsteen.com", he had no thought
in his mind other than to bully and extort money from Bruce Springsteen.
If you think that the legal system should help him in pulling off this
crime, then, good for you. I don't.

> My friend was so disappointed that he left Wikipedia.  He didn't try to
> impersonate as David Shay or anybody else, he just used his name when he
> registered.  But because of the reactions he decided to leave Wikipedia.
> I know quite a few people who left Wikipedia.

Look, I don't know David Shay and I'm not a Hebrew wikipedia contributer
(I only use and write on the English one). But generally, the people on
Wikipedia are reasonable. They won't accuse you of things like impersonation
unless you're really causing a mess. It's very easy for a guy called, by
pure chance, "Shay David", to convince he's not an impersonator if he does
useful edits and behaves like a "good guy". He could also show his good
faith by modifying his nickname to be less confusing (e.g., who said that
a nickname has to be your full name? What if your full name was already
taken?) But, if someone comes in with this confusing name and only does
very controversial edits, and begins edit wars and other "games" right
from the start, it won't be long before the Wikipedia society decides to
put a stop to this distraction and to expel him. It's the society's right
to protect itself.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Saturday, Dec 10 2005, 9 Kislev 5766
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |What's the difference between roast beef
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |and pea soup? Anyone can roast beef.

---

From: Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:19:12 +0200

Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> 
>>>Believe me, I know.
> Uri, I am sorry, I don't think this particular argument sounds very
> convincing... ;-)
> 
> 
>>It's ironic how this guy's main blaim of Wikipedia is that anybody
>>can come in and write a article badmouthing him. And this when this
>>guy's job and hobby is writing sites that badmouthing others
>>(politicians, Google, and now Wikipedia)? At least in Wikipedia, the
>>"victim" can correct the errors - on his sites, his victims have no
>>recourse.
> 
> 
> I don't want to pour fuel onto this fire, but, without voicing any
> opinion on that particular guy (who may or may not be a scumbag), I
> think he raises a couple of good points.
> 
> 1) He is quite aware of the fact that one can go and change a
>    Wikipedia article. He makes what seems to be a valid point that
>    anyone else can, too, anonymously, and as a result one can never be
>    sure that the site is fair, correct, non-defaming, non-libelous,
>    etc., at any given moment.
> 
> 2) His other point is also valid. If anyone puts libelous information
>    on a website, presumably one can be sued. 
> 
>    Now, that guy is looking for someone whom he can sue over what he
>    considers libel on Wikipedia (OK, he maybe a litigious bastard, but
>    that's besides the point). Now, the people who run Wikipedia
>    apparently tell him they are not responsible for the content, and
>    he has no idea who the authors of the offending material are.
> 
>    Granted, this situation is no different from, say, Slashdot, where
>    one can post comments anonymously. However, it brings up an
>    interesting, and possibly new, legal point. The guy faces what he
>    considers libel in a very popular online publication, and he is
>    seeking satisfaction by legal means. It is not up to any of us to
>    decide whether he is right or wrong. The point is, the modern
>    society based on the rule of law should give him a way to defend
>    himself against what he considers libel (he may lose the battle -
>    that is irrelevant).
> 
>    There are traditional publications that publish anonymous
>    articles. Among periodicals, possibly the best known is The
>    Economist. They have no by-lines, but I presume that the editors
>    and the publishers are fully responsible for the contents,
>    including potential responsibility for libel. Are Wikipedia
>    owners/editors/whoever equally responsible?
> 
>    Thus, Nadav, I think you got it quite backwards when you say that
>    if one publishes libel on a personal site "the victims have no
>    recourse." In that case, they do. The guy is looking for a similar
>    recourse in the case of Wikipedia. Once again, this does not imply
>    that the guy has a good case or is not a bastard - I don't care.
> 
> I really don't think that the situation is so clear-cut either way. I
> am not a big fan of the justice systems of most country, but in this
> case maybe some good might result from a court hearing and a
> thoroughly considered opinion of a competent judge.

Oleg, Thanks for your support.

Uri.
--------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:15:06 +0200

Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> I'm not so sure about the deleted comments, but I did go over all the
> changes to the actual page (not the discussion) that took place during
> those two days. It seems that the page was in the middle of a stupid
> edit war. Most of the deleted comments, as far as I could tell, were
> about "why was the page locked". You may not agree with the specific
> decisions, but it's hard to call them "unreasonable".

Read all the deleted comments and check why they were deleted.
And it's just one example.  There are many examples.

> No. The explanation says "מתחזה". ‎There was a short discussion about
> it, but I cannot see the discussion itself. I'm assuming that the
> discussion ended with the assertion that David Shy is too well known, so
> that your friend's name was too confusing.
> 
> The thing is, such things happen everywhere names are used. I had the
> exact same problem trying to buy a .co.il domain (and the collision was
> with someone that ISOC agreed is a cyber-squater). I eventually had to
> buy a totally different name. Such things happen.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1532.html

In a similar dispute over the domain name <madonna.com>, the arbitrators
decided that the singer Madonna should have the name:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html

The difference is - with domain names there are arbitrators who are not
a part of the dispute, and you can appeal their decisions to court.  In
Wikipedia there are only system administrators who do anything they want.

Uri.

---

From: Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:31:52 +0200

Hi Shachar,

> I'm sorry, Uri, but when raising such serious allegations, i.e. that you
> were banned based on the fact that you tried to correct incorrect
> information, 

If I didn't convince you that Wikipedia is corrupt, it's OK.  Some
people just don't get it.  Even most people.  It depends on the way you
perceive life, justice, relationships between people etc.

Uri.

---

From: Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:54:50 +0200

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:%D7%A9%D7%99_%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93

Uri.

---

From: Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:00:15 +0200

Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Care to give specific examples, so we can form an independent opinion?
> The articles you tried to fix, as well as the username you were using,
> would be greatly appreciated.

I prefer not to give specific examples.  I refer to Wikipedia in general
and not to specific examples.

But if you're interested, check the history of any article about
politicians, or related to politics.

Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Actually one thing that is rarely edited away in wikipedia is the
> discussion pages. Thus we generally know what those faceless system
> operators did. We can also tell when they did it and in many cases why.

Some of my comments were removed from discussion pages too.

> Could you point out one such biased article? Because I've heard this
> criticism before and every time I checked the editors' judgement seemed
> very reasonable.

Any politically related article in Hebrew is biased towards the points
of view of most Israelis, comparing to Americans, Europeans or
Palestinians.  Take any politically related article in Hebrew in
Wikipedia and compare it to other languages - you will find big
differences in content.

I suppose the same is also true for any language.

> Wikipedia?? Personally, I think neither is dangerous.

It's not true.  Not anybody can edit Wikipedia.  You can edit Wikipedia
only if there is no editor ("system operator") who doesn't like you, and
if your username & IP address are not banned.  And even then, if your
agenda is different than other editors, it will be reverted.

> such operators, and it doesn't make every such system a "dictatorship".

There are ranks.  Not all editors have the same privileges.  Some are
allowed just to edit, some are allowed to ban other editors (system
operators), some are allowed to give & take privileges from other system
operators (super operators) and some are allowed to give & take
privileges of super operators.  It is hierarchic.

> to saying that Wikipedia is evil, there is a long way.

Wikipedia is not evil.  The people who operate it are evil.  It's a
hierarchic dictatorship.

By the way, I think any person can become evil if given enough power
upon others.

Uri.

---

From: Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:09:23 +0200

By the way...

A friend of mine has a name which is slightly similar to a Wikipedia
operator.  He tried to register to Wikipedia but was immediately banned
just because of his name.  If you think that's not an evil dictatorship
then what is?

Uri.

---

From: Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:08:24 +0200

Hi people,

Best Regards,

Uri Even-Chen
Speedy Net
Raanana, Israel.

E-mail: [email-masked]
Phone: +972-9-7715013
Website: www.uri.co.il

---

From: Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:34:09 +0200

Hi Nadav,

You can't correct falsehoods in Wikipedia.  Believe me, I tried.  If the
editors ("system operators") don't like what you wrote, it will be
changed back and you will be banned.  Wikipedia is a dictatorship.
There is no way to appeal on a system operator's decision to ban you or
change what you wrote.

I expect that in one or two years, www.wikipedia-watch.org will reach a
similar popularity.

Best Regards,

Uri Even-Chen
Speedy Net
Raanana, Israel.

E-mail: [email-masked]
Phone: +972-9-7715013
Website: www.uri.co.il