     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Slimvirgin gets slashdotted, No place to hide...
JohnA
post Fri 27th July 2007, 11:03pm
Post #1


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



Link to slashdot[

QUOTE
"International Humanitarian Law professor Ludwig Braeckeleer thinks so. In an article published yesterday in the Korean newspaper OhMyNews, he reveals a discovery he made while researching a story on the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland. It turns out that a Wikipedia administrator named SlimVirgin is actually Linda Mack, a woman who as a young graduate in the 1980s was hired by investigative reporter Pierre Salinger of ABC News to help with the investigation. Salinger later came to believe that Mack was actually working for Britain's MI5 on a mission to investigate the bombing and to infiltrate and monitor the news agency. Shortly after her Wikipedia identity was uncovered, many of her edits to articles related to the bombing were permanently removed from the database in an attempt to conceal her identity. This discovery comes only months after another Wikipedia admin was caught lying about his credentials to the press. What can Wikipedia do about those who would use it for their own purposes?"


Bring popcorn. This one could get interesting.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
blissyu2
post Sat 28th July 2007, 1:44am
Post #2


the wookie
*********

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.

And Slashdot - thank you! I had hoped that this story would get bigger. For a brief period I thought that it might manage to be swept under the carpets. But it is a big issue, and needs to be exposed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Mon 30th July 2007, 2:51am
Post #3


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 27th July 2007, 9:44pm) *

Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.


Can you prove that by anything that remains on file here?

Jonny cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blissyu2
post Mon 30th July 2007, 3:06am
Post #4


the wookie
*********

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 30th July 2007, 1:21pm) *

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 27th July 2007, 9:44pm) *

Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.


Can you prove that by anything that remains on file here?

Jonny B)


Prove what? That we've been linked from the main article as being the people responsible? That we've got dozens of posts about SlimVirgin? What proof do you require?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Mon 30th July 2007, 3:22am
Post #5


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sun 29th July 2007, 11:06pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 30th July 2007, 1:21pm) *

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 27th July 2007, 9:44pm) *

Is WR even mentioned there? I mean we're basically responsible.


Can you prove that by anything that remains on file here?

Jonny cool.gif



Prove what? That we've been linked from the main article as being the people responsible? That we've got dozens of posts about SlimVirgin? What proof do you require?


The last time I searched the Wikipedia Review for "Mack" — it was a couple weeks ago — all I got was a few of my own sideways allusions to "loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through". All of the detailed legwork by DB and others on the subject had been "redacted" by our "moderators".

Obviously there have been some additional 2nd hand and 3rd hand references in the mean time — for the moment — but the primary data has been disappeared so far as I can see.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 30th July 2007, 3:29am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 30th July 2007, 5:15am
Post #6


Can't actually moderate
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,814
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 29th July 2007, 10:22pm) *
All of the detailed legwork by DB and others on the subject had been "redacted" by our "moderators". ... Obviously there have been some additional 2nd hand and 3rd hand references in the mean time — for the moment — but the primary data has been disappeared so far as I can see.

I disagree. Simply removing the name(s) doesn't invalidate the rest of the information presented in those posts, it only makes it harder for people to check it for accuracy, since they have to follow the same path "we" did - i.e., not track it backwards from the name to the evidence.

It's quite possible that I've been wrong about this whole thing from the get-go, but my impression was that the purpose of our not respecting the privacy of anonymous Wikipedians was to show them that there's a difference - a huge difference, in fact - between being talked about negatively as a pseudonym and being talked about negatively as yourself. If that had any motivational effect at all on their decision to relax their BLP deletion policy, then it was worth it - even if we ended up being labeled a "hate site" or an "attack site" for it, or whatever they're calling us these days.

In this case, we tried to follow suit as best we could when they changed their policy, ever-so-slight as the change was. I should also add that I was rather P.O.'d about the fact that Ludwig Braeckeleer chose to misquote the postings here as they stood, and currently stand - instead of leaving the words "name redacted" in there verbatim, he changed them to "name redacted but known to be..." (you-know-who, I'm just trying to make less work for myself later on). That struck me as irresponsible, if not downright rotten, especially for a supposedly bona fide academic and journalist.

Ultimately though, among the many things we can't control here is the sheer degree of anger and resentment people bear towards SlimVirgin and her allies for all the things they've done on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that so many people are inspired by that anger and resentment, but it doesn't automatically make the allegations untrue or their actions unjustified. At the same time, though, the question remains: Why is it necessary to keep repeating the real name of a person when what you really should be criticizing is the system that makes it possible for that person to do bad things, and even be rewarded for them?

Talking about the person to such an extent only makes it easier for everyone to blame everything specifically on the person, not the institution.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Mon 30th July 2007, 6:08am
Post #7


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,472
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th July 2007, 11:15pm) *

I should also add that I was rather P.O.'d about the fact that Ludwig Braeckeleer chose to misquote the postings here as they stood, and currently stand - instead of leaving the words "name redacted" in there verbatim, he changed them to "name redacted but known to be..." (you-know-who, I'm just trying to make less work for myself later on). That struck me as irresponsible, if not downright rotten, especially for a supposedly bona fide academic and journalist.

I think it was perfectly proper of for Ludwig Braeckeleer to do this. He has his insert inside of brackets, which every literate person understands is separate from the quotation. What the hell was he supposed to do? The only alternative would have been to skip the WR information entirely. Without those two names, it is hardly worth reading. Perhaps he could have quoted the geocities page, but that doesn't have as much prestige as this site, since it is published anonymously and is apparently a one-person effort.

Here is the relevant paragraph from Ludwig's article, where he is quoting John K. Cooley:
QUOTE
Salinger came to believe that [first name redacted but known to be Linda] was working for [name of intelligence agency redacted but known to be Britain's MI5] and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us.

If you are pissed at Ludwig for doing this, then Cooley has the right to be pissed at you for editing his quote. (That's just an abstract comment — in fact, Cooley sent me that email and I made the decision to post it. He didn't ask me not to, so I did it without asking him for permission.)

This is the problem: By trying to be nice to Wikipedia, we redact names and we have been keeping search engines out of the Editors forum (the latter was happening before Somey came on board, and all of us failed to object, mostly because we weren't fully aware of it).

All we end up accomplishing by doing this is to risk making ourselves irrelevant in the real world. If I didn't feel that the main purpose of this Board is to juxtapose Wikipedia against real-world ethical and informational standards, using real-world evidence, I would have lost interest a long time ago.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Mon 30th July 2007, 11:50am
Post #8


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 30th July 2007, 2:08am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 29th July 2007, 11:15pm) *

I should also add that I was rather P.O.'d about the fact that Ludwig Braeckeleer chose to misquote the postings here as they stood, and currently stand - instead of leaving the words "name redacted" in there verbatim, he changed them to "name redacted but known to be ..." (you-know-who, I'm just trying to make less work for myself later on). That struck me as irresponsible, if not downright rotten, especially for a supposedly bona fide academic and journalist.


I think it was perfectly proper of for Ludwig Braeckeleer to do this. He has his insert inside of brackets, which every literate person understands is separate from the quotation. What the hell was he supposed to do? The only alternative would have been to skip the WR information entirely. Without those two names, it is hardly worth reading. Perhaps he could have quoted the geocities page, but that doesn't have as much prestige as this site, since it is published anonymously and is apparently a one-person effort.

Here is the relevant paragraph from Ludwig's article, where he is quoting John K. Cooley:

QUOTE

Salinger came to believe that [first name redacted but known to be Linda] was working for [name of intelligence agency redacted but known to be Britain's MI5] and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us.


If you are pissed at Ludwig for doing this, then Cooley has the right to be pissed at you for editing his quote. (That's just an abstract comment — in fact, Cooley sent me that email and I made the decision to post it. He didn't ask me not to, so I did it without asking him for permission.)

This is the problem: By trying to be nice to Wikipedia, we redact names and we have been keeping search engines out of the Editors forum (the latter was happening before Somey came on board, and all of us failed to object, mostly because we weren't fully aware of it).

All we end up accomplishing by doing this is to risk making ourselves irrelevant in the real world. If I didn't feel that the main purpose of this Board is to juxtapose Wikipedia against real-world ethical and informational standards, using real-world evidence, I would have lost interest a long time ago.


Good example.

The no-wake plodders of the Podunk Picayune Presses who we ridicule for being so slow off the mark about the facts of Wikipediot life neverthless follow the rules of real world journalism — of saying what they know and how well they know it — and so they are bound to overtake any Ace Achilles who heels to the hare-brained infantasies of Wikipediot Arbnormality.

My question is:

Should I censor my references to "loopholes big enough to drive a [name redacted] truck through" by substituting "Peterbilt" for [name redacted] or would it be better to say "Dickbilt" intead?

Jonny cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 30th July 2007, 4:21pm
Post #9


Can't actually moderate
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,814
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 30th July 2007, 6:50am) *
Should I censor my references to "loopholes big enough to drive a [name redacted] truck through" by substituting "Peterbilt" for [name redacted] or would it be better to say "Dickbilt" intead?

If you really think the Peterbilt Corporation would be seriously harmed by your reference to their company name, and you feel that there are people who might be associated with the Peterbilt Corporation who might be harmed as a result, then why not? After all, the truck manufacturer isn't all that important to the context of that sentence, is it?

Look, Jon, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we should follow WP's rules or allow ourselves to be guilt-tripped into treating their higher-ups like fragile little flowers who will blow away at the slightest breeze of criticism. Redacting the names was a moral decision, but it was also an experiment. And regardless of the tangible results of the experiment (i.e., nada), we nevertheless learned something from it - namely, that Wikipedia isn't going to publicly acknowledge or support any efforts we make on their behalf as regards privacy. For the most part, they either don't care, or are secretly cheering us on. The fact that they didn't support us is suggestive not only of their enmity for us, but of their enmity for SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and the rest of their crew. I suspect the number of people who would like to see those people leave Wikipedia forever is vastly greater than we thought.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of nasty and speculative stuff here that doesn't get censored, if you know where to look for it. But as for the stuff that does, I understand that I'm going to be seen as the Mean Old Censorship Lady in certain cases, and I accept that... Just remember that on some level, bringing down Wikipedia -- which some of us would love to see happen, as unrealistic a goal as that is -- could in some ways be the single greatest act of censorship in human history. Seen from that perspective, a few real names aren't really that big a deal, are they?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Mon 30th July 2007, 5:23pm
Post #10


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 30th July 2007, 10:21am) *



Meanwhile, there's plenty of nasty and speculative stuff here that doesn't get censored, if you know where to look for it. But as for the stuff that does, I understand that I'm going to be seen as the Mean Old Censorship Lady in certain cases, and I accept that... Just remember that on some level, bringing down Wikipedia -- which some of us would love to see happen, as unrealistic a goal as that is -- could in some ways be the single greatest act of censorship in human history. Seen from that perspective, a few real names aren't really that big a deal, are they?


No it's not, Somey. The WR Crits are not interfering with WP's speech. They are profoundly concerned with various WP abuses. They may think that WP cannot redeem itself and ought not to exist. They may encourage others to question or even withdraw their support for such an institution. But they do so by countering WP's speech with their own speech. That's not censorship at all.

I'm not myself burdened by the redacting of identifying information. It doesn't have much impact on the governance and social responsibility matters I mostly post about. I greatly appreciate the freedom or expression that this forum permits me. Still, to the degree that redaction is a burden on the expression of others posting on WR it is troubling. I also know that it is the success of those developing personally identifying information about controversial Wikipedians that gives me an audience for my ideas. They have given WR the success which it enjoys. I could blog about my thoughts on WP on my own domain but nobody would listen.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 30th July 2007, 5:59pm
Post #11


Can't actually moderate
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,814
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 30th July 2007, 12:23pm) *
Still, to the degree that redaction is a burden on the expression of others posting on WR it is troubling.

Okay, I'll agree with that... but we have to define "burden," assuming that's the word we should be using (as opposed to "limitation" or "restraint").

My position on it has always been that we don't place any kind of moral judgement on members who post things that purport to identify anonymous Wikipedians. In other words, if member "Yakboy" posts that "User:DingDongDoodle is actually Mr. Wally Warburton of Swansea," we're not going to reflexively suspend Yakboy's account, nor are we necessarily going to warn him that he's done something bad, particularly if the same post contains some fairly decent justification for having identified User:DingDongDoodle. We're going to try and look at the situation objectively, weigh the pros and cons of carrying that information, and act accordingly. We might well come down in favor of trying to respect User:DingDongDoodle's anonymity, but we're not going to impose sanctions on the member for it, regardless.

So if Yakboy goes back a day or a week or several months later, and discovers that his post has been edited by changing the name "Wally Warburton" to "(name redacted)," is that a burden or restraint on Yakboy? The fact is, I don't know - psychologically, it might be. That's the thing we have to decide here.

Obviously I'd like to think that our success isn't based primarily on identifying people on Wikipedia who are trying to be anonymous, but I could be wrong ab out that... and if this little "experiment" has taught me anything, it's that Wikipedia as an institution doesn't really care one way or the other. They're just looking for scapegoats and stalking-horses. It's still not what I'd prefer to do, but if these are the people who are supposed to be benefiting from our respect for their so-called "privacy," then they haven't exactly shown themselves to be particularly deserving so far.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
JohnA   Slimvirgin gets slashdotted   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:03pm
GlassBeadGame   Link to slashdot[ Bring popcorn. This one could g...   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:14pm
Infoboy   ATTACK SITE AIR RAID! Wow.   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:15pm
GoodFaith   ATTACK SITE AIR RAID! Wow. File an RFC -NO...   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:18pm
Kato   Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist name...   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:17pm
JohnA   Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist nam...   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:26pm
GoodFaith   Here we see the full fruits of Slimvirgin's ...   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:50pm
CrazyGameOfPoker   Take a look at the comments. One WP apologist nam...   Sat 28th July 2007, 1:27am
JohnA   We have our first winner! B)   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:19pm
Infoboy   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid...   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:25pm
Infoboy   How long until we see an article called [[SlimVirg...   Fri 27th July 2007, 11:29pm
Daniel Brandt   How long until we see an article called [[SlimVir...   Sat 28th July 2007, 12:19am
Kato   Either that, or sometime between 1994 and 2005 sh...   Sat 28th July 2007, 12:30am
dtobias   A new low for Slashdot (Score:2) by jwales (97533...   Sat 28th July 2007, 12:32am
GoodFaith   Why are these people so obsessed with Lyndon Larou...   Sat 28th July 2007, 12:43am
Kato   According to WP's own article on Slashdot (whi...   Sat 28th July 2007, 12:01am
GlassBeadGame   According to WP's own article on Slashdot (wh...   Sat 28th July 2007, 12:14am
BobbyBombastic   JUST A PARANOID ANNOUNCEMENT: Save everything tha...   Sat 28th July 2007, 1:03am
FNORD23   LOL ! I knew this was going to spread like wil...   Sat 28th July 2007, 1:29am
LamontStormstar   I disagree. Simply removing the name(s) doesn...   Mon 30th July 2007, 5:22am
Somey   Doesn't it violate GDFL? I suppose it might, i...   Mon 30th July 2007, 5:37am
LamontStormstar   Doesn't it violate GDFL? I suppose it might, ...   Mon 30th July 2007, 6:44am
Jonny Cache   [quote name='Jonny Cache' post='39357' date='Sun ...   Mon 30th July 2007, 5:25am
Somey   Since I have myself recited the standard cautions ...   Mon 30th July 2007, 5:56am
Jonny Cache   Look, Jon, I'm certainly not trying to sugges...   Mon 30th July 2007, 4:54pm
Somey   What has happened is that "moderators" o...   Mon 30th July 2007, 5:37pm
blissyu2   This is my post here. My first ever post to Slash...   Mon 30th July 2007, 12:33pm
everyking   Doesn't look like she's going to be able t...   Sat 28th July 2007, 2:03am
badlydrawnjeff   Doesn't look like she's going to be able ...   Sat 28th July 2007, 2:42am
Nathan   And now, I've blogged it too under the subject...   Sat 28th July 2007, 2:50am
Daniel Brandt   On the Wikipedia mailing list, they are arguing ab...   Sat 28th July 2007, 2:52am
blissyu2   Selina kept a lot of information, but Selina sadly...   Sat 28th July 2007, 3:42am
Daniel Brandt   Selina kept a lot of information, but Selina sadl...   Sat 28th July 2007, 5:11pm
WordBomb   If anyone has an old dump of Wikipedia, they might...   Sat 28th July 2007, 5:51pm
Daniel Brandt   I'll try to find some way to make a manageabl...   Sat 28th July 2007, 6:11pm
LamontStormstar   I'll try to find some way to make a manageab...   Sat 28th July 2007, 6:14pm
Daniel Brandt   What about her two main meatpuppets (that some ha...   Sat 28th July 2007, 6:30pm
BobbyBombastic   Hmm, well wikien-l should be required reading here...   Sat 28th July 2007, 3:47am
blissyu2   Well, if it is Wikipedia Review's fault, then ...   Sat 28th July 2007, 3:56am
Daniel Brandt   Actually, there is a law in many countries that t...   Sat 28th July 2007, 4:31am
BobbyBombastic   We did put out an awful lot of information which ...   Sat 28th July 2007, 4:52am
Infoboy   92 Blogs and counting: http://blogsearch.google.c...   Sat 28th July 2007, 5:01am
Disillusioned Lackey   Regular Wikipedians are mocking her == Guess who...   Sat 28th July 2007, 5:24am
everyking   92 Blogs and counting: http://blogsearch.google....   Sat 28th July 2007, 5:28am
Nathan   92 Blogs and counting: [url=http://blogsearch.go...   Sat 28th July 2007, 7:27am
Infoboy   http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781...ed...   Sat 28th July 2007, 5:26am
Cedric   http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781...ed...   Sat 28th July 2007, 9:11am
WordBomb   http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781...ed...   Mon 30th July 2007, 5:21am
Somey   I remember the MC5, led by guitarist Wayne Kramer,...   Sat 28th July 2007, 7:02am
Daniel Brandt   We all have to remember that this has occurred as...   Sat 28th July 2007, 12:56pm
blissyu2   It's still relatively slow going. It is yet t...   Sat 28th July 2007, 8:29am
WordBomb   This would explain why, though the world sleeps, a...   Sat 28th July 2007, 9:00am
Nathan   I couldn't resist. I probably could've sa...   Sat 28th July 2007, 9:18am
WordBomb   I couldn't resist. I probably could've s...   Sat 28th July 2007, 9:32am
JohnA   RE: Slimvirgin gets slashdotted   Sat 28th July 2007, 12:29pm
groody   Oh my word. SlimVirgin had an agenda to push? Bu...   Sat 28th July 2007, 9:24am
blissyu2   Perhaps someone will write a book on SlimVirgin on...   Sat 28th July 2007, 1:33pm
badlydrawnjeff   See, I feel like that's the most damning part ...   Sat 28th July 2007, 1:41pm
Daniel Brandt   I mean, there are far, far worse administrators a...   Sat 28th July 2007, 2:05pm
blissyu2   Here's some problems with SlimVirgin's use...   Sat 28th July 2007, 2:39pm
JohnA   Quite frankly, who gives a shit if Snowspinner is...   Sat 28th July 2007, 3:44pm
A Man In Black   Here's some problems with SlimVirgin's us...   Sat 28th July 2007, 7:42pm
LamontStormstar   [quote name='blissyu2' post='39114' date='Sat 28t...   Sat 28th July 2007, 8:42pm
guy   Outside of the accusations of cabalism and articl...   Sat 28th July 2007, 2:22pm
badlydrawnjeff   So, I mean, what's the point, then? That she ...   Sat 28th July 2007, 5:33pm
BobbyBombastic   now on digg 856 diggs right now ElinorD doesn...   Sat 28th July 2007, 10:53pm
LamontStormstar   [url=http://digg.com/tech_news/Are_Intelligence_A...   Sat 28th July 2007, 11:10pm
guy   Jayjg or somebody will claim something like sayin...   Sun 29th July 2007, 7:34am
Poetlister   Clearly Oleg (who is a mathematician) is in fact ...   Sun 29th July 2007, 10:18pm
LamontStormstar   Clearly Oleg (who is a mathematician) is in fact...   Mon 30th July 2007, 4:42am
blissyu2   now on digg 856 diggs right now ElinorD doesn...   Sun 29th July 2007, 7:57am
Infoboy   [quote name='BobbyBombastic' post='39186' date='S...   Sun 29th July 2007, 10:45pm
Infoboy   What we really, really need are the oversighted ed...   Sun 29th July 2007, 12:06am
blissyu2   What we really, really need are the oversighted e...   Sun 29th July 2007, 3:02am
everyking   Have any of the higher-ups been spotted acknowledg...   Sun 29th July 2007, 4:26am
LamontStormstar   Have any of the higher-ups been spotted acknowled...   Sun 29th July 2007, 4:55am
Nathan   Oh, no, of course not, Voldemort isn't alive...   Sun 29th July 2007, 5:10am
blissyu2   We've only redacted her real name, not the con...   Mon 30th July 2007, 3:52am
Jonny Cache   We've only redacted her real name, not the co...   Mon 30th July 2007, 3:57am
Somey   I think it was perfectly proper of for Ludwig Bra...   Mon 30th July 2007, 7:10am
LamontStormstar   I meant Wikipedia hiding several months of contri...   Mon 30th July 2007, 6:43pm
The Adversary   On another note: shouldn´t we do some more resear...   Mon 30th July 2007, 9:21am
blissyu2   On another note: shouldn´t we do some more resea...   Mon 30th July 2007, 10:45am
BobbyBombastic   here is something interesting http://lists.wiki...   Mon 30th July 2007, 4:30pm
Jonny Cache   To the best of my recollection, we are talking abo...   Mon 30th July 2007, 5:54pm
Somey   [i]To the best of my recollection, we are talking ...   Mon 30th July 2007, 6:12pm
Jonny Cache   Let me explain it this way. I am simply not going...   Mon 30th July 2007, 6:30pm
GlassBeadGame   Let me explain it this way. I am simply not goin...   Mon 30th July 2007, 6:36pm
Somey   I am simply not going to waste my time contributin...   Mon 30th July 2007, 7:01pm
Daniel Brandt   Two reprints of the Ohmynews piece appeared today ...   Mon 30th July 2007, 6:31pm
2 Pages V  1 2 >


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th 5 13, 10:12pm
 
     
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10991&pid=39453&mode=threaded&show=&st=
wikipediareview.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2013-20
186015
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:GTJHDG6OTMTF7CK5PMMALWCM7D4G5W6T
<urn:uuid:50402d2e-237c-400d-a011-5645d81db64c>
2013-05-20T22:12:24Z
184.172.174.94
sha1:X7SENN3TKY6CUPTI5MLGTYHJTBAWUXMY
<urn:uuid:31be676e-6c8b-417d-b428-ce2ffb176c65>
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10991&pid=39453&mode=threaded&show=&st=
response
<urn:uuid:7a87661b-b53b-42d9-b4ec-47e249ed68b9>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2013-20
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for Spring 2013
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf