RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3680Goal: $6000

Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:The Zeuglodon Blues"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Lenski affair)
(Lenski affair)
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 87: Line 87:
 
::::Ah, so can we say [[deceit]] was employed here, and that by some Ratwikians, hmm?  [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|don't bother me]]</sup> 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 
::::Ah, so can we say [[deceit]] was employed here, and that by some Ratwikians, hmm?  [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|don't bother me]]</sup> 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::I'd be more surprised if that wasn't true. --{{User:Concernedresident/sig|}} 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::I'd be more surprised if that wasn't true. --{{User:Concernedresident/sig|}} 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::Could any of these Ratwikians comments be described as "brusque and offensive" ?  [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|don't bother me]]</sup> 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::Yes, deceit was employed by RWians, and it was gratefully embraced by Andy, who now had an excuse to carry on with his obsession, despite being warned and knowing of where the signatories came from. [[User:EddyP|EddyP]] ([[User talk:EddyP|talk]]) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::I should clarify that if people who are also members of RationalWiki decided to do this - via sockpuppetry or otherwise - it was their own doing. RW as a site doesn't condone this sort of thing; it's immature and counter-productive. Although I would be almost certain that anyone involved in doing this would have got their news from RW and the incident did highlight Schlafly's ego-centric tendencies very, very nicely. The fact is, Schlafly was an idiot to send the letter and this demonstrates that many of his inner circle has expressed their misgivings very, very clearly and were subsequently ignored. {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 15:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::Everyone knows we have off-site discussion groups to organize and plot our vandalism. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Jpatt praying for server move complications, and Ed and TK meeting Ames? ==
 +
 +
I thought real Christians didn't pray to God to make bad things happen to others? Ah, wait, no, that was just about [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive80#Dick_Cheney_in_hospital death] - apparently anything below death is perfectly fine!
 +
 +
Oh, but that prayer was least creepy part of the discussion at "190/61b0d3895b1b32e5.html". The rest was about Ed and TK meeting up with Ames... and about Karajou fantasizing about Ames being sentenced in a court of law for the felonies he commited against CP. --[[User:Sid|Sid]] ([[User talk:Sid|talk]]) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:12, 19 March 2010

just a start

I suppose we just can add our favorite moments (sorry that mine is so vain and dull :-) - then I don't have to read the whole thing, but only the best bits... larronsicut fur in nocte 23:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we work out some way of pointing to where our quotes are coming from, so that categorization later can be easier? Junggai (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I adopted the somewhat vague but readable "in the [number] folder" notation, maybe combined with a thread name for important stuff. I guess it'll do the trick for now? The alternative would be including the filename, but that never looks pretty (see my posts on T:WIGO if you don't believe me :P). --Sid (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Why not put the filename in a ref? I'm just envisioning some time in the future when someone wants to consolidate everything into an article, and has to go back and locate which of the 10 unwieldy and terribly-formatted files it was in. It might be better to put too much information in at this point. Junggai (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not posting this in the article, since I think it's from another group, but here's a gem where Rob callks TK a "commie symp":
Brian, I love you, really, but you simply cannot add or remove people, or delete posts here, it is simply unacceptable, without asking. I really fail to see how you can imagine doing that is going to stop fighting and promote trust. Rob was not removed,he quit. There is a difference. When I asked him what it would take to bury they hatchet between us, (and mind you I never posted here or on Conservapedia personal attacks against him, like he still does to me) his response, which I posted here, was to tell me I had to stop being a "commie symp". --TK
--The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, that's from another group indeed. Still a wonderful post. It's always amusing to compare posts about people once they're gone with posts about the same people while they're there (see also, to make this more on-topic again, how people treated Tim, Philip and TK (the three people who were kicked or later invited, from what I know) while they were there and while they were gone. --Sid (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Main source

Should we link to the download directly as well as the blog where it was exposed? I know it's nice to drive traffic through the blog, as a way to return the favor, but it's also nice to our readers to make it possible to get to the thing with one click. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make it freely available why don't you just put it up here? It would be less untidy. -- Mei (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say keep it off RW itself, just in case TK does something nasty. A remote possibility, but safe is better than sorry. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say definitely put it up here on RW. What exactly are you worried about TK (or anyone else) doing? This is a genuine question, not a snidey dig at you DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, isn't the SDG material not hosted here due to a remotely possible legal threat? I would see this as falling under much the same category. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the legal threat? Surely such schpiel is not copyrighted? We should at least post the direct link (so I can download it!) 01:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the legal threat is probably very low. Kinda like when the e-mails from the climate scientists were paraded about CONservapedia and every other CONservative blog. However, we could always check with Nutty first. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 01:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect Nutty to reply in here, since being a lawyer creates additional liability with regard to his comments - at least that's my understanding. I'd delete the full text if it were uploaded, since we'd have a struggle to justify it. Wikileaks does this kind of thing, but then they have legal backup and funding. I suggest only quote text that's necessary, and could be strongly argued as being in the public interest. Also, CP are a bunch of jokers, but we should be considerate of privacy. ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 13:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

About the vanity thing...

I am bummed that the posts stop at 22MAR09. I would kind of like to have seen that my ConservaHitler video (uploaded 25MAR09) would have at least ruffled  K e n D o l l ' s  feathers, if nothing else. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one?

Who feels that there is something wrong with peering into conversations between people that were made in a private messageboard, and were made with the reasonable expectation that they would remain confidential. It just feels a bit icky to me. --DamoHi 07:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering how they jumped on the so-called "Climategate", which were allegedly private e-mails, " I sure as fuck don't! The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 07:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Should we use their behaviour as a model for our own? --DamoHi 07:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little bit uneasy about putting it up as well.Our privacy guidelines state in part:
  • In pursuing RationalWiki's missions, we often comment on the activities of individuals at other websites, but similar caution should be taken in respecting their privacy. Personal information regarding a living person should be limited to information which they themselves have released into the public domain, either through their personal website or a website they are associated with, or other formal publications. No information gained through personal research should be presented. No information divulging the names of family members (that are not themselves figures of interest) or "real world" contact details should be posted. If you are unsure, don't post such information.
This information looks pretty borderline to me.--BobIt's windy! 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't thought about the problem (and I should have) - mainly because I have problems to imagine the correspondents as real people: They seem so comic-like. It's like reading a bad novel where you constantly want to yell at the protagonist as he is to dumb to live.
larronsicut fur in nocte 08:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Having not read the files, I'd say that what we are seeing is known internet characters, not the real people behind them. Besides, this is a messageboard. Those people knew well that someone like TK had already published similar material and would probably do it again. Editor at CPmały książe 10:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That could have been a good point, except that TK was not there at the beginning. Amm contributions up to his entry to the group were made under the assumption (and promise) that TK would not be a member of the group. Speaking foryself personally, I was not expecting my emails to become public, and I was not expecting TK to have access to them. --aSKTim 11:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
A valid argument. TK was not there at the beginning, and in fact, quite a few people vocally opposed letting him in (even Ed!). But the thing is that he was let in (whose bright idea was that, anyway?), and the generally hostile bickering kept up after he was allowed access (while at the same time, nobody deleted the older posts). I'm generally torn here (see also my post below), though. You have my sympathy, but at the same, this was apparently the seventh (according to Philip's site) group, and the other six didn't exactly have a track record of stunning success, so after a certain point I tend to ask why anybody would post as freely as they did at that point. Especially since one sysop actually confessed to have given information to TK before the latter was let back in. --Sid (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with Ed@CP here - they're posting for the most part under their internet pseudonyms so go figure, this is an extension of publicly posted info. Also, the "climategate" thing I think is fairly valid too. The excuse by AGW denialists is that the research is "publicly funded" therefore they had a right to know - by extension Conservapedia and it's key members (at least it's owner) are apparently public educators. Yes it's homeschooling, but they offer the service to the public and take people's money to operate what they do - ergo they should be transparent in their dealings. Scarlet A.pngpostate 11:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... good arguments for both sides. Personally, I'm torn, but I look at it from this angle: They almost literally saw it coming. Heck, Ed practically predicted this (see page quote at top). And yet they kept posting the most vile crap. Also, this is (allegedly) the second group TK leaked to people with no favorable view of CP, and yet there were never lasting consequences for him. Right now (after the second leak, which seems to point to him, too), TK is still a sysop with Oversight and CheckUser access. It looks like leaking this supposedly private information had zero impact on the proceedings at CP.
That being said, I wouldn't oppose replacing the quotes with summaries. Indeed, it might keep the article length in check as more examples pour in. Like with the SDG, we could use the leaked info to write what went on without duplicating the info itself. --Sid (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I feel kinda guilty about this now I have read Bob M's comment. This is pretty clearly against our privacy policy. I think we should at least remove the real names of anyone in this. I also like Sid's summary idea but I doubt many people will go for that. -- Mei (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I would be inclined to say that, given their treatment of TK despite his opening of the previous group, they have no right to complain about the opening of this one. As for removing real names, we already knew them, so I think that would be fairly pointless. EddyP (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC)I'll cast my lot with the "not a violation of privacy" camp. Not because of Climategate, which I think is a red herring to the issue at hand. These people are running a public wiki project which Andy even recently boasts of having clear guidelines and a transparent process. Yet, the whole time, the admins and bureaucrats have been scheming and micromanaging behind the scenes, bickering about how making the rules too clear would provide "liberals" a stick to beat them with. This would all be fine if it were an online newspaper or other publication, where one would expect editing decisions to be made behind closed doors in order to present a unified package to the public. But Conservapedia has always claimed that it is a user-generated encyclopedia, "the best of the public." Their emphasis on private communication among a small cabal of sysops, and their antipathy towards a fair process for user abuse by admins, is against the nature of such a project. Therefore, I'm not losing any sleep by reading through their dirty laundry, and putting it out there to see how the project really works. Junggai (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't like to be a wet blanket here, but most of the pro-publication posts seem to be variations of the theme "they should have expected somebody else to put this in the public domain so it's OK for use to do it regardless of our privacy statement."
I'm afraid that I don't find this particularly convincing. On the other hand the privacy statement was not written with this situation in mind and it doesn't explicitly address it - though I'd say that posting this information is clearly against the spirit of the thing. Consequently we have two courses of action: clarify the privacy statement so that we explicitly give ourselves the permission to post material obtained from private groups - or remove the material.--BobIt's windy! 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Well - again, I have not read much of those transcriptions, so the following might be wrong - but I fail to see the cases Bob mentioned. In particular is any of the following mentioned? "Personal information regarding a living person", "information gained through personal research" and "information divulging the names of family members (that are not themselves figures of interest) or "real world" contact details". Editor at CPmały książe 15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Indeed. There needs to be some clarification as there's a massive difference between RW members, in the name of RW, going out of their way to obtain or hack for information (which is what the privacy statement was meant to address) and RW publicising a leaked document. Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Assuming no material in these files is dangerous (i.e. personal info, etc.) I don't see us as doing anything wrong given that TK volunteered this information, unless when volunteering it he explicitly requested for it to not be released (though it don't see why he'd bother saying that), in which case that request should be honoured - even if it was from TK. Personally I feel it's a matter of conscience. Although it is interesting for us CP watchers to read through, objectively speaking they most likely didn't intend for this to fall into our hands, though they must've expected it was a possibility, especially with TK around, as the admins themselves say in these very files. But unless any RW users are contacted with instructions about this, I don't see why it should be taken down. SJ Debaser 15:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
in which case that request should be honoured - even if it was from TK If I might play devil's advocate - why honour TK's request for anything? ONE / TALK 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Because sensitive issues like this have to be treated objectively, regardless of TK's past. SJ Debaser 16:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
And because TK isn't the only one who is involved. --aSKTim 16:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Is he not? Psy said TK was the one who provided him with this shizzle. Also interesting to note that Psy said there wasn't a lot in there that's interesting, so I don't think this information is too dangerous. SJ Debaser 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(epic undent) The files do contain a few personal things some of the involved people (read: both the people doing the talking and the people being talked about) may not want being published. Like Ed's cellphone number, various stuff about HelpJazz or things about TerryH's family (I'm keeping it vague - he technically posted this in public, though he likely didn't realize it and may not wish to have it out there - he can mail me if he wants to know). And that's just what I remembered after briefly digging yesterday. Of course, there is a difference between quoting a source that contains this info (what we're currently doing) and posting the personal info itself (what we shouldn't be doing). I'm still for paraphrasing, regardless of legal technicalities. After some point, it's just more elegant and allows us some snark in the retelling. I do think we should keep a link to the CPMonitor blog since that is indeed public. What individuals do with that publicized info is up to them. --Sid (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a very reasonable stance, I agree. Refugeetalk page 19:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I'd go along with that. Seems fair defensible to me. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnetism

Nothing to do with CP, I just want to bookmark this file as it has something interesting regarding astronomy and the magnetic fields of planets that I found interesting. In summary it seems to "prove" creation by saying God made magnetic fields of the planets out of water, or some such. The usual tripe, of course - special pleading, saying that "science doesn't know yet = creationism is right" etc. etc. But still interesting, especially where one (Karajou, I think) declares "Make RW howl!". And PJR is skceptical and urges caution, but does try to say that it means that creationists make testable predictions: c1312e29cfa2c085.html Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chortle

This is all hilarious; a hearty thanks to everyone picking through the discussions. Wherever their latest SDG is, it must currently be buzzing with activity. For those who keep careful watch, does anything in CP's recent changes suggest a shift in behaviour? Is TK just banning and oversighting as usual? And apart from that (possibly fake) comment on the blog from Ed Poor, and RobS's usual blathering, have any CPians commented on this leak? ONE / TALK 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ed's comment" on the blog was just a quote from the ZB file. I think I sourced it on T:WIGO. So it's "fake" in the sense that he likely didn't post it there, but at the same time it is something he said. --Sid (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A question

How many messages (approximately) were leaked? --aSKTim 17:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A little under 1,000 threads, by my count. Johann (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
March '08 to March '09. I was quite disappointed; I had hoped that I might be able to read something about my sock's final blocking. EddyP (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you counting all messages on one topic as 1 thread, or each message individually? --aSKTim 17:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The former, unless some regex wizard has been at it. Mindless stupid Phantom Hoover! 17:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I was just curious to see if had given you all of it. --aSKTim 18:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
A quick bit of perl hacking gives me a count of something in the region of 5,000 individual messages FWIW Worm(t | c) 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds about right --aSKTim 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lenski affair

Not being familiar with the Lenski affair (please spare me the details) but more involved in counterintelligence efforts, just what does "a number of RationalWiki people registering various user names simply to add their vote to sending the e-mail. Which leaves the alarm bells ringing even louder mean? RobSmithdon't bother me 19:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It means "RW people want us to do it, which should be a hint that maybe we shouldn't want to do it." --aSKTim 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Basically, Andy wanted ten people to support his sending a letter to Lenski. That half of them had no prior edits apparently did not matter to the Dear Leader, who went ahead despite the misgivings of a few (now ex-) sysops. Amusement ensued. EddyP (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Rob, it's a bit like organising volunteer work. You can ask a lot of people, and many will agree, but considerably fewer will turn up on the day. The trick is to actually ask people you know and trust, which is kind of difficult in Andy's world since that set of people is so small as to only be measurable at the atomic level. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so can we say deceit was employed here, and that by some Ratwikians, hmm? RobSmithdon't bother me 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more surprised if that wasn't true. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Could any of these Ratwikians comments be described as "brusque and offensive" ? RobSmithdon't bother me 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, deceit was employed by RWians, and it was gratefully embraced by Andy, who now had an excuse to carry on with his obsession, despite being warned and knowing of where the signatories came from. EddyP (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I should clarify that if people who are also members of RationalWiki decided to do this - via sockpuppetry or otherwise - it was their own doing. RW as a site doesn't condone this sort of thing; it's immature and counter-productive. Although I would be almost certain that anyone involved in doing this would have got their news from RW and the incident did highlight Schlafly's ego-centric tendencies very, very nicely. The fact is, Schlafly was an idiot to send the letter and this demonstrates that many of his inner circle has expressed their misgivings very, very clearly and were subsequently ignored. Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Everyone knows we have off-site discussion groups to organize and plot our vandalism. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt praying for server move complications, and Ed and TK meeting Ames?

I thought real Christians didn't pray to God to make bad things happen to others? Ah, wait, no, that was just about death - apparently anything below death is perfectly fine!

Oh, but that prayer was least creepy part of the discussion at "190/61b0d3895b1b32e5.html". The rest was about Ed and TK meeting up with Ames... and about Karajou fantasizing about Ames being sentenced in a court of law for the felonies he commited against CP. --Sid (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)