Hate Speech and the Internet
By David Peterson at Aug 19, 2006 |
|
I for one believe that posts to websites such as the one that I'm about to reproduce below the page-break constitute hate-speech. Were, for example, you to receive an envelope via the postal service, and upon opening it, found that it contained a handwritten or typed letter that expressed the exact same message, it clearly would count as an instance of hate- and/or threatening-speech, and very well may be prosecutable under Federal law as as well as (in all likelihood) the laws of all 50 U.S. States. My question, therefore, is simply this: Does it or does it not (Should it or should it not) also constitute an instance of hate- and/or threatening-speech when the person uttering this message chooses to post it anonymously to an electronic website—in the present case, to some other person's weblog?
ny-ex chicagoan said... [*]
Don't worry, fuckhead, I haven't read a single word of your stupid blog. I wouldn't dare. And I didn't even glance at your stupid pictures. I just wanted to say, GOOD RIDDANCE ASSHOLE. We won't miss you at jaythejoke.com.
Fag bastard.
8:40 PM
(* For the original instance of this message, see the Comment that was posted to "The Kibitzer Salutes...," at Chicago Sports Kibitzer, August 16, 2006. For more postings by this same person (presumably the same person, that is, since the Internet permits so much anonymity and phony identities), also see Chicago Sports Fans Unite, a website by "NY-Ex Chicagoan.")
As you no doubt suspect, the list of similar--indeed, far worse--postings could be greatly expanded. I am intrigued by the phenomenon for various reasons. Not the least of which is that in the past it has caused one or more of the ZNet bloggers as well as the people posting comments to ZNet so many headaches. (See, e.g., "Blog Comments v. Discussion Forums," "This Is Not FOX News, Folks," and "Free Speech?")
More important, the (pardon my jargon) socio-psychology of hate equally amazes and intrigues me. You see, I continue to be impressed by how structures of lies so rapidly coalesce around demonized figures, no matter whom they are. Take this classic, ageless and enduring pathology of human relations (i.e., the scapegoatting of demonized figures, and the license to hate them), then add onto it the relative anonymity that the Internet provides, and what do we get?
Immediately, we ought to recognize how important it is to shine a light on the haters who otherwise lurk in these anonymous shadows. The nature of which we've never understood. Let alone conquered. But the tools of which keep multiplying. Relentlessly.
Combatting Extremism in Cyberspace: The Legal Issues Affecting Internet Hate Speech, Anti-Defamation League, 2000
Illinois Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes (Homepage)
Chicago Commission on Human Relations (Homepage)Jay The Joke (Homepage)
Chicago Sports Fans Unite (Homepage)
- "The Strange Death of Joseph Egan," August 18, 2006
Calling Out Michael Miner (Homepage)'Jay the Joke' - History, Wikipedia
"Jay the Joke Isn't Funny Anymore," Michael Miner, Chicago Reader, August 18, 2006
"Hate Speech and the Internet," ZNet, August 19, 2006
FYA ("For your archives"): An entry proposed for the Wikipedia website on the date given (August 11, 2006), but since then dramatically revised and later merged into a separate entry--the revisions and merger constituting one small act of historical fabrication out of a whole litany of the same for which I believe we have every reason to count the open-source Wikipedia project a disinformationist's dream. (Note that although the hyperlinks in the References section still might work, the rest might not. I am simply leaving them in place because they were parts of the original.)
Created and posted on Friday, August 11, 2006, around 5 PM, ET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_the_Joke
Jay the Joke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jay the Joke is a website that was launched anonymously on May 21, 2006, by Pat Dahl and Matt Lynch, whose true identities were only later revealed. [1]
_________________________________________
When it began, Jay the Joke's sole purpose was to carry out a smear campaign against the Chicago Sun-Times's sports columnist, Jay Mariotti.
But, in turn, the website attracted individuals for whom the anonymity that the website provides made it possible for them to join in acts of vulgarity and hate-speech that soon extended beyond its original target.
By this stage in the website's devolution, Jay the Joke smears anyone who does not post material according to the website's presumptive rules, which, to oversimplify only slightly, are as follows:
The first rule of Jay the Joke states that all posted material should denigrate Jay Mariotti.
The second rule of Jay the Joke states that whenever someone violates the first rule, and either fails to denigrate Jay Mariotti or denigrates him insufficiently, the posted material should also denigrate this other person.
Thus the phrase ‘Jay the Joke' now denotes a range of meanings that refers not only to this particular website, to its administrators and posters, and to the smear campaigns they are conducting.
The phrase also denotes the contemporary, deeply troubling, social-pathological phenomenon in which a smear campaign carried out against one single person via a website created for this specific purpose rapidly morphs into a platform for hate-speech and acts of intimidation and virtual violence more generally.
References
1. Teddy Greenstein, “Columnist gets a slow roasting,” Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2006; Michael Miner, " The Plot To Get Mariotti," Chicago Reader, July 14, 2006; and Teddy Greenstein, "Dahl's son in on website jabs at columnist," Chicago Tribune, July 17, 2006.
External Links
Update (September 3): Have written to two different Wikipedia administrators about their August 30 decision to delete the 'Jay Mariotti' entry in its entirety.---See below for a copy of one of these letters, addressed to a person who lives and works in France.
Dear David Monniaux:
I see that the old Wikipedia entry for ‘Jay Mariotti' has been deleted (“Logs”); that you were the person who undertook this action (17:41, 30 August 2006); and that the reason you gave is that “Almost all the sections in this article had big warnings complaining about lack of sources and contained potentially libelous material.”
What I myself had noticed about the old ‘Jay Mariotti' entry, and have pointed out to different Wikipedia administrators in the past (e.g., REDVERS), is that content-wise and organizational-wise, the entry read very much like a smear of its ostensible subject matter.
In fact, I noticed this the first time I ever looked at the entry (around June 24-25), and have tried to call it to several people's attention.
Now I do not know whether Wikipedia archives the history of entries that are subsequently deleted. But if Wikipedia does, then I strongly urge administrators to take a look at the history of the now-deleted ‘Jay Mariotti' entry.
As I wrote to REDVERS on August 22 (“Merging ‘Jay the Joke' into ‘Jay Mariotti'”), of the approx. 178 different versions of this Wikipedia entry that had existed through August 22, the entry remained tolerably accurate and fair through 06:58, 15 June 2006. But this ceased to be the case at 18:08, 21 June 2006 or shortly thereafter, and the entry ever since then had become so riddled with biases against its ostensible subject that it read like an expression of these biases, rather than an entry about the individual under whose name it appeared. Presumably, this kind of basic objection is what you had in mind when you deleted the entry in its entirety.
On a related matter, I am very intrigued by your comment to a user named “Shermerville” that you regard “Shermerville” to be a “sockpuppet” (17:41, 30 August 2006). As I've also mentioned in the past, Wikipedia's “anyone can edit” philosophy makes this project just as vulnerable to what we might call negative (or black) sockpuppeting as it does to the other, more positive and self-promotional kind. Much of the history of the now-deleted ‘Jay Mariotti' entry after 06:58, 15 June 2006 struck me as the product of negative sockpuppeting. If there is any validity to this judgment at all, then you did well to delete the entry. Since its post-June 15 revisions paralleled very closely a negative publicity campaign that has been carried out against the Chicago Sun-Times's sports columnist Jay Mariotti in recent months, Wikipedia might consider studying the post-June 15 revisions in this light.
Take care.
Sincerely Yours,
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
CC: Also see "RE: The Deletion of the 'Jay Mariotti' Entry" (User Talk: REDVERS).
Update (October 18): Only today did I learn that the Wikipedia entry for 'Jay Mariotti', currently a sports columnist with the Chicago Sun-Times, has recently been "Protected against Vandalism." The reason for it was stated at Wikipedia's "Talk: Jay Mariotti" webpage as stemming from the entry's repeated violations of the "Biographies of Living Persons" guidelines. "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons," these guidelines explain, and this includes entries that incorporate a "degree of sensitivity" as well as strict adherence to Wikipedia's "content policies."
The assorted guidelines include "verifiable information only," drafted from a "neutral point of view," and rule out biographies based on "original research"—perhaps the most problematic of the guidelines. As Wikipedia explains its objective:We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.Last, the "Biographies of Living Persons" guidelines add that in any dispute over the content of a biography (though these requirements clearly extend to the whole open-source enterprise), participants in the dispute should "assume good faith" toward one another, retain a sufficient degree of "civility and etiquette," and refrain from "personal attacks."
Admirable objectives. To say the least. If the Wikipedians would replace the notion of sensitivity with fidelity, then I'm even more in favor of it.
However. The question arises as to why the Wikipedia entry for the Chicago Sun-Times's Jay Mariotti has proven to be so problematic? Why, over the course of the past four months, has this entry in particular given Wikipedia so many vandalism-, page-protection-, and deletion-related headaches?
I believe that if we're interested in answering this question, we ought not look to the actions or the sports commentaries of the ostensible subject of the entry, Jay Mariotti. Instead, we ought to look to the much broader interrelated phenomena of social scapegoatting, socially sanctioned hatred, and the kind of breeding ground that anonymous Internet-based fora provide for individuals thusly targeted.
When I first took a close look at the history of the Wikipedia entry for Jay Mariotti some time prior to the decision taken by the Wikipedia administrator David Monniaux to delete it in its entirety (August 30), what I had found was that the entry remained tolerably reasonable for a biography of a contemporary American sports columnist through the middle of June, 2006. After which time (i.e., beginning on or about June 21), the entry rapidly descended into a vehicle for smearing its ostensible subject matter. Even organizing its themes around negative allegations about the target (or negative sockpuppeting).
With respect to Jay Mariotti (I mean the sports columnist—not the zero-morpheme into which so much vilification has been poured like toxic sludge into an empty vessel), there is no doubt that we are witnessing an Internet-based hate campaign carried out by highly-motivated individuals whose sole objective is to smear the person in question.
So that what we find (at first-order) is a core group of individuals committed to smearing Mariotti. (Their ultimate motive is anybody's guess.) And on top of this, we find (at the second-order) a much larger group of people (virtually all males, it goes without saying) attracted to the opportunity provided them by the website of the core group to participate in precisely this kind of anonymous, Internet-based hate-filled behavior.
Anybody who doubts that this is what is driving Wikipedia's problems with its entry for Jay Mariotti need only take a look at the websites which provide the fora for the hate, and the extremely narrow range of comments posted to them. I won't bother reproducing any of it here. But if you'd like to observe some concrete cases of the sort of thing to which I'm referring, then see, e.g., Jay The Joke (Homepage); and "Jay Mariotti Might Be Somewhat Sensitive To Criticism" (Deadspin, October 17). In each case, be sure to scroll-down to the respective comments sections. Notice the number of different posts and how closely each of them hews to a single, hate-filled objective. Notice, additionally, how the overwhelming preponderance of these posts hide behind the kind of anonymity that only the Internet provides. (Presumably, technological advances have enabled the old instant gratification of anonymous telephone calls at three o'clock in the morning, with their heavy breathing and their "Fuck you's!", to be superseded by the new instant gratification of anonymous Internet postings.) Notice, above all, how virulent these posts can be. Observing the kind of comments these websites encourage, it appears that in the States, males and sports and hate travel hand-in-hand with a disquieting regularity.
In closing, let me simply repeat what one of the founders of the Wikipedia project noted elsewhere ("What happened to the article?"): “There is an attack site, trolls who hate the guy, etc. It's a stupid fight from somewhere else.”
Attack-site being a gross understatement. Of course.
'Jay Mariotti' - History – Wikipedia
Talk: Jay Mariotti - Wikipedia
"What happened to the article?" - Wikipedia
Category: Protected against Vandalism – Wikipedia
Biographies of Living Persons – Wikipedia
"Biased or malicious content" – Wikipedia
Wikiproject Biography – Wikipedia
List of Administrators - Wikipedia
Jay The Joke (Homepage)
Fire The Fucktard (Homepage)
"Jay Mariotti Might Be Somewhat Sensitive To Criticism," Deadspin, October 17, 2006
"Hate Speech and the Internet," ZNet, August 19, 2006
Update (October 26): An announcement by the Chronicle of Higher Education states that the Chronicle will be hosting Quinnipiac University Assistant Professor of Communications Alexander Halavais in a "live" online discussion of the Wikipedia project later today (Thursday, October 26). ("Wikipedia: Beat It, Join It, or Ignore It?")
I'm going to try posting a short comment via the Chronicle's "Ask a Question" facility. But since my hunch is that I'll never be able to reach the Chronicle's ultimate discussion page, I've sent a copy along to Halavais, which I'll reproduce here.
As I see it, the No. One problem with the Wikipedia project is no different than with what afflicts every other human endeavor. It is rooted not within an academic versus democratic or populist divide, between knowledge and superstition, with the alleged devaluing of expertise flowing from Wikipedia's open-source commitments. Rather, it is rooted within the human heart (i.e., in the struggle between honesty and dishonesty), and within the normal behavior of institutional actors who seek to exploit Wikipedia's open-source philosophy for their own cynical ends. (For a single case in point that I believe extrapolates nicely to the whole Wikipedia project, see "Talk: Jay Mariotti." Specifically, see "What happened to the article?")
Fact: Anonymity is a breeding ground for every form of deception the human mind can imagine.
For Wikipedia's core problem (almost a syllogism of the human heart), we need look no further than right here.
Now. It is clear that no one involved with the Wikipedia project needs me to remind them about this.
But what might be worth pointing out is that the academic world is as rife with dishonesty as any other—the world of sports, let us say.
The only real difference being that academics make more sophisticated liars and deceivers than the general public. But that is all.
"Building an Encyclopedia, With or Without Scholars," Brock Read, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 27, 2006
"Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?" Brock Read, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 27, 2006
"Co-Founder of Wikipedia, Now a Critic, Starts Spinoff With Academic Editors," Brock Read, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 27, 2006
"Students Flock to an Easy-to-Use Reference, but Professors Warn That It's No Sure Thing," Brock Read, Chronicle of Higher Education, October 27, 2006
Citizendium Project (Homepage)
"Hate Speech and the Internet," ZNet, August 19, 2006
Update (October 27): During yesterday's Chronicle - hosted discussion of Wikipedia - related issues with Alexander Halavais ("Wikipedia: Beat It, Join It, or Ignore It?" October 26), a friend of mine called to Halavais' attention the very curious and strange fact that the world's most frequently visited and most influential online encyclopedia (at least in sheer numbers of hits) does not regard itself as a (quote-unquote) reliable source.
Really, this point too beautiful not to repeat here. As the Chronicle's Brock Read explained in an accompanying article ("Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?" October 27):
Two years ago, when he was teaching at the State University of New York at Buffalo, the [Professor Halavais] hatched a plan designed to undermine the site's veracity -- which, at that time, had gone largely unchallenged by scholars. Adopting the pseudonym "Dr. al-Halawi" and billing himself as a "visiting lecturer in law, Jesus College, Oxford University," Mr. Halavais snuck onto Wikipedia and slipped 13 errors into its various articles. He knew that no one would check his persona's credentials: Anyone can add material to the encyclopedia's entries without having to show any proof of expertise.
Some of the errata he inserted -- like a claim that Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist, had made Syracuse, N.Y., his home for four years -- seemed entirely credible. Some -- like an Oscar for film editing that Mr. Halavais awarded to The Rescuers Down Under, an animated Disney film -- were more obviously false, and easier to fact-check. And others were downright odd: In an obscure article on a short-lived political party in New Brunswick, Canada, the professor wrote of a politician felled by "a very public scandal relating to an official Party event at which cocaine and prostitutes were made available."
Mr. Halavais expected some of his fabrications to languish online for some time. Like many academics, he was skeptical about a mob-edited publication that called itself an authoritative encyclopedia. But less than three hours after he posted them, all of his false facts had been deleted, thanks to the vigilance of Wikipedia editors who regularly check a page on the Web site that displays recently updated entries. On Dr. al-Halawi's "user talk" page, one Wikipedian pleaded with him to "refrain from writing nonsense articles and falsifying information."
Thus, in the 22nd post overall (i.e., counting from the bottom of the webpage up, as the Chronicle lists contributions in the reverse of the order in which they were received), the Flossmore Public Library's Dale Wertz noted how important it is to understand the hows the whys behind the production of information. Whatever the product is (e.g., "news," the "biographies of living persons"), and wherever it appears (e.g., FOX News, the New York Times, Wikipedia, ZNet, the Church of Rome), all information will "entail biases of some sort," Dale wrote. (Actually, I'm not sure whether this is true. But let's push this matter aside.)
Dale continued:
[C]onsider what Wikipedia's editors or users or trolls (your guess is as good as mine) think of Wikipedia as a reliable source. The quote is from Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" page as of 11:30 am CST on October 26, 2006.
"A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources. Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia articles as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable. However Wikipedia may be used as a primary source about Wikipedia, subject to the constraints above. Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources."
For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat this expression of Wikipedia's self-understanding: "Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia articles as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable."
Well. We've all heard of problems associated with the lack of self-confidence and poor self-images before. But this one very well may take the prize. At Wikipedia, the world's most influential online encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources. But Wikipedia does not regard itself as a reliable source. And the reason why Wikipedia's governing rules (which comprise an large, very reflective, finely articulated, and impressive body of literature in their own right) exclude Wikipedia's entries from the category of reliable sources is the wikiness of the Wikipedia project--its distinctive anyone-can-edit open-endedness. In other words, what makes Wikipedia what it is also makes Wikipedia an unreliable source. At least in Wikipedia's eyes.
Clearly, a concept of irony is in play here. The only question is whether it is the kind of irony that resolves itself, ultimately, into something stable or unstable.
"Wikipedia: Beat It, Join It, or Ignore It?" A Chronicle of Higher Education Discussion with Alexander Halavais, October 26, 2006
Some Definitions - Reliable Sources - Wikipedia
"The Semantic Conception of Truth," Alfred Tarski, 1944
A Rhetoric of Irony, Wayne C. Booth, University of Chicago Press, 1974
Update (November 12): On the opening pages of the essays he collected under the titled Black Skin, White Masks (1952), Frantz Fanon—a revolutionary voice if ever there were one—noted he would demonstrate that “what is often called the black soul is a white man's artifact.”
As with all of Fanon's work, these essays dealt with the “hellish cycle” of that kind of “blackness” which acquires it meaning (or which is constructed, to use the more hip terminology) only within the white-European colonies of the Third World—and, more importantly, within the larger, much wealthier and more powerful metropolitan centers back home. Which also happen to be where most of the lawmakers, the writers and artists, the historians and cartographers, live and ply their crafts.
In "The Fact of Blackness," the celebrated fifth chapter of this collection, Fanon recites philosophical, anthropological, and literary works to depict the “crushing objecthood” of subjugated people everywhere. But of black people in particular. (He happened to be writing about his experiences in French Martinique and French Algeria. But unquestionably the lessons generalize to whichever regions of the planet the human species has spread.)
Fanon may just as rightly have called the "The Fact of Blackness" the problem of “blackness” (i.e., within quotation marks, to denote its artifactuality, its constructedness). For it is Fanon's argument that we cannot understand the simple “being of a black man.”
The reason? Because, as Fanon put it, “not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man.”
To help explain the problem of “blackness,” Fanon uses Jean-Paul Sartre's essay on anti-Semitism. Here are some of Sartre's words that Fanon uses: “[P]oisoned by the stereotype that others have of them,…they live in fear that their acts will correspond to this stereotype….[T]heir conduct is perpetually overdetermined from the inside.”
Notice, however, that in Fanon's hands, this formula is rewritten. To explain the problem of “blackness,” he accepts the first-half, not the second.
Poisoned by the stereotype that others have of them. But perpetually overdetermined from without.
Not from the inside, that is. But from the outside.
“[T]he slave not of the ‘idea' that others have of me but of my own appearance.”
“And so it is not I who make a meaning for myself, but it is the meaning that was already there, pre-existing, waiting for me.”
“The Negro is a toy in the white man's hands….”
I've taken up Fanon's next-to-impossible-to-paraphrase writings here for one reason, and one reason only: Upon reading a little review in the Chicago Sun-Times's books section of Natalie Hopkinson and Natalie Moore's recently published Deconstructing Tyrone: A New Look at Black Masculinity in the Hip-Hop Generation, I was immediately reminded of another "Tyrone" (quotation marks and all, as one must slip on a pair of Playtex gloves before touching "him"). A "Tyrone" that very well may never have been deconstructed. (Who'd bother?) But certainly a "Tyrone" that has been constructed. As in fabricated. As in cut from the whole cloth. Right down to “his” bogus black masculinity. ("Hey Peterson and Miner, FUCK YOU also. Both of you are a bunch of worthless sacks of shit. Enjoy raping Joe Egan you psychotic bastards....”). And “his” Hip-Hop whatever-the-hell it's supposed to be. As Monifa Thomas explained in her review of the book about the deconstructed Tyrone ("Sisters on brothers," November 12), “Tyrone isn't so much an actual person as a product of the mass media—the black man as defined by images on BET, SportsCenter and the evening news.” Indeed. It was while thinking about the “Tyrone” in the title of Hopkinson and Moore's Deconstructing Tyrone that I also thought of the other, bogus "Tyrone." On top of which the problem of “blackness” in Fanon's work was immediately apparent. To repeat the Fanon: “The Negro is a toy in the white man's hands….”White skin. Black mask.
"Tyrone Briggs"
Deconstructing Tyrone: A New Look at Black Masculinity in the Hip-Hop Generation, Natalie Y. Moore and Natalie Hopkinson (Cleis Press, 2006)
"The Hip-Hop Generation, Raising Up Its Sons," Natalie Hopkinson, Washington Post, October 18, 2006
"Sisters on brothers: Female authors examine black masculinity from different perspectives," Monifa Thomas, Chicago Sun-Times, November 12, 2006"The Fact of Blackness," Frantz Fanon, 1952 (as posted to the Chicken Bones website)
Black Skin, White Masks, Frantz Fanon, Trans. Charles Lam Markmann (Grove Press, 1969)
Anti-Semite and Jew: An Exploration of the Etiolgy of Hate, Jean-Paul Sartre, Trans. George J. Becker (Random House, 1995)"Hate Speech and the Internet," ZNet, August 19, 2006
Update (November 14): Question: Why would Wikipedia (or any other reference source not only straining for credibility, but also heavily weighed-down by everything from honest error to outright fraud) permit anonymous and pseudonymous individuals to draft, to edit, and to rewrite its versions of the world--in the present case, the biography of a living person who happens to be a sports columnist with the Chicago Sun-Times?
Fact: Through Tuesday, November 14, 2006, there had been at least 287 interventions into this gentleman's Wikipedia biography. The very first entry, the one that launched the whole chain of 286 revisions, dates back to the 16:09 hour of May 21, 2005 ("ErikNY"). The very last revision occured at the 05:46 hour of November 10, 2006 ("Rogerd"). I myself tried to make one revision at the 22:44 hour of August 22, 2006--though not understanding the Wikipedia software, I marred it badly. And eventually was bailed-out by one or more other users who actually knew what they were doing, and fixed my screw-ups.
Between May 21, 2005 and November 10, 2006, there have been several occasions on which Wikipedia administrators took extraordinary measures to help ensure this entry's accuracy, and to protect it against vandalism. (Though these actions do not appear to be fully reflected in the History of the entry.)
On August 30, for example, the administrator David Monniaux decided to delete the entry in its entirety. (A wise decision, in my opinion.)
On October 2, the administrator "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" tried placing the entry under a "semi-protected" status to ensure against vandalism. (See "Protected against Vandalism.")
And later during the month of October, the entry was placed under full "protected" status, while administrators discussed the pros and cons of deleting it, thus washing Wikipedia's hands of the problem, once and for all. (See "What happened to the article?")
Eventually, the entry was re-opened to future revisions. But I suspect that, sooner rather than later, the same kinds of problems will recur. The same bandages will be applied. And the discussion about what to do next will come back around to the critical points that were raised during the month of October. (For all of it, see "Talk: Jay Mariotti.")
Now. I just spent a little while looking through the History of the Wikipedia entry for 'Jay Mariotti'. Among the many people who have contributed revisions to it, two categories of contributors stand out: Since the exact same point extrapolates to the whole Wikipedia enterprise, it's worth emphasizing it here.
These are the contributors (i.e., editors, revisers) who post material under pseudonyms; and the contributors who post material anonymously, and whose identities at the Wikipedia website are recorded as nothing more than their I.P.s (i.e., the addresses of their Internet Providers).
Here is a list of every I.P. Editor who has contributed to Wikipedia's 'Jay Mariotti' entry. It's always possible that I've failed to list one. But this list is close enough to being 100 percent complete to serve our purposes. (They are reproduced here in reverse-chronological order: The most recent at the top, the oldest at the bottom.--Also, try plugging them into the SamSpade.org search engine, and see what you find.)
24.58.233.213 141.151.82.4 76.16.195.65 71.248.156.196 72.68.56.251 70.177.170.196 207.215.172.194 68.22.203.58 71.194.116.130 67.98.3.176 65.30.176.184 141.233.29.205 75.34.165.156 205.188.117.72 75.34.27.139 206.225.97.84 207.246.175.15 68.173.43.29 75.34.30.181 204.97.228.116 75.34.30.95 75.31.235.141 69.209.201.154 24.199.190.190 64.50.38.194 204.97.228.116 65.255.68.79 75.31.246.78 134.48.148.62 198.173.15.250 65.8.139.146 67.173.129.51 69.123.189.36 69.217.120.128 67.184.218.113 24.30.96.30 170.252.248.207 66.41.153.96 68.236.14.143 24.171.8.199 69.217.120.128 216.142.110.74 207.67.145.214 68.75.49.101 68.79.1.79 67.184.218.113 68.75.173.130 71.228.24.41 24.193.152.84 69.217.120.128 68.79.58.163 172.165.64.30 207.195.243.89 69.217.120.128 170.74.0.47 68.43.215.125 68.79.202.57 207.63.124.250 129.22.124.76 71.85.241.82 67.0.102.177 66.102.108.66 24.34.220.71 72.225.152.146 4.154.117.232 4 .154.115.189 24.111.50.26 24.13.218.163 130.85.250.103 67.142.130.17 71.225.110.39 134.29.39.135 162.84.7.107 69.244.63.46 68.20.7.187 207.200.116.195 68.46.179.241 68.252.96.92 24.15.216.26 207.237.131.125 24.128.2.17 128.6.205.70 132.235.45.54 65.54.154.145 68.106.119.188 65.144.115.48
Clearly, some editors do identify themselves. (Me, for example.) Though the largest group appears to use pseudonyms. And the second-largest resorts to the strict anonymity of IP addresses. Overall, for the totality of posts ever to have been made to Wikipedia, it would be very interesting to know how these percentages break down: Real names versus Internet pseudonyms versus anonymous IP addresses.
However, all the IP addresses that I've listed above represent individuals who made changes to the Wikipedia entry for 'Jay Mariotti' while declining to identify themselves and to take credit for the changes they made. When we add these anonymous IP users to the number of people who are willing to post only on condition that they can do so pseudonymously, what we find is a method for producing an encyclopedia (a comprehensive version of the world) that is inherently distorting.
The fundamental reason why this is so cuts to the root of what it means to be a person. Truth-claims can be meaningful only when they are made by persons for whom the act is something in which they are willing to invest their true identities.
Otherwise, truth-claims remain hollow gestures at best. While at their very worst, they descend to the Jay The Joke - class.
Thus to repeat the question I raised at the outset: Why does Wikipedia permit people to draft, to edit, and to rewrite its versions of the world, if these same people won't even identify themselves, and take credit for their drafts, edits, and revisions?
I can appreciate why some people--particularly those not motivated by vanity--would prefer not to be bothered with recognition for their labors.
But for an open-source Internet encyclopedia, this whole method strikes me as inherently unsound. And a breeding ground for every form of deception the human mind can imagine.
'Jay Mariotti' - History
SamSpade.org (One Internet Service Provider Search Engine)
What Is My IP Address.com (Homepage)
Frequently Asked Questions
"Internet Anonymity"
"Proxy Usage"
"Proxy Servers"
"Can someone find out who I am?""Hate Speech and the Internet," ZNet, August 19, 2006
Update (November 25): In our day (a point already true for the past decade, if not longer), no propaganda operation can afford to neglect the power of the Internet. And no sophisticated psych-ops would. (By which I mean to say the kind of operation aimed at changing how people think and feel about an event or person or other kind of entity, whether positively or negatively, and which the professional propagandists in various ministries of information around the world, not to mention among the much more vast body of public-relations firms, can undertake at the drop of a dime).
In terms of mobilizing a highly-committed core of true believers to act on a given topic, with a given objective, at a given time, or simply in terms of insinuating one's message into the public realm, if you don't play the Internet, in effect you are silencing yourself.
And this is equally true, whether the goal is to promote favorable perceptions of your side, or, like Jay The Joke and Fire The Fucktard, simply to smear the other's.
For several news media clippings on one such psychological operation, that is, what the Israeli Government is calling its "Give Israel Your United Support" campaign, see below.
"Behind the Headlines," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
"FM Livni to Int'l Institute for Strategic Studies: The world faces conflicts over values, not territories," Tzipi Livni, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November 21, 2006
Give Israel Your United Support (GIYUS.org)
- GIYUS - Blog
"Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers," Yonit Farago, The Times, July 28, 2006
"Israel's new PR focus: Internet 'talkbacks'," Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, September 1, 2006
"Israel's stock rises in US Europe despite war," Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, September 19, 2006
"Don't mention the war: Israel seeks image makeover," Dan Williams, Reuters, October 26, 2006 (as posted to the Global Exchange website)
"Photos of despair trump sound bites," Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2006
"Israel ups the stakes in the propaganda war," Stewart Purvis, The Guardian, November 20, 2006
"Hate Speech and the Internet," ZNet, August 19, 2006
Update (June 17, 2007): It appears that Wikipedia's editors -- though of course there are exceptions -- are always good for a laugh:
"Wikipedia," Brian Leiter, Leiter Reports, June 17, 2007



Reply to David Monniaux (2006-10-28 13:41)
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 29, 2006 16:35 PM
David Monniaux:
Perfectly clear. And not "cavalier" in the least.
Throughout, I've been intrigued by the history of Wikipedia's entry for this particular Chicago Sun-Times's sports columnist, and how the problems that afflicted this single entry—in which its ostensible subject matter also was the target of a smear campaign—or what Jim Wales elsewhere called an "attack site"—extrapolate to Wikipedia's open-source, anyone-can-edit philosophy as a whole, wherein all entries in principle remain open to infinitely many revisions.
Repeatedly, the question has been raised as to how Wikipedia can remain faithful to its core philosophy without the encyclopedia succumbing not just to honest errors, but deliberate and malicious falsehoods of every stripe.
In my opinion, the most effective way for Wikipedia to counter the threat of false information deliberately posted to its entries lies less along the path proposed by Larry Sanger et al.'s Citizendium Project, with its hierarchical notion of “expertise” among its editors (though this will help in other important respects—including algorithmics, ethnology, and the American Revolution), but instead along some kind of real-person path. We can't see into the hearts of Wikipedia's infinitely many contributors. But Wikipedia might be able to restrict the contributors who post material to its entries to their real identities—or not at all. Why not insist that the truth-claims made via Wikipedia's entries be affixed to the flesh-and-bone people who make them, rather than to anonymous or fake Internet identities? Without some kind of real-person constraint (similar, perhaps, to the one person, one vote rule—though this rule also is violated routinely via the disparities of resources that certain persons command), I'm afraid that Wikipedia (and each of its competitors and successors) will be left a breeding ground for every form of deception the human mind can imagine.
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
decision to delete
By Monniaux, David at Oct 28, 2006 13:41 PM
I discovered that I was cited by name on this blog through a Google search, and I feel that I should explained what happened from my point of view.
At the time, the Wikimedia Foundation had a backlog of emails to process and volunteers were called in. There was a complaint telling us that we had an article that was just mere bashing.
Quick examination of the article and history showed a totally disproportionate amount of criticism, allegations and so on, with people steadfastly pushing for the insertion of such content.
One problem in such cases is to get rid of the undesirable content while not getting rid of desirable additions. This tends to be time-consuming. I had no time for keeping watch on this article. The obvious choice was to delete. To answer one question asked in the post, we do have private archives of delete contents, so if some Wikipedia administrator was sufficiently motivated, he or she could undelete selectively.
This may sound like a cavalier approach, but we're really short on volunteers to process such disputes. In addition,Mr Mariotti's bio is not, in my humble opinion, a major encyclopedic topic. That is, I think we can do without his biography without this loss being perceived as a major lack (compared to, say, not having article on algorithmics, ethnology or the American revolution).
Reply this comment
re ; hate speech and the media
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 20, 2006 15:09 PM
Reply this comment
Reply to "Hate Speech in Media" (2006-08-27 21:15)
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 20, 2006 11:15 AM
Cyrano:
Thanks for sharing your examples. (Apologies, also, for the delay in responding. It was only today that I noticed someone had posted a comment.)
My example may see trivial. And relative to many other case, it certainly is. But hate speech becomes a serious phenomenon when it generates or is itself generated as part of a bandwagon effect. And even here, the case of the Chicago Sun-Times sports columnist has been exemplary. (For some helpful background, see “Jay the Joke Isn't Funny Anymore,” Michael Miner, Chicago Reader, August 18; as well as "Press Boxing," Dirk Johnson, Chicago Magazine, October, 2006. Though in this latter piece, the phenomenon is almost completely missed.)
Let me take the opportunity to reproduce in full here a truly sick commentary. (See "The Strange Death of Joseph Egan," as posted to the nonce-website titled Chicago Sports Fans Unite, by one "NY-Ex Chicagoan"--Internet anonymity run amok.)
Keep in mind that "Joseph Egan" is a real person living in the Chicago area. "CPK" is a term of derogation for another real person. And if you have the time, be sure to read the Comments posted beneath this particular entry. Not one single comment raises an objection to the material that evoked it. One has to wonder where all of these sick people live. But they are enabled in this inward-coiling dynamic of hate by the kind of anonymity that the Internet provides. It's all just a lot of good clean American fun. You know. Like Abu Ghraib.
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
David, you stupid.
By Anonymous, Anonymous at Sep 20, 2006 11:15 AM
Reply this comment
hate speeches in medias
By Kissenger, Clark at Aug 27, 2006 21:15 PM
david I fell on an excellent example of hate speech in the toronto sun. the author is a pseudo professor of political science at the university western of western ontario. Mr Mansur, I would comment on your essay published in Toronto Sun and titled Why Muslim Kills Muslims I think your essay contribute to hatre towards arabs and that your essay is somewhat apologitical of zionism war crimes.. actually you could be labeled an apologist of the illegal war, and US war crime with the occupatioin of Iraq. for the past 3 years the world had been submitted to unequalled barbarism and the media have done nothing less than toing the party line.. for these reasons your essay was posted as an example of article contributing to hate and racism. http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2722 you wrote: WHY MUSLIM kill MUSLIMS.. In the marketplace of ideas, the Arab-Muslim world is presently a relatively barren region.
I don't know , muslim and arabs have different ideas you have but the way you generalized seem to point that you are a bigot.. if you arent racist it does denote that all these years in school were in vain.. ( you arent an aventurous thinker) see JD casten comments that adress your rather limited essay:
ttp://blogs.zmag.org/node/2709#comment
Thinking is a perilous venture where dictators, demagogues and mob passion rule.
The present american administration is closer to fascism than muslim are in fact read this article may be it will help you understand fascim: the US is doing a FREE FALL into NEW ADVANCED FORM OF FASCISMS. Historically, Powerful US corporations SPONSORED euro fascism( helped Hitler with his ascension to power) mainly because this ascension to power was slowing down socialism. In fact the US sponsored every dictator except castro, all of therm including Hussin, marco, duvalier , pinochet. (see animation below on the US link to fascism
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html
The rise Hitler, Mussolini) was more like the infancy of fascism with puppet front speakers- screamers. fascism does not need dictactor anymore , mainly because the media control the public opinion and the votes.. It can hide under flawed democratic process such as the US. Once a Corporations get one of their pawn elected, it can impose their will and exploit the populations . Unfortunately the BRAVES in the US have been replaced with warmongerers, occupiers, exploiters,murderers, baby killers, racists and ignorants.. (republicans and a few liberals..and their pseudo-ideological war in Iraq..) see Bush hitlerian ideology below
http://www.tbtmradio.com/geeklog/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=20040606194007963
And so, there is not such thing as a TRUE AMERICAN anymore ; there's BP, Esso Imperial, Shell , Exxon and other profit making WAR Corporations, but the AMERICAN PEOPLE itself do not exist, it has been buried long ago with its CONscience by its own ignorance and THEIR TVs.. Sources : http://blogs.zmag.org
mr mansur your continued: But when it comes to maiming and killing, the Arab-Muslim world holds a place of prominence. In particular, the ancient land between two rivers, now Iraq, has proven to be greatly fertile as killing fields.
Iraq was relatively peaceful before the imposed civil war on Iraqis by the US. In fact the world could had been a better place with hussein than with bush. what bush did is make the world a worst place to leave.. he actually accelerated an arm race because small countries felt threatened..
With complete lunacy your wrote: The most famous massacre in Muslim history by armed might of the state took place at Karbala on the banks of the Euphrates in 680. On that terribly bloody day, Husayn bin Ali -- grandson of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, by his daughter Fatima -- was brutally killed and decapitated as he was offering his mid-afternoon prayers.
Tell me you are relating to an anachronism, tell me how many religious war you had in europe, what about france and the knight templars? what about the great inquisitions, the burning of the jews, Christianity murdered more Jew than Hitler ever did, and this with no gas chambers, they were burned at the stakes.. and what about the estimated 2 millions Vietnameses that were butchered by the US, what about the contamination of 1/2 of the agricultural land that cause another million death? lets not talk about it US is not an arab country..
Husayn's male companions were slaughtered by the army of Yazid, the caliph (Islam's supreme ruler), while women and children in the company of Husayn, including his wife and daughter, were abused and carried as war trophies to the capital of the expanding Arab-Islamic empire in Damascus.
Jews thru the bible claims mass murders of arabs , genocide and infanticides, isn't this a religion that preach that it is ok to hate and genocide arabs ? read the Bible from abaraham to the four testament , it does look like hebrews and jews were mass murderers.. By your account should we hate jews and bomb their people? I don't think so.. by the way, i am not anti-semite I am anti-zionist
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am1TA3sFkk6DWgJPcwMniYc4Agx.?qid=20060628091845AACxLbM http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al0eovns3MWWmQ0RPbYAi2E4Agx.?qid=20060626080602AAUZCnT
The people of Karbala and surrounding areas passively watched as Muhammad's family and its claim to leadership of Muslims ended in tragedy. But belated grief tore the Arab-Muslim world apart, and its wounds continue to torment in countless ways a people for whom the massacre in Karbala has become the template of their history.
Again what about Christian inquisitions and the pseudo heretics?
Karbala is a necessary reminder of Muslims being unequalled tormentors and killers of Muslims.
what about Christian inquisitions and the pseudo heretics? Worst isn't?
Saddam Hussein as the ruling tyrant in Baghdad was only the most recent incarnation of an Arab Macbeth and the Mongol Genghis Khan rolled into one megalomaniacal killer.
Most of Saddam Hussein crimes were on behalf of the US, also Hussein crimes are light in comparison to the number of death the US imposed sanctions caused in Iraq, countless or Iraqis died because of the US pursuit of oil..Saddam is small potatoe killer beside US lead global terrorism and war against the poor..note where ever the US intervenes democracy was more difficult to obtain, the US being the biggest sponsor of dictatorship and terrorism in the world. The US did not become number one superpower without being number one terrorist and killer in the world.
It also illuminates the sheer hypocrisy of Arabs and Muslims who selectively and for political purposes rage against the United States and Israel (and not, for instance, against Russia or China despite the brutal suppression of their respective Muslim minorities) for Arab-Muslim casualties in conflicts that have been, almost without exception, precipitated by Arab-Muslim dictators and demagogues.
What are you talking about? what about the illegal creation of a zionist state in the middle of arabs land? the zionism state was pure idiocy from the begiining. why wont you mention that the TORTURED palestinians now live in the biggest prison in the world and are condemned to die..? what about the palestinian refugees? what about over land that were rubbed of palestininians.. Mr. mansur you can't create and holocaust of arabs because you want to avert an holocaust of jews.
This past July was grisly, and not just because of the war in Lebanon unleashed by Hezbollah terrorists against Israel.
Hizbollah isnt a terrorist organization, its a resistance organization, where did you get the news hizbollah started the recent war?
Iraq's health ministry reported July was the deadliest month for Iraqi casualties since March 2003. The figures provided were 3,438 Iraqis killed -- 1,855 of those as a result of sectarian violence and 1,583 from bombings and shootings carried out by insurgents. Some 3,600 were wounded during the same period.
Its a civil war thats caused by the US, I dont know why you are espousing the news that Iraq might fall into civil war..it was in a civil war 2 years ago and the US has lost the political love of Iraqis. There are report that the US caused the civil war because it lost the vote.. The US does not want democracy in these countries , democracy means government unfavorable to the US..
These figures followed a UN estimate of nearly 6,000 Iraqis killed during May and June. The killings in Iraq have been indiscriminate, and the killers are mostly Arabs, belonging to Sunni or Shiite sects. It is noteworthy that Iraqi Kurds, who suffered Saddam's genocidal violence, are uninvolved in this sectarian savagery.
It seem that american deaths goes also unreported.. Kurd have enough problem with TURKEY, it has been victim of more massacres from Turkey than from Hussein. This is not reported because Turkey is friend with the US.. thinks Turkey never used gas? and what about napalm used in Vietnam? what about the most recent used of napalm in fallujah a city completely destroyed by the US?
There has been no organized protest within the Arab-Muslim world or in the West against the daily toll of Iraqi deaths due to this hate-driven insurgency.
wake-up, go to znet networks,your news network do not report organized protests
Nor is Iraq the only place where Muslim violence against Muslims rages unabated. There is Darfur in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Algeria until recently, and hotspots in Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Palestine, Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.
The violence is not specifically aimed at muslim but rather to terrorist groups sponsored by the US
How, then, might we explain why Muslim deaths seem only to matter to Arabs and Muslims -- and to apologists of Arab-Muslim politics in the West -- when they occur as a result of conflicts with the U.S. or Israel?
The US is failing with diplomacy and trades in the Middle East, it resorted to violence to secure its oil interest. the US is vilainizing muslim and arabs to justify a oil and land grab..
In witnessing worldwide protests over Lebanese deaths resulting from the recent Hezbollah-Israeli fighting, we might conclude it is politically acceptable when Muslims murder untold numbers of Muslims, but entirely unacceptable when they are collateral casualties of Israeli bombings.
what are you talking about? how can you prove that the videos shown by isarelis forces were filled with people when hizbollah defended lebanon? what do you think Israel does if its not targeting civilians? this is state terrorism pure and simple, bulldoze people home, starve them, cut their water and shout 12 years old and up..
This is the Orwellian reality of much of the Arab-Muslim world today, where Muslim and non-Muslim lives are too often seen as readily and contemptuously disposable -- except when they become handy tools of propaganda against Jews, Hindus and Americans.
Sure try to get a free ticket for israeli to kill muslim with all impunity..in your line of thinking because muslims appear to be killing muslim, they are a irrational people, it is ok to kill them.. you are esposing the CNN specialists that claims muslim and arab have a false sens of grievance, they plant bomb because its in their culture.. same could be said about american, a people filled with rapists, sex profeeterers, pimp. ponographers, they are an irational people , the like to invent bombs, nukes and WMDs. they sponsor dictators in the world to keep poor people in poverty.. they spend half their budget making wars and weapons that kills countless of innocent people.. they creates crisis and hates of other people to finance a war industry, and they are also accountable for 95% of poverty and war around the globe.. Also you seem to mention islamo- fascist (whatever that is).. in my opinion the two only country that display this form of dictatorship is saudi arabia (wallabism) and kuwait, countries that are friend with the US, Lebanon and Palestine being secular countries and being democratics..
cyrano
source: http://blogs.zmag.org
Reply this comment