The Corporal's nemesis appears May 5, 2007 3:44 AM Subscribe
If you've given up on that long Corporal Sanchez thread, it suddenly gets interesting at this point, when the author of the website that's the subject of the post joins MetaFilter and the discussion.
I hear you, but that wasn't the only thing that made this worthy of note. Wilson jumped in with both feet and joined in the the back-and-forth pretty well, for someone who has no experience with the place.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:18 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:18 AM on May 5, 2007
I was also close to posting here but I am terrified of posting in the grey. Thanks.
posted by sneakin at 5:02 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by sneakin at 5:02 AM on May 5, 2007
I was *this* close to making a metatalk thread about the author chiming in, but I thought people might be sick of the "omg, author responded" thing.
I'm not so sure that an author responding in-thread could ever get old.
posted by NoMich at 5:46 AM on May 5, 2007
I'm not so sure that an author responding in-thread could ever get old.
posted by NoMich at 5:46 AM on May 5, 2007
Looks like he can handle himself in a knife fight, too.
posted by grobstein at 5:58 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by grobstein at 5:58 AM on May 5, 2007
Does he autograph comments?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:59 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:59 AM on May 5, 2007
That did make the discussion more interesting— good on ya, Kirth, for bringing it here.
(As a meta-discussion, the reason I found that post so lame is that, c'mon, anyone who's read the news already knows pretty much everything on that site already. That Sanchez thing is done and gone.)
posted by klangklangston at 7:12 AM on May 5, 2007
(As a meta-discussion, the reason I found that post so lame is that, c'mon, anyone who's read the news already knows pretty much everything on that site already. That Sanchez thing is done and gone.)
posted by klangklangston at 7:12 AM on May 5, 2007
I'm not so sure that an author responding in-thread could ever get old.
I agree with this sentiment. Kirth Gerson, thanks for highlighting this here.
posted by teleskiving at 7:22 AM on May 5, 2007
I agree with this sentiment. Kirth Gerson, thanks for highlighting this here.
posted by teleskiving at 7:22 AM on May 5, 2007
pyramid termite, what's your point?
posted by Charles Wilson at 12:24 AM on May 5
He's picking up the basics..
posted by petsounds at 9:07 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I found the reporting he did on the linked story to be very well done and had a point, but did anyone else check out the Kim story? I just found that to be tragic, and honestly not worth picking over to the extent he did.
I guess the overwhelming feeling I got at the end of it was "Why go to all this trouble to find inconstancies?" I mean, most of the time there's either an interesting cover-up allegation, or at least a fun crackpot-style theory...but with this one, it just ended as a meh-it-was-their-own-fault ending.
Did anyone else really think that it was anything else? I know he says there was some investigation into failures with the OSAR, but I heard nothing of that when the story was hot last year.
posted by plaidrabbit at 1:37 PM on May 5, 2007
I guess the overwhelming feeling I got at the end of it was "Why go to all this trouble to find inconstancies?" I mean, most of the time there's either an interesting cover-up allegation, or at least a fun crackpot-style theory...but with this one, it just ended as a meh-it-was-their-own-fault ending.
Did anyone else really think that it was anything else? I know he says there was some investigation into failures with the OSAR, but I heard nothing of that when the story was hot last year.
posted by plaidrabbit at 1:37 PM on May 5, 2007
I think he'll fit in well here: he has multiple axes to grind, a head for minutiae, and he's already involved in a smackdown with jonmc over Ann Coulter. I'm just worried we'll distract him from more pressing investigative journalism, or that he'll comb my comment history and find all the dirty bits.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:52 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:52 PM on May 5, 2007
plaidrabbit, I read Wilson's Kim stuff and was actually a bit icked out. If you go to this page, and scroll about 2/3 down to the heading "Speculation," you can't help but think "what's journalistic about this, really?"
Put all the disclaimer you want on a website, but when you make up hours and hours worth of "what might have happened" out of whole cloth, you lose credible claim to journalistic integrity. Especially when the speculation is not even a believable alternative.
posted by pineapple at 4:55 PM on May 5, 2007
Put all the disclaimer you want on a website, but when you make up hours and hours worth of "what might have happened" out of whole cloth, you lose credible claim to journalistic integrity. Especially when the speculation is not even a believable alternative.
posted by pineapple at 4:55 PM on May 5, 2007
I have avoided discussing this because I live in the area the Kims were from... but after glancing at that link, I must confess that he wrote some things that I have silently thought to myself since November. Around here almost all discussions and news stories were about how Kim was a hero trying to save his family, and since he died what good would it do to say otherwise. But silently I kept thinking, "Wait a minute. He was supposed to be a smart guy, yet it seems to me that he made some crazy bad decisions that actually put his family into extreme danger that wasn't necessary. His children should still have a father."
It was definitely a tragic story, no question. But as a former journalism major I believe that journalism should be about objectively looking at all sides of a story to analyze and view what made it occur, not just saying what the public wants to hear because it can't be changed.
Journalism is ABOUT questioning things even when it makes people uncomfortable.
AU,YMMV.
posted by miss lynnster at 5:20 PM on May 5, 2007
It was definitely a tragic story, no question. But as a former journalism major I believe that journalism should be about objectively looking at all sides of a story to analyze and view what made it occur, not just saying what the public wants to hear because it can't be changed.
Journalism is ABOUT questioning things even when it makes people uncomfortable.
AU,YMMV.
posted by miss lynnster at 5:20 PM on May 5, 2007
Did you read the specific part of the link I recommended, beginning at the section called "Speculation"?
I'm not questioning Wilson's questioning of Kati Kim's reports. In fact, I appreciate the points that Wilson made on his website, which the rest of the national media never talked about. I'm glad I read it some of his pages. I don't believe that his journalistic integrity is at stake because he questioned whether what the national media assumed was the truth.
But fabricating entire conversations had between the Kims with no more insight or evidence than I might have, is where I draw the line. Suggesting that their delay into Halsey likely happened because Kati Kim likely wandered around the visitors center and likely picked up a winery brochure and likely found it interesting and likely suggested that the family (travelling with an infant and toddler) should detour to visit several wineries, with absolutely zero evidence of anything along that line, is beyond the pale.
In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the definition of journalism.
So, what made me uncomfortable was not that Wilson looked closely at the Kims. It's that he didn't realize to quit while he was ahead, and instead ruined a good thing by making a bunch of stuff up that, while disclaimed, also casts a pall on the rest of his analysis. He had me until he started making stuff up to support his arguments.
posted by pineapple at 5:35 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm not questioning Wilson's questioning of Kati Kim's reports. In fact, I appreciate the points that Wilson made on his website, which the rest of the national media never talked about. I'm glad I read it some of his pages. I don't believe that his journalistic integrity is at stake because he questioned whether what the national media assumed was the truth.
But fabricating entire conversations had between the Kims with no more insight or evidence than I might have, is where I draw the line. Suggesting that their delay into Halsey likely happened because Kati Kim likely wandered around the visitors center and likely picked up a winery brochure and likely found it interesting and likely suggested that the family (travelling with an infant and toddler) should detour to visit several wineries, with absolutely zero evidence of anything along that line, is beyond the pale.
In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the definition of journalism.
So, what made me uncomfortable was not that Wilson looked closely at the Kims. It's that he didn't realize to quit while he was ahead, and instead ruined a good thing by making a bunch of stuff up that, while disclaimed, also casts a pall on the rest of his analysis. He had me until he started making stuff up to support his arguments.
posted by pineapple at 5:35 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Actually, many very successful & well-written non-fiction biographies are based purely upon speculation. Nobody can really prove what has gone on behind closed doors (without witnesses). Nobody can definitively validate that Alexander the Great REALLY did have a gay affair. So, often brainstormed speculation IS considered a valid journalistic tool when approached honestly in order to try to figure out the untold truth behind stories. Trying to get into the possible mindset of a person in question is a huge part of how both journalists and police often find their path towards the eventual answers. That technique allows them to better recognize the clues when possible pieces start to make sense and tangibly fit together.
Hypothesizing is actually a HUGE part of journalism.
As I see it, he leaves the speculation part to the very bottom of the page and starts that section off with:
"This is the only section of our narrative where we depart from proven facts and logic emanating from them. We want to stay away sheer guesswork to the greatest extent possible, and to limit any (plausible speculation based on likelihood/logic emanating from facts established by records and events) to the reasonable. In any case, we want to emphasize that the following is a speculation about what might have happened. We are not presenting it as a definitive or factual account."
Then numerous times he repeats in underlined italic that it's a speculation or that a particular idea might be a stretch. He was very clear in presenting the factual information first and did not present the speculation as anything but. He wasn't presenting it as fact or claiming probablilty and it didn't come across to me as though he presented his ideas in any kind of false manner, so it honestly doesn't bother me.
Unlike the Weekly World News. Although, that said, BATBOY WAS JUST SPOTTED IN THE NYC SUBWAY!!!! Ruuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!
posted by miss lynnster at 6:41 PM on May 5, 2007
Hypothesizing is actually a HUGE part of journalism.
As I see it, he leaves the speculation part to the very bottom of the page and starts that section off with:
"This is the only section of our narrative where we depart from proven facts and logic emanating from them. We want to stay away sheer guesswork to the greatest extent possible, and to limit any (plausible speculation based on likelihood/logic emanating from facts established by records and events) to the reasonable. In any case, we want to emphasize that the following is a speculation about what might have happened. We are not presenting it as a definitive or factual account."
Then numerous times he repeats in underlined italic that it's a speculation or that a particular idea might be a stretch. He was very clear in presenting the factual information first and did not present the speculation as anything but. He wasn't presenting it as fact or claiming probablilty and it didn't come across to me as though he presented his ideas in any kind of false manner, so it honestly doesn't bother me.
Unlike the Weekly World News. Although, that said, BATBOY WAS JUST SPOTTED IN THE NYC SUBWAY!!!! Ruuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!
posted by miss lynnster at 6:41 PM on May 5, 2007
klang, for the record, his site has waaaay more information, background and primary sources than were in most articles about Matt Sanchez. Also, declaring something is done and gone when it's an active thread in both MeTa and MeFi is odd.
posted by sneakin at 6:53 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by sneakin at 6:53 PM on May 5, 2007
Also, declaring something is done and gone when it's an active thread in both MeTa and MeFi is odd.
maybe he's trying to tell us something about meta and mefi ...
as far as charles goes, he's starting to seem just a wee bit obsessive ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:06 PM on May 5, 2007
maybe he's trying to tell us something about meta and mefi ...
as far as charles goes, he's starting to seem just a wee bit obsessive ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:06 PM on May 5, 2007
Obsessive? Yeah, that's another common trait for journalists. Let's just say I dated a few in college.
posted by miss lynnster at 7:33 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by miss lynnster at 7:33 PM on May 5, 2007
Just went back into the thread. Yeah, he's commented 28 times already. I see whatcha mean.
posted by miss lynnster at 7:35 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by miss lynnster at 7:35 PM on May 5, 2007
He's debating jonmc. He gets 30 free comments for that alone.
posted by yhbc at 8:46 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by yhbc at 8:46 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oh man, that thread got even better since I last looked at. The jonmc debate is good.
posted by puke & cry at 8:47 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by puke & cry at 8:47 PM on May 5, 2007
"klang, for the record, his site has waaaay more information, background and primary sources than were in most articles about Matt Sanchez. Also, declaring something is done and gone when it's an active thread in both MeTa and MeFi is odd."
It's old news. The only things notable are on a meta level— that this is meta-analysis presented in one place (like, if you believe the author, what the wikipedia page should have been), and that the author appeared to defend his piece.
It's less interesting than Pat Tillman, but on about the same level of importance. As a story, everything salient for an informed public is already out there. What's the new scoop? Oooh, Sanchez was more whorish than previously suspected! It's like ramping up interest because Ann Coulter was sexist or racist or just randomly inflamatory.
And sure, if you hadn't already heard about this, it might all be new to you. But if you haven't already heard about this, and heard about it when the story first broke, you haven't been paying attention, and there's no real need to cater to your lack of newswire subscriptions.
Dead and gone.
posted by klangklangston at 10:03 PM on May 5, 2007
It's old news. The only things notable are on a meta level— that this is meta-analysis presented in one place (like, if you believe the author, what the wikipedia page should have been), and that the author appeared to defend his piece.
It's less interesting than Pat Tillman, but on about the same level of importance. As a story, everything salient for an informed public is already out there. What's the new scoop? Oooh, Sanchez was more whorish than previously suspected! It's like ramping up interest because Ann Coulter was sexist or racist or just randomly inflamatory.
And sure, if you hadn't already heard about this, it might all be new to you. But if you haven't already heard about this, and heard about it when the story first broke, you haven't been paying attention, and there's no real need to cater to your lack of newswire subscriptions.
Dead and gone.
posted by klangklangston at 10:03 PM on May 5, 2007
Yeah.. Nothing to see here.
Especially since it doesn't conform to my world view..
Boooorrriiiinnnggg.
posted by Balisong at 10:14 PM on May 5, 2007
Especially since it doesn't conform to my world view..
Boooorrriiiinnnggg.
posted by Balisong at 10:14 PM on May 5, 2007
I think he'll fit in well here
Perhaps. He certainly flamed out on Wikipedia pretty quickly, though [also]. Reading diff by diff, it's amazing he lasted as long as he did.
Maybe he'll be OK outside of his pet topics, but he certainly seems to resort to ad homs pretty quickly.
posted by dhartung at 12:12 AM on May 6, 2007
Perhaps. He certainly flamed out on Wikipedia pretty quickly, though [also]. Reading diff by diff, it's amazing he lasted as long as he did.
Maybe he'll be OK outside of his pet topics, but he certainly seems to resort to ad homs pretty quickly.
posted by dhartung at 12:12 AM on May 6, 2007
"Yeah.. Nothing to see here.
Especially since it doesn't conform to my world view.."
Um... Actually, I tend to find it more boring because it does conform to my world view. But don't let that get in the way of, you know, boring third-rate snark or anything.
posted by klangklangston at 12:19 AM on May 6, 2007
Especially since it doesn't conform to my world view.."
Um... Actually, I tend to find it more boring because it does conform to my world view. But don't let that get in the way of, you know, boring third-rate snark or anything.
posted by klangklangston at 12:19 AM on May 6, 2007
He certainly flamed out on Wikipedia pretty quickly, though
From the logs, it looks like a small group of administrators acted with an agenda, since they repeatedly removed summaries and citations of published, mainstream sources reporting on current events; pretty much the antithesis of unbiased and original research. I can see why there was a conflict.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:10 AM on May 6, 2007
From the logs, it looks like a small group of administrators acted with an agenda, since they repeatedly removed summaries and citations of published, mainstream sources reporting on current events; pretty much the antithesis of unbiased and original research. I can see why there was a conflict.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:10 AM on May 6, 2007
Hypothesizing is actually a HUGE part of journalism.
I don't have any problem with this. I just don't like the way Wilson did it. He claimed to "want to stay away sheer guesswork [sic] to the greatest extent possible," but in my opinion he failed. I found some of his deductions to be unreasonable and fanciful. Obviously, your mileage does vary.
posted by pineapple at 9:05 AM on May 6, 2007
I don't have any problem with this. I just don't like the way Wilson did it. He claimed to "want to stay away sheer guesswork [sic] to the greatest extent possible," but in my opinion he failed. I found some of his deductions to be unreasonable and fanciful. Obviously, your mileage does vary.
posted by pineapple at 9:05 AM on May 6, 2007
I hope that Charles Wilson decides to stay in our community and that he takes an active role in other threads.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:22 AM on May 6, 2007
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:22 AM on May 6, 2007
From the logs, it looks like a small group of administrators acted with an agenda
First of all, Wilson doesn't seem to have edited the article -- he just started in on Talk pages flaming people, and got himself banned for it, and now harbors a persecution/bias complex. I'm thrilled to have him here. If there's anything that MeFi needs, it's someone who calls anyone who disagrees with him a "Nixonian twit".
Second, what I see is two small groups of biased editors warring in the article, including some very problematic editing by Sanchez himself, with a small group of administrators doing their best to keep things within Wikipedia policy. The page has been protected from editing since April 29, the only recent "administrator" action taken. The Talk page since then, with the exception of Wilson's comments, has been pretty civil.
If the thing that Wilson, and you, take away from that is that there's some kind of "cabal" in operation, you're really barely worth discussing anything with.
posted by dhartung at 12:51 PM on May 6, 2007
First of all, Wilson doesn't seem to have edited the article -- he just started in on Talk pages flaming people, and got himself banned for it, and now harbors a persecution/bias complex. I'm thrilled to have him here. If there's anything that MeFi needs, it's someone who calls anyone who disagrees with him a "Nixonian twit".
Second, what I see is two small groups of biased editors warring in the article, including some very problematic editing by Sanchez himself, with a small group of administrators doing their best to keep things within Wikipedia policy. The page has been protected from editing since April 29, the only recent "administrator" action taken. The Talk page since then, with the exception of Wilson's comments, has been pretty civil.
If the thing that Wilson, and you, take away from that is that there's some kind of "cabal" in operation, you're really barely worth discussing anything with.
posted by dhartung at 12:51 PM on May 6, 2007
If the thing that Wilson, and you, take away from that is that there's some kind of "cabal" in operation, you're really barely worth discussing anything with.
It appears that it took repeated efforts of explanation to certain administrators that the edits were appropriate to the article and within policy. Preference over the article's content wrt "fairness" was initially given to Sanchez/Bluemarine. Cabal or no, there is the appearance of an agenda at play that runs counter to WP's mission, when it takes significant effort to allow published, researched material which the article's subject may not like.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:40 PM on May 6, 2007
It appears that it took repeated efforts of explanation to certain administrators that the edits were appropriate to the article and within policy. Preference over the article's content wrt "fairness" was initially given to Sanchez/Bluemarine. Cabal or no, there is the appearance of an agenda at play that runs counter to WP's mission, when it takes significant effort to allow published, researched material which the article's subject may not like.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:40 PM on May 6, 2007
Charles Wilson seems like an interesting poster and a sharp guy. I'll take him any day over some irritating, apathetic, can't-stop-using-elipses-because-he's- apparently-got-a-fucking-learning-disability know-nothing.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:19 PM on May 6, 2007
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:19 PM on May 6, 2007
the trolls are out tonight, aren't they? ... and they all got together to troll one certain person ... even after he'd been quiet in those respective threads for many hours
isn't that sweet?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:29 PM on May 6, 2007
isn't that sweet?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:29 PM on May 6, 2007
"...but he certainly seems to resort to ad homs pretty quickly."
Yeah, but they're really funny.
"I'm not sure I'm up for doing the full Cleveland on these tinpot Haldemanns at Wikipedia." - Charles Wilson
That's solid gold right there.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:42 AM on May 7, 2007
Yeah, but they're really funny.
"I'm not sure I'm up for doing the full Cleveland on these tinpot Haldemanns at Wikipedia." - Charles Wilson
That's solid gold right there.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:42 AM on May 7, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by puke & cry at 3:53 AM on May 5, 2007