Cut it in. December 15, 2010 1:14 PM   Subscribe

Why was this deleted? It seems separate enough from the main Wikileaks saga going on elsewhere, and I can't recall it being discussed all that extensively here previously.
posted by schmod to Etiquette/Policy at 1:14 PM (80 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

Just a wild guess, but I'd say that the poster had been warned about posting Free Bradley! activism stories previously.
posted by electroboy at 1:20 PM on December 15, 2010 [6 favorites]


The deletion reason seems to sum things up: " Question of the worth of the salon article entirely aside, we've already asked you not to do FREE BRADLEY activism posts and you need to cut it out. -- cortex"

The subject seems fine, but the issue seems to be how this post was made.
posted by nomadicink at 1:20 PM on December 15, 2010


It was deleted in part because - has been posting half-assed deleted threads about Bradley Manning just about every day.

I think the article might stand if posted by another user but - has been super axe-grindy about it.
posted by graventy at 1:20 PM on December 15, 2010


Problem is the specific user repeatedly trying to cram Free Bradley Manning! stuff onto the vicinity of the front page, not the topic of Manning itself. If someone wants to make a solid post about Manning's situation free of the activism/boosterism stuff, that would be fine.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:21 PM on December 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Isn't anyone else getting Wikileak fatigued, though? I regretted posting the WikiRebel documentary to the blue almost immediately because there are just SO MANY WIKILEAK POSTS. It seems no matter what we are actually supposed to be talking about (and I fear this is what would happen in a Bradley Manning post, too), we just talk Julian Assange: hero or villain?? to death. All. The. Time.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 1:29 PM on December 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


Alright, now that we've got that one figured out, what the hell is going on here?
posted by gman at 1:32 PM on December 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I hope that Salon.com article isn't reposted. It commits one of my "journalistic" pet peeves:
Several lengthy paragraphs about some topic tangential to the supposed subject of the article... but all that is irrelevant.
If it's irrelevant, why did you discuss it at length? I always suppose that it actually is relevant, but the author is too weak to support it in any sort of exchange.
posted by muddgirl at 1:33 PM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Out of curiosity, what was the last time a news topic required such heavy moderation and provoked so many posts?
posted by proj at 1:39 PM on December 15, 2010


Or, I guess I should say "what was the last topic that . . ."
posted by proj at 1:44 PM on December 15, 2010


what was the last time a news topic required such heavy moderation and provoked so many posts

When was the last time the US had a national election?
posted by dersins at 1:48 PM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


what the hell is going on here?

Prelude to goatse.cz?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:48 PM on December 15, 2010


That poster's username just broke my brain.
posted by iamkimiam at 1:53 PM on December 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


posted by proj what was the last time a news topic required such heavy moderation and provoked so many posts?

Any time we have an FPP about Apple or iPhones.
posted by mattdidthat at 1:56 PM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


gman, explanation here: http://www.trenthead.com/
posted by dolface at 1:59 PM on December 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


As long as we're on the subject of deletion reasons, I wish we could favorite them, for this one alone.
posted by orville sash at 2:03 PM on December 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


Or, I guess I should say "what was the last topic that . . ."

No.
If it's "What was the last time that..."
then you must write
"When was the last topic..."

TYVM.
posted by SLC Mom at 2:03 PM on December 15, 2010


Isn't anyone else getting Wikileak fatigued, though?

You think this is bad? Head over to Reddit for a while. There's at least three SHOCK AND OUTRAGE! posts that get voted to the front page every time somebody so much as farts near Assange. It's really ruining that site for me, and reminds me why I really don't care for the upvote/downvote system.
posted by TrialByMedia at 2:06 PM on December 15, 2010


I'm the original author of the post.

electroboy : Just a wild guess, but I'd say that the poster had been warned about posting Free Bradley! activism stories previously.

The 4 December I posted an article about Manning on mefi (http://www.metafilter.com/98108/Free-Brad-Manning-please), that was quickly deleted because was a context-less and not so informative post. Cortex was right and i don't complain.

But this time is an unjustified deletion. This is not a bad post, it just an important (and well written) news, correlated with useful links to develop the story and take actions. The first link (http://www.bradleymanning.org/) provide a lot of relevant informations on the subject; the second (http://www.freebradley.org/) is an activist site with propaganda materials, mostly banners and flyers, and give an useful and short description of why manning is in this situation.

Metafilter can not, in my opinion, be closed to every issue that can relate with human right activism. Activism, is not bad "in itself", ask for money is bad, and can considered spam. And my post weren't in this category. So i'm bit perplexed by the metafilter rule of law.

sorry for my bad English.
posted by - at 2:06 PM on December 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Editorializing and issuing calls for action on the front page is generally frowned upon here.
posted by TrialByMedia at 2:09 PM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


what the hell is going on here?

Prelude to goatse.cz?


Prelude to goatse.gov
posted by joe lisboa at 2:11 PM on December 15, 2010


Metafilter can not, in my opinion, be closed to every issue that can relate with human right activism.

Good, because it's not. It was a bad post. That Freebradley site is a piece of work and I'm surprised his lawyers haven't asked them to take it down.
posted by muddgirl at 2:12 PM on December 15, 2010


Activism is not bad "in itself," but it's not good for MetaFilter.
posted by Gator at 2:12 PM on December 15, 2010


Metafilter can not, in my opinion, be closed to every issue that can relate with human right activism.

There is a difference between "issues that can relate to activism"—about which there have been many posts on sundry subjects over the years, and with which a wide array of mefites are, through their own work and in their communities and in a dozen sorts of ways involved—and posts which are themselves adopting the form of activism or boosterism.

It's the latter that is the problem, and the latter that has gotten these two posts and one of your comments from another post deleted, much as similar post-as-activist-call-to-action stuff has been routinely deleted over the years.

No one on the mod staff would make the argument that activism is "bad in itself". Quite the contrary, if anything. But there are a great many things that aren't bad in and of themselves that nonetheless are not a good use of the front page of Metafilter. This is one of them.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:15 PM on December 15, 2010


The post was mainly informative. Even the "activist" link were mainly informative. Activism is different.
posted by - at 2:16 PM on December 15, 2010


what was the last time a news topic required such heavy moderation and provoked so many posts

Karl Rove stuff, Dick Cheney stuff, US election stuff, Sarah Palin stuff, all seems to have this "I know you want to make a new post about it, but seriously you need to dial it back a little" thing going on. This is less true for disaster type stuff such as Hurricane Katrina, the Haiti devastation and other similar things. Epic disasters usually have a lot of posts but there's a known arc to them and there's less of the two-minute hate going on and the usual suspects hollering at each other.

Activism, is not bad "in itself", ask for money is bad, and can considered spam.

It's a little tough to get across sometimes, but there's a difference between "this topic is really important" and "this would make a good post for MetaFilter" Posts that have a "sign my petition/donate to my cause" aspect to them very often get deleted, in fact it's rare if they don't get deleted.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:16 PM on December 15, 2010


Even the "activist" link were mainly informative.

The "activist" link was full of factual errors and uncomfortably politicised the issue. For example:
If he's innocent of all charges, he's a casualty in the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers, and if convicted, he's a hero for exposing war crimes and the true civilian costs of our wars in the Middle East.
Not informative at all.
posted by muddgirl at 2:18 PM on December 15, 2010


"sign my petition/donate to my cause" this is not the case!
Please visit the links i provided, they ask for money (like every website on earth) but their main goal is to inform about Manning situation.
posted by - at 2:21 PM on December 15, 2010


You think this is bad? Head over to Reddit for a while. There's at least three SHOCK AND OUTRAGE! posts that get voted to the front page

Yeah, it has totally ruined it for me, though it had been declining in quality for a while (pre-Digg invasion).
posted by proj at 2:22 PM on December 15, 2010


Editorializing... is generally frowned upon here.

There was no editorializing.

"The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention" is the title of the (important) article that was the subject of the post.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:22 PM on December 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


Why was this deleted? It seems separate enough from the main Wikileaks saga going on elsewhere, and I can't recall it being discussed all that extensively here previously.

You have no-one to blame but the people who made 500 hundred odd posts about every conceivable aspect of Wikileaks who make the same assertion, and who cram a reference to Wikileaks into every available thread.
posted by Artw at 2:29 PM on December 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


Activism is a form of editorializing, no?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:29 PM on December 15, 2010


I think a good, really informative post could be made. It would include: (1) Information about the UCMJ, which I could not find in the Salon.com article or Freebradley.org, (2) Information about the charges against him in the context of the UCMJ, and (3) information about the standard condition of military brigs for people charged with similar crimes: is Manning's situation unique?

None of these things where discussed in any of the linked-to articles, and I think they are crucial for taking this from an editorial to an actual informative post.
posted by muddgirl at 2:32 PM on December 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


There was no editorializing.

Right, and by eliminating half of my sentence in your quote, you disregard the fact that calls to action are treated in a similar way.
posted by TrialByMedia at 2:32 PM on December 15, 2010


There was no editorializing.

"The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention" is the title of the (important) article that was the subject of the post.


And a post that was about that article by someone who hasn't been riding a hobbyhorse about the Free Bradley stuff, and made without said Free Bradley stuff tacked on, would have been a different post with different context. This is pretty straightforward stuff.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:32 PM on December 15, 2010


Hee, what ArtW said.
posted by nomadicink at 2:34 PM on December 15, 2010


Metafilter can not, in my opinion, be closed to every issue that can relate with human right activism. Activism, is not bad "in itself", ask for money is bad, and can considered spam. And my post weren't in this category. So i'm bit perplexed by the metafilter rule of law.

Matafilter isn't anyone's soapbox. Calls to action are not considered appropriate posts here. This is a place where we share interesting things we find on the web with each other. Sometimes, that might be a news story. Other times, it may be a cool web site, online game or video.

You can raise awareness here without asking people to act, and without editorializing in order to encourage readers to take sides in a debate or donate money to a cause. In June, one of our longtime members was put on trial in Iran and I created this post about him. Note that the post does not urge readers to take action. It simply explains the situation, and attempts to place it in a larger context.
posted by zarq at 2:34 PM on December 15, 2010


You think this is bad? Head over to Reddit for a while.

And then manage your subreddits so you don't see a bunch of irrelevant shit.
posted by Jpfed at 2:35 PM on December 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


And then manage your subreddits so you don't see a bunch of irrelevant shit.

I've actually gone through that post and followed most of the recommendations, though I swapped out r/economics in favor of r/NonAustrianEconomics to get rid of the Ron Paul cirlejerking. For the most part, it has worked pretty well, but the Wikileaks saturation on Reddit is so acute that I'd be left with r/cats and r/classicfilms as my only subreddits if I wanted to completely avoid it.
posted by TrialByMedia at 2:38 PM on December 15, 2010


Yeah, programming and technology are pretty fucked.
posted by Artw at 2:39 PM on December 15, 2010



what was the last time a news topic required such heavy moderation and provoked so many posts


I think it was the janet jackson/justin timberlake superbowl outrage.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:39 PM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, programming and technology are pretty fucked.

Actually they seem to have either cleaned themselves up or people have moved on. It's all ChromeOS and OpenBSD now.
posted by Artw at 2:41 PM on December 15, 2010


You have no-one to blame but the people who made 500 hundred odd posts about every conceivable aspect of Wikileaks who make the same assertion, and who cram a reference to Wikileaks into every available thread.

That said, I would be entirely in favour of the post muddgirl outlines.
posted by Artw at 2:45 PM on December 15, 2010


And a post that was about that article by someone who hasn't been riding a hobbyhorse about the Free Bradley stuff, and made without said Free Bradley stuff tacked on, would have been a different post with different context.

Agreed. I'm not arguing against the deletion.

And shakes makes a good point. I only meant that "inhumane" was not editorializing in this context.
posted by Joe Beese at 2:53 PM on December 15, 2010


So, if I post the same link, without the link at www.freebradley.org (that's the weak part) it would be an acceptable post?

yes, no, why?
posted by - at 2:55 PM on December 15, 2010


So, if I post the same link, without the link at www.freebradley.org (that's the weak part) it would be an acceptable post?

Honestly, at this point I'd strongly suggest that you personally just give the topic a break as far as posts go. There are lots of folks here, and if any of them want to tackle the subject (and I agree that muddgirl's outline of a notional post is a good one) they can do so without us having to try and parse the baggage of several misfires on the subject.

There is no topic so confined in scope that only one person here could possibly post about it, and there is no entitlement for any specific topic such that it must be posted about here. In this case, the latter isn't much of an issue because I think a post about Manning's situation is more or less inevitable over the long arc of this whole Wikileaks thing, but on the former point you need to be able to realize that this is a community space and not your personal blog, and that at this point the smart thing to do if you care about the topic is to step away from it and let someone else be the one to give it ago.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:03 PM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


When one cares very strongly about a topic or issue, it is not a good idea for one to post to MetaFilter about that topic. One does not have a good perspective from which to judge the quality and appropriateness of the post. Just because one feels strongly about a topic or issue does not mean they need to express that feeling through the medium of MetaFilter. There are many other places on the Internet where one can participate in more open and freeform discussions.
posted by Rock Steady at 3:06 PM on December 15, 2010


When one cares very strongly about a topic or issue, it is not a good idea for one to post to MetaFilter about that topic.

This is not true at all. When one is unable to avoid axe-grinding about the topic, one should avoid posting, but axe-grinding (a behavior) is a different thing from caring (a feeling). You can care passionately about something and still realize that starting a Metafilter thread isn't a viable way to write soliloquies or rants about it, or campaign to raise "awareness" of it, or pick fights about it.
posted by RogerB at 3:24 PM on December 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


When one cares very strongly about a topic or issue, it is not a good idea for one to post to MetaFilter about that topic.

I agree with this so strongly I shouldn't make a post about it.
posted by Bookhouse at 3:24 PM on December 15, 2010 [6 favorites]


To borrow a phrase, MeFi is not your army.
posted by zamboni at 3:48 PM on December 15, 2010


MetaFilter is supposed to be best of the Web, not best of the library. Not best of Yahoo news or MSNBC. Not best of the Starbucks. Not best of your gym, your classroom or your house. The best of something you couldn't possibly get anywhere else without extreme effort.

That's a stiff standard, and I fall short all the time, so my rah-rah example is tempered.

But still, I can go find GRAR activism anywhere. Free Bradley Manning? There are more deserving people in prison, some of them quite famous. We don't need activism posts all the time.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:48 PM on December 15, 2010


Quit frankly, he should be in prison, so the whole "Free Badly" BS is a non starter. If this bothers you or him, then he should have thought of that before he stole state secrets.
posted by nomadicink at 3:54 PM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." -Fyodor Dostoevsky
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:13 PM on December 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I hate posts like this when I only hear about them when I come home from work. Is there some way the whole MECorp site could be dedicated to me and my life? That would be great, and also could you all shut up. All of you, everyone else should shut up and stop having opinions, apart from you and you - you guys are cool. Thank you Megafilter.
posted by Elmore at 4:15 PM on December 15, 2010


RULE OF THUMB
This is cool; other people will want to see it == Good post
This is important; I want other people to see it == Bad post
posted by zanni at 4:16 PM on December 15, 2010 [29 favorites]


You think this is bad? Head over to Reddit for a while. There's at least three SHOCK AND OUTRAGE! posts that get voted to the front page every time somebody so much as farts near Assange. It's really ruining that site for me, and reminds me why I really don't care for the upvote/downvote system.

If you are using firefox, there is a greasemonkey script for that.
I use this one but there are others.
It works quite well for filtering the outrage of the moment.
Be sure to add "wikieaks" as well, since it seems to be a common typo.

I also suggest one of the "self.reddit" filters as well
posted by madajb at 6:22 PM on December 15, 2010


Metafilter can not, in my opinion, be closed to every issue that can relate with human right activism.

MeFi can do what it wants. It is owned by Mathowie and he pays the mods to delete things. Reddit is one-stop shopping for all things Assangistic. Here, we pay for moderation.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:05 AM on December 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


gman : Alright, now that we've got that one figured out, what the hell is going on here?

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. That's what happens when you cross the streams.

Putting TSA stuff in a Wikileaks thread? Are you trying to rip apart the fabric of the universe?
posted by quin at 7:35 AM on December 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Forget the post, I'd like to recommend - for forced renaming. A single non-alpha character does not make for a good username. One which you can't use in a sentance without confusing the fuck out of anyone (which I challenge anyone to do with the marvel which is -'s name) is not good for the site.

I spent a good minute convinced the offending post was made by a user called "Bradley Manning Support Network", who'd managed to break metafilter in ways Zalgo could only dream of.
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 8:51 AM on December 16, 2010


I had not seen any posts about Bradley Manning -- this was the first I saw, and I only saw it because I came to Metatalk out of boredom (having looked at most of the rest of the links on the front page). Clearly, the front page is not crowded if I'm in metatalk because there isn't enough on the front page of interest to me.

It should be undeleted and restored to create an open Bradley Manning thread, and then subsequent relevent links can be added to that thread.
posted by jb at 9:46 AM on December 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm sick of Assange and Wikileaks news - but Manning has not been discussed here much at all.
posted by jb at 9:47 AM on December 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Clearly, the front page is not crowded if I'm in metatalk because there isn't enough on the front page of interest to me.

It should be undeleted and restored to create an open Bradley Manning thread, and then subsequent relevent links can be added to that thread.


That's not how Metafilter works and you should know that. If you have interesting links to internet resources on Pfc Manning then make your own post. If you just want an open discussion thread then go to a web forum or reddit or somewhere.
posted by muddgirl at 10:34 AM on December 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Isn't anyone else getting Wikileak fatigued, though?

Yes, yes - THIS, a thousand times, yes.
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 11:15 AM on December 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


There is no reason for Metafilter to act like Wikipedia in its most delete-happy phase either. Web-real estate is not limited like paper.
posted by jb at 2:10 PM on December 16, 2010


It has nothing to do with real estate. Again, I would think that you've been here long enough to understand why the moderators act as they do.

It was a bad post with bad links that would have started a moderation shit storm. The moderators wisely decided it would be easier to nuke it from orbit than pick off each shitty comment one by one.

No one is stopping you or anyone else from making a better post. Send me the links and I'll do it if you've hit your weekly limit.
posted by muddgirl at 2:23 PM on December 16, 2010


Web-real estate is not limited like paper.

No, but my time is.
posted by zamboni at 6:22 PM on December 16, 2010


You can skip any post you aren't interested in. But those of us who are interested cannot read and discuss a post if it is deleted.
posted by jb at 8:40 PM on December 17, 2010


Isn't that exactly what you're doing right now, though?
posted by dersins at 9:14 PM on December 17, 2010


But those of us who are interested cannot read and discuss a post if it is deleted.

And that is the horror that is being a Metafilter reader, yes. Crappy posts about things you find interesting will get deleted even if you find them interesting. The nice thing is that a better post about that thing may come along. As happened here. That's the system working.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:55 PM on December 17, 2010


Or another post on the topic will not come along -- because we have been told that the topic is verboten.

I refuse to financially support wikipedia because of delete happy behaviour by their editors. I feel that metafilter is also becoming delete happy and just as arbitrary and senseless with what is deleted. there is YET ANOTHER wikileaks post on the front page -- but talking about the use of solitary confinement is axe-grinding?

It's not even like the discussion that had begun was toxic is anyway. The only reason given for the deletion is that the moderator did not like the topic and/or did not like the poster. Neither encourages another post on the topic, since the person who knows the most has been forbidden to share their knowledge and anyone else - like me - who uses their links would feel that their own post would be just as likely to be deleted. the main link was editorial, but not ranty - it was a very clear and well supported argument on why solitary confinement is immoral and should be illegal. If I repost it, would the moderators allow the post to stand?

You say that a better post has been made. Please link to it.
posted by jb at 7:45 AM on December 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


Also, clearly I feel -- and the poster of this metatalk thread feels -- that the system is not working well. there would be no argument otherwise. When I joined metafilter (which was a while ago, as muddgirl so kindly points out -- and I had been reading since about 2001-2002), it was a community weblog for sharing links, thus bringing a small amount of organisation to a confusing internet. It now feels like some kind of undersubscribed literary journal, carefully policing the "quality" of posts while becoming blander from catering only to similar tastes.
posted by jb at 7:51 AM on December 18, 2010


I feel that metafilter is also becoming delete happy and just as arbitrary and senseless with what is deleted. there is YET ANOTHER wikileaks post on the front page -- but talking about the use of solitary confinement is axe-grinding?

The wikileaks post wasn't any good and has been deleted. It was deleted in less than 45 minutes on a Saturday morning. There are basically four people who delete things here and you have their full attention. You also have the ability to make a post yourself. This is the currently open Bradley Manning thread from yesterday.

I understand that you are unhappy about this, but the assertions that you are making about how the site runs and is changing for the worst aren't really supportable by data to my mind. If you think that this is confirmation bias on my part please feel free to explain why.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:54 AM on December 18, 2010


The post made yesterday is a fine one on it's own merits, but not a good replacement post for the deleted one -- it has so much else going on (about don't ask, don't tell, etc) that the issue of solitary confinement is buried. The best solution would have been to have both posts stand.

Metafilter has always been a two-fer site -- a mixture of "ooh isn't this cool" links and carefully crafted megaposts, and links that exist primarily to raise awareness/share news/discuss issues. I have posted both kinds myself, though I rarely post. It was the discussion that first attracted -- and continues to attract -- me to metafilter. there are other link blogs and link aggregators, but none have the balance that metafilter does or did.

I have felt lately like the pressure has been on to make any post that isn't a cute YouTube post into a megapost, so as to avoid deletion. But mega posts have their own drawbacks -- they are, frankly, overwhelming, and I find myself skipping them because they have too much content. I understand that other people enjoy them, so I don't complain. I believe in allowing posts I don't like to stay for others to enjoy, because the front page is large and I have no problem skimming.

But I will speak up when I see good posts -- like the one at the start of this thread -- deleted because it was not a megapost. It was a post to (primarily) a well-written and thoughtful editorial on the issue of solitary confinement. It was posts like these -- and the discussion they engendered -- that brought me to metafilter.
posted by jb at 4:28 PM on December 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


I have felt lately like the pressure has been on to make any post that isn't a cute YouTube post into a megapost, so as to avoid deletion.

I acknowledge that you feel that but I don't think that's really so. There are still plenty of slimly-framed posts that, when that slim framing isn't directly problematic, work totally well and prompt discussions fun and/or stimulating.

Mostly there's been, I think, pressure to take care when framing a post about something contentious—to avoid editorializing, to avoid hastily or poorly broaching a subject about which people feel very strongly.

But I will speak up when I see good posts -- like the one at the start of this thread -- deleted because it was not a megapost.

To be very clear, it was not deleted for not being a megapost. It was deleted for being yet another salvo from one user who had kept trying to make a specific kind of not-okay advocacy post on the front page. Had it been just a link to the Salon article without that problematic context, I don't think it would have been great per se but it certainly would not have been the kind of guaranteed-deletion problem that the actual post was. If you have a complaint, it is with -'s choice to keep hobbyhorsing on the periphery of that otherwise at least arguably slim-one-link-post-worthy piece of content.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:28 PM on December 18, 2010


well, the link I provided in my post are also provided in the new post, so it's fine with me.
posted by - at 9:55 AM on December 19, 2010


You have no-one to blame but the people who made 500 hundred odd posts about every conceivable aspect of Wikileaks who make the same assertion, and who cram a reference to Wikileaks into every available thread.

And now I've made a Wikileaks post myself, comme se, comme sa.
posted by Artw at 5:15 PM on December 22, 2010


The tl;dr of the comments on that is of course "Wikileaks is an unmitigated good, and if you find any reason to suspect otherwise you love Stalin." No, seriously, that's where the debate is at right now. I've no regrets in posting the thing but I did let my mouse hover quite a while over the post button before doing so, and the thread that resulted is pretty much exactly why.
posted by Artw at 5:36 PM on December 23, 2010


If it's any comfort, the Sterling article is pretty good at least.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:53 PM on December 23, 2010


Well, you know, I suppose it's not *my* job to worry about the resulting mess it's caused.

/raises glass

MERRY CHRISTMAS CORTEX!
posted by Artw at 6:00 PM on December 23, 2010


and me, goddamnit!
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:29 PM on December 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


/toasts all mids, drains glass, departs.
posted by Artw at 6:30 PM on December 23, 2010


« Older viewing job from profile removes formatting   |   so it's open season on fratboys? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments