Talk:Juan Cole

PaulR said, "does it have to do with disinformation, or why cole is important in dispelling disinformation = NO, therefore axed".

The portions he had censored were, in one case a quote by Dr. Cole that right-wingers had cheered (and that fact was noted too). And the other was from a Democrat who disagreed with him on another issue. It was so vehement that I didn't even include the quote, but linked to it for those who were interested. It's very much about dispelling disinformation.

Note that this site calls itself, "a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests." That's not disinformation.

Note, too, that another item I added to this entry was about a side project of Dr. Cole's. It had absolutely nothing to do with disinformation, and yet it was not censored.

If this site is only about partisan propaganda and zany conspiracy theories then you should say so.

While I would disagree that this site is about "partisan propoganda" (outside of some articles which haven't been revised in forever that are dubiously slanted), its also tended to grow bigger than out of the seemingly narrow beginnings of just the PR industry and industry connections. In fact most of my updates are focused around various religious extremists (CoS, Moon, Neo Nazi's) than it is about PR stuff, and thus far none of them have gotten axed.

SiberioS

The section deleted had very little to do with the main important aspects of Cole's analysis. I also found it problematic that the paragraph in question came out of a lengthier discussion. NB: One of the key ways that there have been attempts at smearing Cole have had to do with taking a sentence or paragraph out of contenxt. Furthermore, it didnt have to do with disinformation -- hence the rationale. PaulR 03:41, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

I reinstituted the change UNTIL a more thorough discussion is had. Sheldon reinstituted it, and while I see your points PaulR, I don't particuarly think it needs to be AXED, so much as clarified (maybe rewriting the context so that the person linked to isn't considered liberal... though the person DID say moderately left, not a "leftie").

SiberioS

So, the comments of a wee flake blogger insulting Juan Cole because he suggests that the Iraqis Jarvis loves -- becomes an item in D*... In my opinion, items in D* are only valuable if they give an overview of a person, why they are important or why they are nefarious. In the case of juan cole -- his analysis and stance about the Middle East is very important, and it has attracted the ire of Zionist and right-wingers (e.g., Campus Watch). I know because i edit a website dealing with the area, and a constant complaint by these folks is the fact that we carry many items by Juan Cole.

I would prefer giving a wider overview of juan cole, than just adding a few quotes, and referencing someone who is calling jc a "pond scum".

If JC made it into the Campus Watch list, then we can expect folks to attack this entry in D*. The CW8 have been at the receiving end of a wave of spam/spoofs; their universitites have been targetted etc. I suspect that the same smearmongers who carry out these attacks will tarnish items in D*, and in my opinion the paragraph listed and the reference to Jarvis fall in this ballpark. If D* doesn't take a stronger stance to defend the integrity of its content, by eg, making all editors register, then the value of D* plummets.

Last week a Daniel Pipes sympathizer (or DP himself) rewrote the section dealing with him in D*. If this type of changes are allowed, then I also think that D* has reached the limit of its usefulness.

PaulR 04:16, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

So, the comments of a wee flake blogger insulting Juan Cole because he suggests that the Iraqis Jarvis loves -- becomes an item in D*...

It didn't become an item, so much as its part of a larger item. The whole article is not some sort of hatchet job on Juan Cole.

I would prefer giving a wider overview of juan cole, than just adding a few quotes, and referencing someone who is calling jc a "pond scum".

True enough. I think we can give a space for his detractors, even the more ridiculous ones, without compromising things. The ridiculousness of the criticism though, doesn't warrent it getting axed per se, since I view it as an example of giving yourself enough rope to hang yourself with (it makes the other guy look like an ass frankly).

If D* doesn't take a stronger stance to defend the integrity of its content, by eg, making all editors register, then the value of D* plummets.

This is an argument thats been heard before, and probably could do with being discussed again. Personally, I think all of us have done a pretty good job by overseeing IP contributions, etc. For the most part spamming and other sorts of vandalism are quickly corrected or dealt with appropiately, often times after the person in question (quickly) figures out that they are not going to get away with it on a permanent basis.

If this type of changes are allowed, then I also think that D* has reached the limit of its usefulness.

I think thats kind of a preposterous statement. IF people who disagree with an article can provide a reasonable argument to changing something, I would assume none of us here would have a problem with it.

On a personal note, coming from a political persuasion (anarchism) that gets grief from EVERYONE on the typical partisan spectrum, I am mildly irritated by the kid glove handling of people of a supposed "progressive/liberal" persuasion in SourceWatch. I feel you're defense of Juan Cole is based more in a rhetorical, partisan dislike of right wing individuals, rather than the (admittedly) baselessness of the criticism. If someone wrote a cogent, cited piece detailing something about, say, Bill Clinton, would you say it was just a baseless right wing attack? I could cite a ream of things about the guy, and I'm in no way a right winger.

SiberioS

>>The ridiculousness of the criticism though, doesn't warrent it getting axed per se, since I view it as an example of giving yourself enough rope to hang yourself with (it makes the other guy look like an ass frankly). << Barely anything is written on JC page, and this type of crap from a flake appears...

About the kid glove thingie: I make a distinction between folks who are nefarious (those seek to produce propaganda/disinfo) and folks who play a positive role in fighting it. The former demands a critical stance, the latter -- maybe a better understanding of the positions they have taken, how/why they have been attacked... I do make a distinction.

This is my last comment on this issue. If you love this page so much, i urge you to edit it up to a higher standard... start by finding out who the Jarvis slime really is.

PaulR 05:24, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)

I really hate this whole thing because its making me defend someone whose basically an ass. But as to the statement as to who this jarvis pipsquak is....well...you could of just scrolled down...

JEFF JARVIS is former TV critic for TV Guide and People, creator of Entertainment Weekly, Sunday Editor of the NY Daily News, and a columnist on the San Francisco Examiner.

That's pretty simple.

SiberioS

>>making me defend someone whose basically an ass<<

Well, Sib, you really are contributing to D* by adding such materials.

BTW: I am stopping my contributions to D* until contributors are required to register. In the meantime, feel free to do whatever you want.

PaulR

Well, Sib, you really are contributing to D* by adding such materials

Don't take a dig at me. You can look at my edit record and see that I have in no way ever vandalized an article, or to my knowledge, put in a lot of my own opinion or uncited material. While some of my early edits were admittedly sloppy, to take the dig at me that somehow I'm in league with right wingers and entry vandals is ridiculous. Don't take jabs at me over what could have been a sensible discussion on a rather tiny edit/revision.


 * I wouldn't say that Jeff Jarvis is "basically an ass." On his weblog, he frequently posts defenses of the First Amendment and has been sharply critical of Michael Powell's censorious behavior at the FCC. (See this post for an example.) In the last election, he voted Democrat. Jarvis is also enthusiastic about the idea of citizen journalism and is one of the driving forces behind Advance.net, an Internet company that is trying to develop "hyperlocal" journalism websites. On the other hand, he supports the war in Iraq, on which point I disagree with him strongly. In one of his posts he described himself as a "liberal hawk," which I think is an apt description and consistent with the fact that there has been a long tradition of hawkish liberalism in the United States. Some people who fall under the label of "liberal" think quite differently from Michael Moore. (Lyndon B. Johnson, for example, was also a liberal hawk.)
 * With regard to Iraq, I disagree with much of what he writes, and I think calling Juan Cole "pond scum" was downright thuggish -- although I should note that Cole's blog posting which prompted that attack contained some elements that Cole himself later regretted, as he explained in a subsequent posting:
 * In retrospect, of course, I should have been clearer about my lack of active endorsement for Mr. Mailander's specific allegations, even as I made clear that what interested me was the issue of how the blogging world might be affected by political "marketing." I don't doubt Mailander's good faith, but obviously there were elementary errors in his initial entry. And, if I could take it back, I wouldn't have linked at all. This is a matter in some ways of not knowing my own strength. Blogging is deceptively informal, sort of like a conversation rather than like formal writing. So it is natural to cross-link among friends and say, 'Hey, check this out.' But my weblog has come to be so widely read that this degree of informality is now a luxury I obviously cannot afford, and I will try to be more careful.
 * The other thing to say, though, is that errors come with this territory. You can't be out here posting daily and not commit some errors from time to time. When kind readers correct them, I try to put the corrections in brackets, even ex post facto. Indeed, errors are the human condition. Many of the more vitriolic critics of Informed Comment alleged 2 years ago that Iraq was 2-5 years away from having a nuclear bomb, that Iraq was floating in biological and chemical weapons, that Saddam was in bed with al-Qaeda, that Iraqis would universally greet US troops with garlands and sweets, that the Iraq war and aftermath would be a "cakewalk," that the road to peace in Palestine/Israel went through Baghdad, etc., etc. The commentators who made these allegations want to be held harmless from these enormous and highly consequential errors that have gotten large numbers of people killed. But I kept getting these annoying messages that my merely cross-linking to a site had endangered my "credibility." One of the more vehement attacks on my site was written by someone who writes for Tech Central Station, which is in turn published by the Republican lobbying firm, DCI Group. And the first time Jeff Jarvis mentioned me it was to complain in summer of 2003 that I seemed to be seeking out bad news on Iraq-- when in fact, I was just ahead of the curve in seeing the growing guerrilla war; he has never apologized.
 * This, by the way, is of one of the things that I admire about Cole. He is candid about his own errors and maintains a polite, reasonable tone even when his critics stoop to name-calling such as Jarvis's recent "pond scum" remark. I would hope that SourceWatch contributions can strive for similar civility.
 * As for PaulR's vow to stop contributing to SourceWatch until we require registration, I hope he will reconsider. For starters, requiring people to register is currently impractical. Even if we require people to register, the current version of the Mediawiki software does not require people to submit any verifiable information about themselves (such as a verified email address) as a condition of registration. This means that even if we require people to register, it would be easy for them to create anonymous "sock puppet" identities for themselves, thereby circumventing the purpose of registration. I have been urging the Mediawiki programmers to develop a better registration system, and I think something will be available in the not-too-distant future, but in the meantime this is what we've got. (Also, I still have some qualms about required registration. Most of our petty vandalisms come from anonymous IP users, but anonymous IP users also make a fair number of worthwhile contributions, and I think the advantages of the current system may outweigh the drawbacks.) --Sheldon Rampton 17:27, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * The other thing to say, though, is that errors come with this territory. You can't be out here posting daily and not commit some errors from time to time. When kind readers correct them, I try to put the corrections in brackets, even ex post facto. Indeed, errors are the human condition. Many of the more vitriolic critics of Informed Comment alleged 2 years ago that Iraq was 2-5 years away from having a nuclear bomb, that Iraq was floating in biological and chemical weapons, that Saddam was in bed with al-Qaeda, that Iraqis would universally greet US troops with garlands and sweets, that the Iraq war and aftermath would be a "cakewalk," that the road to peace in Palestine/Israel went through Baghdad, etc., etc. The commentators who made these allegations want to be held harmless from these enormous and highly consequential errors that have gotten large numbers of people killed. But I kept getting these annoying messages that my merely cross-linking to a site had endangered my "credibility." One of the more vehement attacks on my site was written by someone who writes for Tech Central Station, which is in turn published by the Republican lobbying firm, DCI Group. And the first time Jeff Jarvis mentioned me it was to complain in summer of 2003 that I seemed to be seeking out bad news on Iraq-- when in fact, I was just ahead of the curve in seeing the growing guerrilla war; he has never apologized.
 * This, by the way, is of one of the things that I admire about Cole. He is candid about his own errors and maintains a polite, reasonable tone even when his critics stoop to name-calling such as Jarvis's recent "pond scum" remark. I would hope that SourceWatch contributions can strive for similar civility.
 * As for PaulR's vow to stop contributing to SourceWatch until we require registration, I hope he will reconsider. For starters, requiring people to register is currently impractical. Even if we require people to register, the current version of the Mediawiki software does not require people to submit any verifiable information about themselves (such as a verified email address) as a condition of registration. This means that even if we require people to register, it would be easy for them to create anonymous "sock puppet" identities for themselves, thereby circumventing the purpose of registration. I have been urging the Mediawiki programmers to develop a better registration system, and I think something will be available in the not-too-distant future, but in the meantime this is what we've got. (Also, I still have some qualms about required registration. Most of our petty vandalisms come from anonymous IP users, but anonymous IP users also make a fair number of worthwhile contributions, and I think the advantages of the current system may outweigh the drawbacks.) --Sheldon Rampton 17:27, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * As for PaulR's vow to stop contributing to SourceWatch until we require registration, I hope he will reconsider. For starters, requiring people to register is currently impractical. Even if we require people to register, the current version of the Mediawiki software does not require people to submit any verifiable information about themselves (such as a verified email address) as a condition of registration. This means that even if we require people to register, it would be easy for them to create anonymous "sock puppet" identities for themselves, thereby circumventing the purpose of registration. I have been urging the Mediawiki programmers to develop a better registration system, and I think something will be available in the not-too-distant future, but in the meantime this is what we've got. (Also, I still have some qualms about required registration. Most of our petty vandalisms come from anonymous IP users, but anonymous IP users also make a fair number of worthwhile contributions, and I think the advantages of the current system may outweigh the drawbacks.) --Sheldon Rampton 17:27, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * As for PaulR's vow to stop contributing to SourceWatch until we require registration, I hope he will reconsider. For starters, requiring people to register is currently impractical. Even if we require people to register, the current version of the Mediawiki software does not require people to submit any verifiable information about themselves (such as a verified email address) as a condition of registration. This means that even if we require people to register, it would be easy for them to create anonymous "sock puppet" identities for themselves, thereby circumventing the purpose of registration. I have been urging the Mediawiki programmers to develop a better registration system, and I think something will be available in the not-too-distant future, but in the meantime this is what we've got. (Also, I still have some qualms about required registration. Most of our petty vandalisms come from anonymous IP users, but anonymous IP users also make a fair number of worthwhile contributions, and I think the advantages of the current system may outweigh the drawbacks.) --Sheldon Rampton 17:27, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)