Talk:Rape a Clown for Peace

How can it be that the 14:35, 10 May 2004 edit by an Earthlink user at 24.144.84.219, with the summary "bizarre bomis/wikipedia connection removed as meaningless" appears on this page's history but not on the SourceWatch recent changes log?


 * That was me, and I couldn't log in for the same reason. Some kind of strange database error. Jimbo Wales 17:21, 10 May 2004 (EDT)

The unexplained adjective "bizarre" used to describe facts aside, it is "meaningful" that the world's largest english language user editable encyclopedia is controlled by a company that directs its visitors to an opinion service that is sponsored by former administration officials and that encourages rape as a political tactic. JustNews 16:56, 10 May 2004 (EDT)

No, it's completely meaningless. "directs its visitors" -- you are talking about a single link out of several dozen on that blog. Your accusation is that a single link to "other sites of note" on a blog on a website that is associated with bomis has anything at all to do with Wikipedia -- this is nonsense.


 * It was one of two-and-a-half dozen links, including the one to Wikipedia, to be more accurate. And in that sidebar, it was one of a baker's dozen (13) "analysis" links, all of which can be classified as right-wing.
 * The Tim Blair page is one of several right-wing sites the blog directed users toward, but JerkSauce was the only blog to be found by following a link from the Bomis-branded pages, and it was not labeled in any way to differentiate it from any other Bomis page. JustNews 17:57, 10 May 2004 (EDT)

Bomis does not in any way fully endorse every single thing on every single site that we link to. It's listed as a website of interest, which it is, and so what? It has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia, and you know it.

When you say that Bomis claims to be building the world's largest human edited Internet directory, (a) what on earth does that have to do with Tim Blear or this rape a clown joke? and
 * At the time, Bomis was directing its visitors to JerkSauce under the brand-named pages of Bomis, and with no representation that JerkSauce was not the primary blog as part of bomis directory service. Bomis was using its brand name recongnition to direct visitors to jerk sauce. The jerk site was not just another to be found blog in Bomis' many directories. It relied on Bomis for name affiliation even in its URL: blog.bomis.com JustNews 17:53, 10 May 2004 (EDT)

(b) you are misunderstanding -- that tidbit is part of a link to dmoz.org, which is the site which makes that claim.

In any event, http://blog.bomis.com/ has recently been moved to http://www.timshell.com/blog/ to illustrate correctly that it is the personal political blog of Tim Shell, not of Bomis, Inc. But even if it was, your claims would still be incoherent nonsense.

Jimbo Wales 17:21, 10 May 2004 (EDT)


 * At the time the rape-threat appeared on the Tim Blair page, JerkSauce was offered as an undifferentiated link on Bomis' pages, in a sidebar along with Wikipedia. It is commendable that Bomis distanced itself from the off-color commentary, but at the time, it was represented as a preferred site inside of Bomis namespace. The article is representative of Bomis affiliations de jour on April 12, 2004.


 * Bomis can distance itself from off-color commentary by not linking to it, and by plainly identifying web-space it provides as a seperate service. Wikipedia can distance itself from a private company that directs readers to off-color commentary by establishing an independent board of directors and establishing its own, independent, sources for funding.


 * That said, the fallacious allegation of "incoherent nonsense" represents poor editorial skill for a founder of what aspires to be a collaborative editorial process. I suggest you learn some language skills, or hand the job over to someone with better skills in language and in diplomacy. And please consider the standards set at Wikipedia for individual's involvement in autobiographical or self-interested articles when you attempt to impose your opinions of your activities in this venue.JustNews 17:37, 10 May 2004 (EDT)


 * There is nothing fallacious about the allegation. Your accusation *is* incoherent nonsense.  A general link on a bomis web page to Tim Blair's website has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and you know it.


 * Your attribution of my knowledge betrays impossible logic. You cannot attest to what I know. I know Wikipedia is controlled by Wikimedia Foundation, the directorship of which is controlled by Bomis partners and which relies primarily on Bomis for financial support. In assessing the character of the corporate entity that excercises fiscal control of Wikimedia Foundation, it is appropriate to visit that corporations web site, where in April 12, 2004, a featured link, under the corporate brand name, pointed to a right-wing blog. A link at the top of the blog stated, and still offers "what's this?"
 * The What's This link lead to a page that said and still states, as of May 10,
 * '''"What is Jerk Sauce?
 * Jerk Sauce is a web log, or blog, that is run by Bomis."''


 * You also omitted the fact that Tim Shell is one of three Bomis partners that comprise the original trustees of Wikimedia Foundation..


 * For all of the explanation and attempts to distance themselves from the sites they recommended, we yet have heard nothing from Wikimedia directors to suggest that links to a site suggesting political rape are innappropriate. JustNews 18:52, 10 May 2004 (EDT)


 * The joke in question was tasteless and I repudiate the joke fully. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with linking to a site that has such a joke on it.  Hundreds or thousands of interesting websites contain some content which is objectionable.  Traditionally, bloggers link to dozens of different sites that they find interesting, and there is no implied endorsement of every single thing on those sites.


 * Nonetheless, I do thank you for calling my attention to that blog, which I had not visited or read for some time. It's quite a good blog, Tim's a very funny guy at times.  When the blog was first started, it was intended to be a general bomis blog, but it evolved over time to represent his own personal political views, and therefore no longer appropriate for Bomis itself.  Your comments called this to my attention, and so now I've made an appropriate adjustment.


 * Let me sum up -- I am not distancing myself from the link to Tim Blair's blog generally. I think that link was perfectly fine.  Your claim that such a link has anything at all to do with Wikipedia is, as I have said many times and will continue to say, incoherent nonsense. Jimbo Wales 20:14, 10 May 2004 (EDT)


 * I appreciate that, when asked, you repudiate the inflamatory humor. I maintain, however, the lack of coherence resides in your appreciation of common sense. If I understand correctly, you are asserting that political interests of the controlling trustees of a publishing foundation are not relevant when analyzing occassions when those same individuals corporately directed favorable attention toward an analyst who unrepentantly advocated political rape? JustNews 20:28, 10 May 2004 (EDT)

I pared this article down to match what the title said it was about and removed repetitive material. I deleted material inferring that linkers endorsed this comment and relocated sponsor details to the bottom more as an aside than a central point suggesting they had some control over Blairs appalling comments -- bob


 * Bob, I'm sure a lot of people who linked to Blair's comments that day might want to distance themself from the affiliation, but it is important to understand this is not an obscure blog of a college frosh - Blair's blog was one of a very few analysis pages recommended by a blog operated by a leading player in the shaping of public discourse.


 * Whether Bomis or others endorsed the comment, they offered the commentator as a preferrred analyst. SourceWatch routinely publishes commercial and political affiliations of people and groups that shape the public agenda, and political rape is certainly on the public's agenda at this time. Since the reference didn't read well to you, I pared down the section about how Blair's commentary is publicized on a popular blog. JustNews 12:43, 11 May 2004 (EDT)

---

Does anyone care to explain why it is important not to disclose what sites link to Tim Blair's? Or is this just a matter of not exposing unbecoming affiliations when they appear too close to home? I would not have suffered exposure to the offensive human rights violating smut if not for the beligerant behavior of Jim Wales and the hateful right-wing blog operated by his company. JustNews 22:29, 17 May 2004 (EDT)