User talk:Biophys/tutorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Technology, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to technology. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Suggestion 2 Notes 3 References 4 Name 4.1 Two versions of opening paragraph 5 Alleged

[edit] Suggestion

Introduction should mention that it is alleged and not an undisputable fact. It is notable, but those sources, as far as I can see, do not conclusively prove it. It is notable for being an idea which has been written about and is part of Russia's political landscape, but it shouldn't be presented as a fact.

Just giving you some suggestions to make this article more likely to be supported (seeing as you're walking on very thin ice and have many enemies, and seem likely to lose the deletion review vote). Esn 08:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

According to the sources, this is a Russian phenomenon, it should be noted in the lead. Also, 'Internet brigades' seems like another invented name - unless it is used by most sources, I recommend 'online disinformation by Russian intelligence' or something like this. Please use Category:Language icons to indicate language of the sources cited.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An important objection raised by people in the deletion review is that it's too Russia-focused. How about splitting it into several sections, one for Russia, another for China, another for whatever other country does something similar? Esn 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest enlisting some people from WPChina, WPInternet culture, WPMedia or possibly WPJournalism to give this potential article bigger scope and some more input. Esn 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for help here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. My hope is that enough people take a look at this potential article that it will be immune from the power of special interests and the personal conflict between Biophys and Vlad fedorov. Also, by making it more international, I hope that we can neutralise the nationalist forces - on both sides of the issue. Esn 02:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both! You or anyone else are welcome to edit and improve this article. I have to think about the title. The title proposed by Piotrus (may be Active measures online?) assume a slightly different and a wider subject, which could be also just fine. Biophys 20:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC) OK, let us keep this version as it was edited by Esn. But I will also try to prepare a different version as proposed by Piotr - in a separate project page. That will be a different and more broad article.Biophys 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotr, yes, that would be a much bigger and different article - see plan in the beginning of User:Biophys/project. I can not make it alone without help from other friendly editors.Biophys

[edit] References

Too many things are sourced from the "eye for an eye" link, which has two strikes against it: it is Russian (English sources are preffered unless no English source can be found to replace what is referenced by the Russian one) and it is a collection of articles more than a single article. Statements should referenced by specific sections or, prefferably, by an English source. Particularly problematic is that this Russian-language source is the first one cited. Esn 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

The term "internet brigades" is problematic because no news organization has used it (not as far as I can see, anyway). As such, it is a neologism (see: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). Perhaps a better title would be "State-sponsored online information warfare". Esn 04:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only English article that's put a name to them is the "Guardian" China one, which called them "secret internet police", so perhaps that would be a better title. It depends on if we want the article to be about that particular group of people or about "State-sponsored online information warfare" (which may take other forms). I'm changing it to "secret internet police" for now. Esn 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

One more note: please add the (Russian) tag to any source which is Russian. Esn 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two versions of opening paragraph

1:

The secret internet police^[1] are teams of secret police agents who conduct psychological operations against political bloggers.

2:

State-sponsored online information warfare is carried out by teams of secret internet police agents^[1] who conduct psychological operations against political bloggers.

Esn 04:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this second version is not good for the following reasons. First, we have aready Information warfare article. This warfare is almost always "state-sponsored". So the only new thing is "online". But computers and online communication are always a part of modern Information warfare. This subject simply does not stand as an independent article. Second, this subject is too broad (it would then include online propaganda against Poland, Baltic states, Georgia, and USA in internet newspapers controlled or owned by Gazprom or Russian government; online defamation campaings against opposition journalists, writers, and politicians, such as Victor Suvorov, Anna Politkovskaya, Yevgenia Albats, Alexander Litvinenko, Akhmed Zakayev, or Boris Berezovsky, and information war with Chechen separatists); I only wanted to tell about "web brigades" as in Russian wikipedia article. Third, the psychological operations by a secret police teams against civilians can hardly be classified as "warfare". Finally, "State-sponsored online information warfare" (e.g. against Chechen separatists) is conducted openly and by many professional journalists who work for Russian government, not by secret agents. Biophys 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, I am probably wrong. In order to survive this article must be more general, either as you suggested or as suggested by Piotr. I will work with it, but some outside help is probably needed. Biophys 04:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well's there's always a fuzzy grey area around any article topic. Your main challenge now is to choose a fuzzy grey area which is narrow enough to allow adequate space for your original topic, but is broad enough to be a legitimate article even if the Russian section is deemed controversial. In other words, even if the FSB section is drastically cut until the debate over it can be sorted out (which will probably take longer than anyone would like it to), it shouldn't invalidate the entire article. A five-day AFD simply isn't enough time to evaluate that section. Your main goal should probably be to create an article topic into which the FSB section can be comfortably nested, while not being its centrepiece - and at the same time, to not make it so broad that the FSB section will be seen as taking up too much space percentage-wise. Esn 05:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged

There are quite a few uses of "alleged" slipping into the Chinese section. As I see it, the main problem is that it's based on only one article. It's a notable article, but the section is still basically just paraphrasing a single article. If we can find some more articles, then we can start attributing different arguments to different articles and do away with all these uses of "alleged". Esn 05:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that editing style of Wen Hsing is very similar to that of Vlad Fedorov. He also adds "alleged" to every sentence several times, which makes articles not readable. We can bring more references about China. But everything depends on scope of the article. Is it narrow (merely "internet squads") or much wider (online disinformation, active measures online, online "warfare")?Biophys 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is fun indeed. Do you know Esn, about old Soviet song (early 1950th):

"Moscow-Beijing, Moscow-Beijing,

Our Peoples are moving forward,

For lasting Peace, for solid Peace,

Under the Banner of Fr-e-e-dom!" Biophys 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Esn, I think we just have invited here the Chinese team (of course, these teams are very real!). Listen what Wen Hsing is saying:

"Dear Administrator of Wikipedia, Mr Jimmy Wales, I would like congratulate you on high quality and powerful influence website. I must respectfully warn of you to avoid defame the admired Communist Party of China, or great nation People's Republic of China. To do so creates many problem between our government and Wikipedia, as well as general relation with the West. I do not intend making threat, but I obligated to remind you that commercial operations of Wikipedia in People's Republic of China is dependent on government tolerance, and great appreciation will be shown of your assisting in producing editorial environment conducive to Wikipedia in China, including Taiwan Province related article." Biophys 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if "alleged" too frequent, reduce easy flow of readability as you have alleged, you may freedom to improve if you see appropriate (this is Wikipedia Project!). I agree with you that patriotic international friendship song is fun. I must argue your implication is incorrect - I am concern citizen of China, not employ by government. Many such patriotic citizen exist in every country, Wikipedia is open to all. Let us respectfully ensure environment continue where wide access to Wikipedia Project is continuing.Wen Hsing 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind: this is a very preliminary version of the article. May be I will completely change it. It is too early to argue. Biophys 03:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)