Talk:Groklaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents 1 Brenda Banks 2 Website vs blog 3 An Article About Groklaw 4 Categories 5 sarcastic bias 6 Bias 7 Remove this article 8 POV/removal of criticisms 9 Mission Statement 10 Legal Research 11 Subpoena 12 Neutrality / Bias 13 Lousy criticism section 14 Claimed DoS attack on sys-con.com 15 PJ's Requested Changes 15.1 The Maureen O'Gara Incident 15.2 Libelous? 15.3 An Extra Edit, Now Undone 16 Disputed editorial policy section 17 Editorial Stance

[edit] Brenda Banks

Is there anything to corroborate this Brenda Banks' involvement? She's currently listed as something like a co-founder. I've been reading Groklaw for a very long time now, and I've never heard of that person. You could chalk that up to censorship, but it's not like I haven't noticed AllParadox or Marbux vanishing. I'd like to see some independent citation for her involvement, or something more substantial. I mean, anyone could claim contributions like that. I could claim to have submitted almost all of the anonymous Slashdot stories citing Groklaw, and no one could prove it.

Also, someone should probably update the part about PJ's health break. PJ is back full-time at this point, as far as I can see.

209.188.20.15 04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Brenda Banks used the moniker br3n. She was a contributor since Radio Userland and a very early moderator. Br3n left Groklaw soon after the controversy over censorship. Some people believed the posts were deleted not due to offensive content but because they didn't parrot the opinions of the mob. In particular, jgabriel had his account banned despite breaking none of the rules of posting on Groklaw. He had however expressed disgust over the OSRM indemnity offerings on a completely different forum (Yahoo forums). Br3n asked PJ about jgabriel's account removal and later found her moderation powers stripped without any discussion or warning. Her story is at http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/62-Disagreements-+-Groklaw-Deletion.html 220.245.220.41 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Website vs blog

I'm not entirely sure I understand the intent of this sentence:

It became a web site in September 2003, when its popularity caused it to outgrow the blog software.

Isn't Groklaw both a blog and a web site simultaneously, as a novel is a book? Is this meant to refer to a change in content management software, or hosting, or getting a separate domain name, or...? --Brion 08:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's probably just as you guess, meaning it is no longer blog software being used for personal notes but instead more of a news/research site. Perhaps a rephrasing is in order. OlofE 10:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] An Article About Groklaw

This really needs to be worked over. This article is more about Pamela Jones than about Groklaw, and it seems that a lot of critics and trolls are pushing their POV on the article to force it in that direction.

I suggest the whole thing be rewritten removing Pamela as the focus and concentrating on the features of the Groklaw website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.253.135.142 (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

It's difficult to remove Pamela from the Groklaw page when the whole site is her personal blog. The fact that is has become a popular blog with a lot of useful information doesn't change that fact; until ownership of the Groklaw site changes the two topics are intrinsically linked. 220.245.221.143 04:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Groklaw obviously belongs in Category:Weblogs, but I also added it to Category:Linux and Category:Law. Should it be in Category:Free software instead of Linux? Or in Category:Legal resources rather than Law? -- Khym Chanur 05:32, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

The following: ..However, all the attacks have one thing in common: they never attack content of the site in any specifics; it so far has all been personal attacks on PJ.. is just pure BS, in my opinon. Nobody ever voiced a single criticism of Groklaw which wasn't a personal attack on PJ? Even a cursory search on Google gives reason to believe otherwise 1 2. Also the reference to the "alleged" (who alleges otherwise?) suicides and the implication that they were not is not NPOV, but also distasteful, direspectful, morally reprehensible and sensationalist. I am deleting that entire paragraph. BluePlatypus 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sarcastic bias

This article is written with sarcastic bias that is damaging to wikipedia. Knowing nothing about this topic, I still feel compelled to edit this article to remove the overt bias. What's scary is how much subtle bias there must be. This is an embarrassment.--Njerseyguy 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been on Groklaw almost since the start, and I think I can strip the bias out - but not tonight, it's going to be a big job. UrbanTerrorist 05:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite finished - I think that 90% of the text is new. Comments please. UrbanTerrorist 02:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read this and I'm fairly impressed with the text at large. I fixed a few grammatical things, but everything seems objective and informative. However, I never read the original article, so I'm afraid I can't provide any comparison views. Daniel Lindsäth 11:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Although much improved, this article still suffers from considerable bias. I point out of a few passages as examples:

• This has been used as a criticism of the blog in the past, however the critics have missed some important points
• Whether it has had any actual effect on the court case is moot. Its effect on the Open Source Community is now a part of history.
• The amount of research done to assemble the article was impressive
• Her steady analysis of events, statements, and court records provided a much needed resource.
• ...the excellent research she used in putting together every article impressed many readers

None of these are cited and appear to be the opinions of the authors. All tip the scales of the article toward the pro-Groklaw POV. All criticism of Groklaw has been removed from the article or been refuted by the article directly (see the first bullet). I'm hard-pressed to find any balance in the article at all. Because of this, I have to slap a POV tag on here for now. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not opinion - truth. It will take a week or two (we've just moved in with my father who is in palliative care, and not expected to live to see Christmass) but I have citations that should satisfy your request. I do admit to a bit of bias - I've was on Groklaw when it was still at RadioUserland, I'm still there, and I like PJ. I also happen to have an opinion of Darl McBride and Ralph Yarro which is unprintable :) however when I worked on their entries I managed with great effort to keep it under control.
UrbanTerrorist 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was on Groklaw when it was still at RadioUserLand also and I left soon after the move to ibiblio because of my disappointment in the low quality of research, the obvious bias in the reporting, the blocking of all counter opinion, and the shameful censorship of factual corrections to some of the more outlandish claims in the comments and articles. The Groklaw site is not reputable - never has been - and certainly the Wikipedia article has a positive cheery outlook that IMO is entirely unjustified. The "opinion" flag should definitely stay. -- anonymous 04:30am 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you -- citations will certainly help a lot. While I'm sure you are correct that all those statements are true, the tone still concerns me somewhat. Remember that the threshhold for Wikipedia is "Verifiability Not Truth". When I see phrases like "her excellent research", I just cringe. The reason being that research being excellent or not is purely a judgement call and one a NPOV article should not make. However, if someone reputable and third party said her research is excellent, great! However, the sentence should be reworded to something like "According to Foobar Magazine, her research was excellent and proved a great resource for the Xyz Effort." Keep it objective. My natural response to each of my bullet points above is "says who, the author?" I'm sure you can understand what I mean by this. Further, I noticed that there has been some criticism of Groklaw that have been either removed or immasculated by the article as it currently reads. In order to present a neutral article, detractors from Groklaw need equal standing with its supporters. Thank you again for offering to take up the cup and fix this article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Heck - what do you expect me to do - I'm a Wikipedia addict now - I NEED MY FIX OF EDITING :) UrbanTerrorist 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Being something of a bystandard to Groklaw (and an ardent hater of the FSF movement, but a proponent of open source development), I decided to try to remove some of the POV-nature of the article. How did I do? Korval 05:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove this article

This is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.214.26 (talk)

Feel free to follow the standard deletion process if you believe it should be removed. DMacks 17:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV/removal of criticisms

I removed one recent edit, but it was because it didn't conform to Wikipedia standards. I was tempted to raise the matter with Wikipedia myself since the language of the section was heavily biased and not with a neutral POV. Now the section has been returned, and it still includes leading language. Fine, leave the criticism section in place and let people see how un-Wikipedia-like it reads. I have no bone to pick either way. I was merely trying to enforce POV standards. I thought about first rewriting the section, but I saw so many changes to make to make it neutral that I gave up. Maybe someone else wishes to try who has more direct knowledge of the facts involved.

For what it's worth, I see nothing egregiously wrong with the section, from a POV standpoint. These are allegations against the site made by actual persons. They seem to be of significant importance to be worthy of display on Wikipedia. And they seem to have factual citations. So I fail to see the problem here.

I think an article like this should stick to the facts. The criticism section needs to go. This article should not be treated like an open discussion forum. It should just describe what the groklaw website is about. I don't care what your opinion about groklaw is; it's irrelevant to this article. Moreover, we don't need links or references to everybody who has an opinion (whether it's pro or con) either. Just say in the article that the website is controversial. This article should be about Groklaw itself, not about the controversy surrounding it. It doesn't even need to be that long of an article. Groklaw is just a website that happens to cover certain ongoing litigation among other things. It's bound to be controversial. 130.94.162.61 10:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Groklaw supporters are removing the criticisms from this article again. They did this a year ago but I thought the matter had been resolved. I was shocked to come back recently and find all criticisms removed and some incredibly sycophantic commentary written about PJ and Groklaw. All such pro-Groklaw commentary is a POV unless it is linked to original sources. The criticisms link to the original sources where the statements are made by respected third-parties - eg, Miguel de Icaza, a lead developer of GNOME software - so they are verifiable criticisms, rather than opinion. The deletions of the criticisms is therefore the act of Groklaw fans who want the Wikipedia article to reflect their pro-Groklaw POV, rather than the act of a Wikipedia editor who is interested in neutrality. I've restored the criticisms. If there are further deletions I will raise the matter with Wikipedia to have the article put in lockdown. 220.245.221.143 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I removed a criticism from the lead paragraph just now, not because it may not be true, but because it's tangential to what groklaw is. No strong objection to the content (assuming cited) somewhere in the article. DMacks 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

quote:The earliest complaints leveled against Groklaw regarded heavy handed censorship and deceptive practises to foil the detection of the censorship. This took the form of comments that were visible to the writer but not visible to any other readers.

The links dont seem to adequately support the above statement. They do say that people were removed at their request. Some were banned at the discrection of 'PJ'. There is a quote on this topic on groklaw attributed to this 'PJ' where she said she was still learning how to use the software and ran into a limitation of the software which affected banned ones.

There was a link to a Linux Blog story that supported the above statements. However the link got removed from the article with the comment "this link no longer works". It does work. No idea why the link was removed. 220.245.220.41 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship criticism popped up again. Removed this from the article:

Groklaw censors posts that disagree with PJ and the FSF. They say that they only delete posts with ad hominem attacks but this is not the case. Many people have reported that their posts were visible only to them, a sneaky way of making someone think their posts were being displayed worldwide even though they had been removed surreptitiously.

I would think this needs sources, evidence...heck, a name attached to the criticism would make it at least somewhat reasonable. Wikipedia shouldn't be the place for anonymous attacks. --JohnRDaily 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? PJ is anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.142.245 (talk)

"PJ" is Pamela Jones, a retired paralegal. In what way is that anonymous? Her suppression of further detail is no different to that done by most journalists and is a reasonable personal safety measure. Gdt 02:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By wikipedia policy, statements need sources. That's especially important for potentially libelous statements, highly critical statements, unverified information (things worded as rumors, hearsay, etc) etc. DMacks 22:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mission Statement

Groklaw's Mission Statement should be added in this article... http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040923045054130

Perhaps it might be used to answer the criticism ? "It's primarily a working site, not a discussion forum." is one of the first lines of the mission statement of Groklaw.

That section seems a little too much... some people disagree with her... ok... so what? No one agrees with everyone on every point they make ! We all have are opinions. --Kebron 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Research

The article states: "Groklaw in effect became an application of Open Source principles to legal research".

I do not think this is accurate because the primary purpose of legal research is 'to find "authority" that will aid in finding a solution to a legal problem.' Legal Research.

Groklaw does a respectable job of uncovering technical facts that might be related to an ongoing litigation.

The website also attempts to dissect the meaning of legal proceedings as they develop but this dissection practice does not aid in finding 'authority' to the legal problem.

Neither of these activities constitutes an attempt to determine legal authority (determination of law as opposed to facts).

I think a more accurate description would be: "Groklaw in effect became an application of Open Source principles to litigation fact discovery".--Wexref 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really apply Open Source principles to litigation fact discovery either. One of the Open Source principles (there are nine?) is the permission to make derivative works. PJ has obstructed people who have tried to take her articles and host them elsewhere, saying that she owns the copyright to them. That's undoubtedly true but it flies in the face of Open Source principles. I would say that "Groklaw has applied the Bazaar method of development to litigation fact discovery". 220.245.220.41 23:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

PJ has done no such thing. PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. It is located at the bottom of the main Groklaw site and all articles. That means that You are free to Share (to copy, distribute and transmit the work), to Remix (to adapt the work) under the following conditions: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work) You may not use this work for commercial purposes. --Kebron 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"PJ has done no such thing. PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License." That is absolutely false and yet another attempt to rewrite history by the Groklaw faithful. Go read ip-wars.net or warmcat for examples of PJ blocking the reuse of Groklaw articles. NB: see [1] for just one example of many. 220.245.218.243 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The so called article on IP-Wars is one person's POV and that was in 2004!!! Here we are 2 and a half years later... got anything 2007 ? 2006 even ? --Kebron 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The "so called article" cites PJ's own words. And what does the year matter? Do facts have an expiry date? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.91.9.114 (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

The article talks about Bots... not about authors using her articles. what is your point?--Kebron 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It also appears to be by somebody who has completely misunderstood the situation. As I read it, including the responses from PJ in the linked article, PJ licenses her articles under CC-BY-NC (note that this would not allow google to use the articles, as their use is commercial in nature, so there's no hypocrisy involved there). She does not license the comments attached to her articles under the same terms. In order to be able to do so, she would have to get a release from each commenter (although this wouldn't have been hard if she had done so at the start, she didn't, so as it is this would be impossible for any existing article). Yes, her comments about the extra usage that bots impose kind-of implies she doesn't actually know what she's talking about from a technical standpoint, but then she's never claimed to have any in-depth technical knowledge. And the point about commenter's privacy is a good one; if some of her commenters would rather have indexing turned off, then it's probably a good thing she listens to them. And the article author's comment about linking to the content is complete nonsense; nothing in what PJ has said or done in any way implies that she doesn't want people linking to her articles.

But the important point is this: the article you link to is not a reliable source, it is a self-published article which according to the policy WP:V may only be used in articles about its own author. This article is not about its author, so it cannot be used a source here. JulesH 13:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subpoena

User:Frodo42 removed the section about the alleged SCO subpoena. I think this section is important because it shows that Groklaw is more than just a web site commenting on SCO v IBM, but has actually become entwined with the case, at least in the media's opinion, if not actually SCO's. While the rumours are only rumours at this point, they are still verifiable (e.g. here). JulesH 10:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality / Bias

This section is looking a bit sparse now. There are accusations of pro-open source bias, and I think we should include a mention of these. The same article I linked above (this one) contains the following paragraph, for example:

Coverage on the website shows a bias towards open source interests, and Jones has openly declared herself an open source proponent.

I don't think anybody really denies that this is true, and the prevalent attitude seems to be "so what? all reporting is biased." See (e.g.) this ZDNet article: "[Groklaw] is what it is; and if it turns out to have been IBM funded from the gitgo, so what? - the site stands on its own [...]" JulesH 10:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that the site has a pro-open-source bias. Take for example the vitriol commonly directed against Sun - one of the leading contributors and developers of open source software - and specifically against projects like OpenOffice and OpenSolaris. It got so bad at one point that Miguel had to write a slap down. There have also been very negative articles about BSD - apparently it is not enough to merely give away the source code with no strings attached, you have to be an ardent supporter of the GPL as well. I would say the site is biased towards the FSF definition of free software and specifically favours the GPL but it is not a site with a pro-open-source bias. 123.243.229.15 02:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right that Jones/GL does veer towards the Free software school of thought, rather than open source. Most of the rest of what you're saying appears bogus. I seem to recall that most of the criticism of Sun related to the proprietary stuff in that Linux distro that used the Java trademark, and some worries about the freeness of the CDDL license, and the lameness of their patent pledge - there's been very little criticism of OpenSolaris or OpenOffice. Criticism of Sun because they're not 'open source' enough doesn't make you less of an open source supporter. I also dont recall any 'very negative articles about BSD', and I can't find one on a site search - the closest is a pro-BSD copyleft rereading of the license - are you making some of this stuff up? And a Microsoft fanboy like Miguel decides to criticise Groklaw? Colour me surprised. --Aim Here 11:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course the site has a pro-FOSS bias. This is implicit in the Mission Statement, which states in part that Groklaw is "a journalistic enterprise, with interviews, research, and reporting of legal events important to the FOSS community". Just as a site that reports news important to, say, the Pit-Bull owners community could be assumed to be pro Pit-Bulls, a site that reports on items important to the FOSS community can safely be assumed to be pro-FOSS. I have expanded the initial paragraph with a sentence and a link to the mission statement. -- Vancouverite 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lousy criticism section

There was a criticism section with two criticisms. One was just silly "Groklaw sucks now", and the other was an out-of-context quote. The latter was Miguel de Icaza saying that Jones doesn't understand free software development. That would be fine except that de Icaza is getting a lot of stick within the GNOME community for his defense of the OOXML format. So, normally, de Icaza could be read as representing the GNOME developers, but that is not the case in this context.

"In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged."[2] This lousy quality example is the sort of reason why criticism sections are discouraged. --Gronky (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed DoS attack on sys-con.com

The analysis that is cited is fatally flawed. If you read the page, he got a total of 5 lines of log files. How one can deduce a DoS attach from a total of 5 lines of logfiles is beyond me. Also, the reference is a blog, which I thought was frowned up as a source for Wikipedia. Given the above, I believe that the reference to the claimed DoS attack should be struck from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nemo III (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The source is Forbes, and the system administrator merely backs the conclusion up. Cool Hand Luke 01:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. When someone claimed that there was no source for hassling advertisers, I moved it there. I'll cite it for both propositions now. Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(from Cool Hand Luke's talk page) In the Groklaw history entry for 17:02, 21 November 2007 you say "The denial of service attack seems well-supported" but the cited blog entry does not provide sufficient data to support the claim. Note that this Slashdot comment raises some relevant technical issues and the author of the blog post responded essentially admitting that he has not seen the data but has a feeling based on conversations with various people. The blog shows three redacted log entries amounting to a total of less than 140K bytes retrieved, and says that these were three of five entries revealed to the blog author. There is no hint anywhere of the total number of log entries, the total data volume downloaded, or how traffic at that time compares to normal traffic on an average day, let alone on a day when a news site has a controversial and widely referenced story; there is no hint that any particular client IP address was responsible for a disproportionate number of requests or data volume - these are all statistics that any web log analyser will give the site operator. There is not even a hint that the retrieval of '/' was followed by retrievals of the embedded content (such as images) let alone by retrievals of referenced pages that use of the recursion feature of wget would imply. The evidence revealed in the blog post just does not support the DoS claim and we are left with essentially "my friends who still work there tell me there was a DDoS attack". I will leave it to your judgement to decide whether or not the blog post is a sufficient citation for the remark about the DoS attack rather than hearsay involving a weakly supported allegation by a party to the dispute. Personally, I think that the DoS remark deserves to be labelled "alleged".

GrumpyOldWebmaster (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As above, the source is Frobes. I've recently become aware that PJ also thinks Daniel Lyons is some sort of Microsoft shill, but it should be noted that reliable sources seem to assume it happened. For example PC Magazine, and the interviews of Sys-Con's publisher. It might be that Sys-con is making it up for some reason, maybe they were embarrassed to be slashdotted into oblivion, but no reliable source questions it. Cool Hand Luke 09:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The open letter to Forbes Magazine from the Internet Press Guild questions whether or not there really was a DoS attack. The letter can be found at the blog of one of the signatories. Given the low threshold set by Forbes, I would be inclined to consider this a reliable source by that standard. As one who has operated a webserver and analysed its logs while working for a boss who was utterly clueless about the technical issues I would be quite ready to believe that a businessman or journalist might honestly believe that the failure of a site was due to a malicious attack when in fact it was just the traffic spike you get when your site is mentioned in a well known place. Note also that it is a common practice for sites mentioned on Slashdot to be mirrored by readers with well connected web hosting so that traffic from other Slashdot readers can be directed to the mirror in order to mitigate the effect of the sudden interest which can bring down all but the most well resourced sites. The obvious tool for creating such a mirror is, of course, wget. The supposed sign of the attack could have been someone trying to help by taking some of the load. Unless we get real data from someone who has access to the log files and knows how to interpret them I doubt if we will ever know. As for sticking to a ridiculous position arrived at through technical ignorance, we have the example of Tuttle, Oklahoma so I would not consider Sys-Con sticking to their claim to be any kind of supporting evidence. GrumpyOldWebmaster (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" is fine. I'm aware of the letter having posted it below. We can't reject them as a reliable source just because PJ does, but it's not essential to the story. Cool Hand Luke 17:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PJ's Requested Changes

In a comment on Groklaw, PJ's requested some changes. I'm going ahead with making what seem to be sensible edits. Simon G Best (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Maureen O'Gara Incident

In PJ's comment, PJ asks, "Also, is there any reason to devote so much space to the Maureen O'Gara incident?" It doesn't look like there's that much, to me. Seems to be just the latter part of the Neutrality section. To me, it looks like a very compact summary of that bit of drama (though I'm not saying it's entirely accurate (or inaccurate)). Simon G Best (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Also in that same section, there are two references to Dan Lyons' "Who is Pamela Jones?" thing in Forbes. I dare say he's not necessarily the most reliable of sources when it comes to PJ and Groklaw. PJ herself says, "they list Dan Lyons' vicious article about me. Can someone get rid of that junk?" It's no secret that Lyons has had a thing about Groklaw. Are there better sources? Simon G Best (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and might the alleged denial of service attack have actually been a slashdotting? Simon G Best (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the claim by Groklaw people. Sys-con was linked from two slashdot articles around that time. Unlike MOG, other reliable sources do not conclude that Lyons has a thing for Groklaw, and I wouldn't mind sourcing him here. His articles are not obsessed in the way the O'Gara's worst were, but if we'd like another sources there's the PC Magazine article linked above. Cool Hand Luke 10:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Lyons appears to have published on Groklaw once; on November 14, 2005. He's apparently said a few other things in blogs, but Groklaw appears to have written much more on him than vice versa. I think it's bad to exclude sources because their subjects don't like them. Cool Hand Luke 11:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with that last bit. Otherwise, it would be very easy for subjects to effectively censor Wikipedia by expressing copious quantities of dislike for such sources. That would be no good.

But, at the same time, Lyons does seem to really have a thing about Groklaw, as one of his blogs, Floating Point, seems to demonstrate. More to the point, perhaps, his "Who is Pamela Jones?" thing (which I've just looked at again) is part of his notoriously inflammatory Attack of the Blogs piece. That itself suggests he's far from a neutral, reliable source.

I also had a look at that PC Magazine article. While it does list various things that have been alleged to occur at the time of the drama in question, it doesn't strike me as actually being confirmation that such things actually occurred. It seemed, to me, to be a matter of the author listing those various, alleged things so as to quickly portray the level of internet drama surrounding O'Gara's article. I'm wary of taking it as confirmation of the allegations mentioned in the article here.

Of which there is no doubt, however, is the fact that there was much internet drama.

I'll be bold, and edit. Simon G Best (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'll hold on, until I'm up to speed on the letter referenced by Cool Hand Luke below. Simon G Best (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, my edit was reversed, and Lyons is, again, cited as a source. As I've said, his "Who is Pamela Jones?" thing is part of his Attack of the Blogs piece in Forbes. This is not in the citation. I'm not keen on keeping that citation, anyway. I'll leave it for someone else to deal with, as I don't want to get bogged down in futile edit ping-pong. Simon G Best (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it's an important part of the site's history, which was covered by outsiders. Even today there are reference on Groklaw to the infamous "MOG" (who did, incidentally write a highly inflammatory column which cast aspersions on a woman she couldn't even confirm was PJ). The heading "neutrality" seems weird though; as if the incident speaks badly about the site's neutrality. Cool Hand Luke 10:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine it's in the Neutrality section because The SCO Group, and some others, were alleging, amongst other things, that Groklaw was biased against The SCO Group, etc. It was in relation to this that Darl McBride (CEO of The SCO Group), and others, were raising questions about PJ's identity. It was on this matter that O'Gara did her infamous article. So, in a way, it's sort of to do with allegations of lack of neutrality, but that's not at all clear in the article.

I think it would also explain why PJ would be unhappy with that O'Gara incident being in the Neutrality section. She could regard it as an attempt to legitimise the links that some Groklaw critics, such as The SCO Group, have attempted to establish in people's minds between the alleged bias of Groklaw and questions of PJ's identity.

If the O'Gara stuff is going to stay in the Neutrality section, the article needs to clearly say why it's there. Otherwise, I think it would be better moved elsewhere - perhaps even to the article about PJ herself? If it's going to stay in the Neutrality section, the stuff I've said about how it's supposed to be linked to questions of Groklaw's neutrality would need to be properly sourced, and I simply haven't done that (yet). I'll be lazy and flag that citations are needed, for now.

Simon G Best (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still not happy with the Neutrality section. It does seem dominated by the O'Gara incident. I think my attempt to explain why the O'Gara incident is even in that section, while clarifying its inclusion, might even be making it worse. I think, perhaps, the O'Gara incident does need to be moved elsewhere. Simon G Best (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Section. It may help if something is said to put 'Neutrality' into some sort of context. I have to pop out soon but I will start by adding a bit now. Then perhaps later, re-work the rest of the section -but I must admit I have not thought forward just yet, so don't wait for me if you have any ideas.--Aspro (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libelous?

In the latter part of PJ's referenced comment, she alleges that some of the stuff is libelous:-

It's like SCO's smear campaign has been enshrined there, which is a real distortion of Groklaw's place in history. Neither Lyons's smears or O'Gara's have any place there. There is no reason to list materials I consider libelous. You can quote me, if necessary. And why is there so much about the Sys-con allegations? They have been completely disproven. Again, that is in the end, the references. If you have to give a reason, state that it's libel. Because Groklaw didn't report on the O'Gara article until after the alleged DDOS supposedly began, so even if there was one, which I don't believe, Groklaw had nothing to do with it, obviously. So the only reason someone put it there is to smear Groklaw.

Please someone remove that libelous junk. If they put it back, show them the letter the journalist group sent to Forbes in protest. I'm tired of being unjustly smeared.

I'll have more of a look at the Sys-Con stuff. If it's going to be in the article, it should at least be accurate.

Simon G Best (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's accurate to my knowledge. The letter's here, among other places. Cool Hand Luke 11:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the "OPEN LETTER TO FORBES MAGAZINE"? Simon G Best (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the letter PJ means in her comment. Cool Hand Luke 11:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Thanks! (I didn't realise you were referring to a letter she'd referred to in the very comment of hers I'd referred to. Oops!) Simon G Best (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to bed. Happy Thanksgiving (assuming you're a Yankee). Cool Hand Luke 11:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've read that letter now, and it doesn't particularly support the following: "After threats of legal action for slander and invasion of privacy, lobbying of the site's advertisers, and allegedly a denial of service attack, Linux Business News' publisher Sys-Con issued a public apology and dropped O'Gara and her LinuxGram column." The "threats of legal action for slander and invasion of privacy" and "lobbying of the site's advertisers" don't seem to be supported at all, and only the fact that allegations of an allegedly related "denial of service attack" were made is supported. And Lyons' referenced piece is part of his notorious "Attack of the Blogs" piece anyway, as I said above. I'm going to go ahead and edit. Simon G Best (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, O'Gara's jaw-dropping last Sys-con article can be found by searching for the string "She had up and disappeared one day, and the super was worried about her." Cool Hand Luke 11:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Extra Edit, Now Undone

(Just added that heading, to separate this from the "Libelous?" stuff just above. Simon G Best (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

An anonymous user, User:124.168.215.126, who seems to be ozbird on Groklaw, has completely removed the following:-

The blog soon became popular with the Free Software and Open Source communities as well as others, and attracted a community of volunteers and commenters of its own. Its popularity caused it to outgrow Radio Userland, and it was transferred to ibiblio as a stand alone web site.

which I'd already edited in response to PJ's comment. I'll undo his deletion, as I don't think he necessarily realised that I'd already edited it.

Simon G Best (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed editorial policy section

I can't find any sources for the information in Editorial Policy. Please provide citations or remove this section, in any case the precise terms of anonymous comment posting on a website is hardly encyclopedic. 81.98.244.201 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that section was just reversed. I'm not sure which version is true; the policy doesn't say. I'm inclined to agree with you that it's not an important aspect of the site. Cool Hand Luke 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Stance

Link to citation no. 6 for the quoted phrase "overwhelmingly pro-Linux and anti-SCO" is no longer valid. Unless someone can find another citation from a non-blog media source, I think I will remove the quote and the non-working reference from the article. It is not an essential part of the article anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil doesnt care (talk • contribs) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a published source. Just get rid of the link altogether if we must, but the source is still valid. Cool Hand Luke 06:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a non-verifiable source. The reason you gave for cutting some words from one of my edits was that it's assumed the media picked up on the idea that Groklaw was "overwhelmingly pro-Linux and anti-SCO", yet I can find no other media source that uses that characterization. Without evidence of other such representations, and without a verifiable source, I'm going to remove both the reference and the section of the article that uses it. If you find a verifiable source, you can put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil doesnt care (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about "non-verifiable"? Do they not have public libraries where you live? Go to one and use their services. In the cities I've lived, you can even access the databases online with a library card. I'll quote you the article if you wish, but it should be noted that Wikipedia cites print all the time. The internet bias is actually something we strive to avoid. See also Deseret Morning News, "SCO toiling to subpoena and depose Net blogger," which is available online, so you don't even have to use a library resource. See also this and this. Cool Hand Luke 08:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead": "If the link was merely a 'convenience link' to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, it is acceptable to drop the link but keep the citation." Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The link you cited does not provide evidence of the quoted material I removed. You did not acknowledge my statements about not finding any confirming sources for use of the terms "overwhelmingly anti-SCO and pro-Linux". Even if a single newspaper article somewhere used those exact words, what was the context? Was it something that was a quotation from a SCO executive? If so, there are already plenty of other examples of what SCO thought about Groklaw in the article, and the entry would be redundant. If not, who was making the statement with the quoted material in it? Without the context, it isn't possible for me to draw any conclusions about what is written. If I can't, then how should we expect the reader to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil doesnt care (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No it was not. It was the reporter's description, as the quote suggests. I was hoping you might actually look up the article for yourself. I think it's a good thing to learn. Here's the entire article from lexis:

Learning is a good thing. One thing you might want to remember is that we are supposed to be working together to make the article the best it can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil doesnt care (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

LENGTH: 742 words

HEADLINE: SCO losses up, revenues not

BYLINE: By Bob Mims

BODY: Utah's SCO Group, its coffers tapped by heavy legal fees for its Linux-related lawsuits, on Thursday reported growing losses and shrinking revenue for the first quarter.

The Lindon software company, which has sued IBM and others claiming its proprietary Unix code has been pilfered by the freely distributed Linux operating system, posted a net loss of just under $ 3 million, or 17 cents per share, on revenue of less than $ 8.9 million.

Quarterly losses increased 76 percent, while revenues retreated 28 percent, compared to the same period a year ago when SCO lost $ 1.7 million, or 18 cents per share, on revenue of $ 11.4 million.

Much of that red ink was due to first quarter legal costs of $ 3.5 million, chief financial officer Bert Young said in a conference call. SCO was left with $ 7.4 million in available cash, enough to "see the litigation through to its conclusion."

In addition to its $ 5 billion claim against IBM, SCO has active federal court suits against AutoZone and Novell, and is being sued over its Linux claims by RedHat, a leading distributor of the popular operating system that competes with Microsoft's dominant Windows program.

With Friday's filing of its form 10-Q for the first quarter, Young also said SCO expected to be restored fully to the Nasdaq stock exchange. Nasdaq has threatened to delist SCO for delaying its fiscal 2004 and first quarter reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and added an "E" of noncompliance to its ticker symbol pending the outcome of the company's appeal.

"With the filing of the 10-K for 2004, and once our form 10-Q is filed for the first quarter, we will have satisfied the requirements for listing by Nasdaq," Young said.

Darl McBride, SCO president and chief executive, said news of Nasdaq's delisting procedure, a management coup at parent Canopy Group and continued attention to the company's courtroom battles made for a "bumpy" first quarter in the media.

He specifically targeted www.Groklaw.net and its operator, self-described paralegal Pamela Jones, for criticism.

The Web site meticulously follows SCO's activities, accompanied by visitors' comments -- overwhelmingly pro-Linux and anti-SCO, which is considered a villain by the "open source" community opposed to efforts to restrict Linux and other free software development.

"[Groklaw] is not what it is purported to be," he said. "All is not all it appears in Groklawland. . . . Who is Pam Jones? It's about credibility."

McBride said the site is less an open forum than one dedicated to "how we destroy SCO," and that Jones and her site visitors do "a lot of spinning ... a lot of hype [to the] negative" about the Utah company and its intentions.

Asked for specifics to support his statements, McBride declined, saying they would be provided once SCO completes an ongoing background check on Jones and her site.

Jones replied quickly, telling The Salt Lake Tribune: "My name really is Pamela Jones. I am really a paralegal. I am not a shill for IBM."

She also posted a response on Groklaw.net that read in part: "Don't bother asking me what Darl is talking about. I have no idea. I know who I am, and I know I've never misrepresented anything. I've never said anything personal about myself, actually. I don't have to. I'm not a public company."

One SCO action that enraged Groklaw.net denizens and other open-source sites was a campaign, launched with a letter to more than 1,000 corporate Linux users, seeking licensing fees as insurance against possible lawsuits.

On Wednesday, McBride acknowledged the "SCOSource" licensing effort was now largely on hold, pending the outcome of its litigation. For the quarter, SCOSource generated just $ 70,000.

SCO, blaming tough operating system competition, also noted that revenue from its core Unix products and services -- the bulk of its income -- shrank in the first quarter. However, the company hopes for better news after release of its new Legend OpenServer 6 this summer.

Satisfied? I included the links just to show that "anti-SCO" is a very common description, not nearly as controversial as you pretend. It was actually used more than once in both the Tribune and News as well as other places. Cool Hand Luke 09:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the actual text. It shows that the wording in the article appears to slightly misrepresent the words actually written by Bob Mims, who you are taking as the source for your quoted material. I'll make a small revision to more accurately reflect the author's statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil doesnt care (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "After threats of legal action for slander and invasion of privacy" is not supported by either of the cited references, 11 and 12. Editing to reflect what the citations do support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil doesnt care (talk • contribs) 09:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the sources in reference no. 11 mentions the publication of Jones's mother's address. Editing the sentence to remove the specific claim not supported by citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil doesnt care (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is available on databases including lexis still. I don't think we should cite to it given the controversy, but it does indeed give the supposed address of Jones and her mother. I used another source (which is somewhat loose with its characterization of the article, but it is verifiable). You can find the original by searching the string "She had up and disappeared one day, and the super was worried about her." Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought these two paragraphs from Edward Normand might be worth including in the Editorial stance section, right after quote from McBride.

From Law.com [3]

But regardless of how SCO feels about Jones, the company's lawyers do respect her attention to detail. "What I admire about [the Web site] is the effort and intensity and constancy," said SCO lawyer Edward Normand, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

Normand does say Groklaw's pro-IBM slant can be misleading. "In the past 10 or 12 months of litigation there have been some pretty bad rulings for IBM, but it would be hard to tell from reading Groklaw that they are bad," Normand said. For example, he said, the court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment and ordered the company to produce information in discovery.

It is only 272 words in length and I would prefer not to reword it because personally I can not surpass it. Thoughts if any please.--Aspro (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this summary. Maybe use the first paragraph as a block quote and then add that Normand said that the pro-IBM slant can be misleading. The details of the IBM suit are not so timeless.

Would not be strongly opposed to including the whole thing though. It gives some good details about the bias of the site. Merely labeling it "anti-SCO" doesn't explain much. Cool Hand Luke 18:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)