Talk:Kevin Myers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

	Ireland Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Archives
To May 2008

[edit] Lies damned lies and the wickedness of wikipedia

I'm finding Myers article "Lies damned lies and the wickedness of wikipedia" a little hard to swallow.

What was the premise? Myers opens up wikipedia one day to find his page has been vandalised, and on that basis writes an article condemning the whole of wikipedia? Or, perhaps, Myers, wanting to codemn the whole of wikipedia, opens up his article and - surely not - vandalises it himself with a new account [1], and then reverts the edits with a new single person account [2]? Oddly, the vandalising account comes back a fwe days later to tidy up a Myers quote [3].

Bottom line for me: it is too convenient that the account was vandalised at much the time that Myers would have been writing the article, and it is improbable in the extreme that a single purpose account would appear merely to revert the vandalism of another single purpose account.

The conclusion I draw - on the cui bono principle - is that Myers himself is the vandal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the following lines from cui bono:Cui bono can be applied only in cases where some act was planned with the intention of obtaining a benefit. and The cui bono principle is often applied to explain acts of political significance, but may not always be reliable or useful. Malicious editing isn't new to wikipedia - consider the Seigenthaler incident.Autarch (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a coincidence, but sometimes coincidences just happen. It is still possible to have a page with an error that lasts a few days. The Category:Living people didn't really end that. During a period I was mad at Wikipedia, and went on a vandalism spree that rightly got me blockd, I intentionally looked through the "Living people" category to test that. I vandalized Jacqueline Obradors and it lasted three days. I eventually reverted the vandalism myself, so I don't know how long it'd have lasted on its own. I'll admit though the coincidence is interesting, but I don't know if it's remarkable.--T. Anthony (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the supposition is that KM gained the benefit of a vandalised article, which he could use as a peg on which to hang his story. Keep up, Autarch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that assuming that Myers instigated the article directly or indirectly? Unless there's clear evidence to the contrary, it's wiser to assume it was the work of a Myers-hating vandal. In this case there is no corroborating evidence for that view. Autarch (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's of any help to you, I can absolutely guarantee you that I (second edit cited above) am not Kevin Myers. Mmmerfa (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, although it rather does for my supposition :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, I'm not Kevin Myers either. Autarch (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I Spartacus or Brian! ;-) Autarch (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats enough now, Brian. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)