Talk:Lumber Cartel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 July, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 17 July, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Trolling

Am I the only person who thinks that the OP of the "lumber cartel" theory sounds like a classic, very successful troll? It simply doesn't make rational sense as the behavior of an actual spammer. The article currently makes no reference to the possibility that it was a troll. Matt Gies 09:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a good possibility, though some people might find it very funny that you use "spammer" and "rational sense" in the same sentence. What comes to delirious rantings by people who believe in their causes, it's very very hard to tell difference between trolling and the real thing. I'd say there's a good 60% chance this was trolling and 40% that they were dead serious, though =) The article could refer to this possibility though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newsprint

The newsprint article says "Nowadays, virtually all paper is made from wood pulp, treated and processed in different ways to make different types of paper", conflicting this article. Thoughts? -- anon dude 11/27/05

[edit] Cyberpromo involvement?

If I read the original posting correctly, it tries to hint the original text was posted on Cyberpromo.com (Spamford's site), which regrettably isn't archived by archive.org. Anyone know if this was really true, and what other spammers were pushing this? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References and Citations

Content from usenet is never acceptable as citation, also create footnotes, or in-line citations. Anything that isn't directly cited will be removed. WP:V is non-negotiable and requires this, regardless of the subject of the article.--Crossmr 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Usenet has to be the primary source in this instance - what else could it be? Dlyons493 Talk 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Posts and archives on usenet cannot be the primary or secondary source. Regardless of what the subject is. This goes to both verifiability and notability. If this subject truly is notable a non-self-published source will provde the necessary information. This is why I mentioned on the AfDs for this and TINC, this subject, while a usenet in-joke, likely isn't that notable since its barely mentioned anywhere outside of usenet, and the amount of information available outside of usenet is negligabl, and certainly doesn't support the content of this article.--Crossmr 20:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about notability. I'm simply saying Usenet archives have to be the primary source for articles about Usenet and I'm leaving the discussion at that :-) Dlyons493 Talk
They can't be. If self-published sources were allowed to stand for verification of anything, we could never remove any article, because someone would just have to fire up a blog and post whatever they wanted to keep. If the subject were notable, there would be sources outside usenet covering the subject. I wasn't arguing notability when this whole thing began, but maybe I should have put that in the AfD. There are subjects that occur within self-published communities, large forums, blog sites, myspace, etc that do get media attention. These are things that happen that really are notable. We don't use what transpired on the website as a source, we use the media reports as the source for those things.--Crossmr 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There are three usable sources currently for information in this article. Sources from usenet are not usable per policy. The previous version that was created was not sourced at all, and each point was covered in the edit summaries, if you like I can recover them on the talk page. I've already made the concession that this version can be kept with the agreement that the only expandability done on it, is properly sourced. The behaviour surrounding this article and the attempt to include information that isn't properly sourced only strengthens the reason for deletion since people cannot seemingly abide by the rules.

I'm going to copy the previous version in here and go through it point by point so that each part can be addressed.--Crossmr 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific citation problems

I'm going to cover the specific citation problems with this version[1], first the sources:

  • Google groups, usenet archives, forum postings, wikis, mailing lists, etc are disqualified as primary and secondary sources.
  • That leaves the Jargon file entry, the wired article, Salon's article, glossary from the blacklist, and the gambling magazine article.
  • The alleged minutes can't be used as they're alleged and thus not verified.
  • The credibility of the wired article is called into question by Wired, and cannot be used. Even as such it has very little information on the Lumber Cartel in it.

As for the specific issues in the article

  • first promulgated either by Sanford Wallace himself, or by one of his employees I see no usable source for this information.
  • In November of 1997, a participant on news.admin.net-abuse.email discovered an essay on Wallace's corporate website, and posted its contents to the newsgroup. The essay described a conspiracy theory:

Lumber Cartel The original anti-spammer was in truth a major spammer just one day before two major lumber companies deposited a total of $275,000 into his account. He instantly stopped spamming and began what is now the biggest anti-spam ring on the Internet. The source is a google group, and thus not usable.

  • The reasoning was that these companies first destroy forests and make paper out of them, which is in turn used to send bulk mail. Since sending e-mail spam doesn't use paper at all, the essay argued, the lumber companies would want to stop it before it would surpass paper-based bulk mailing, and consequently only those in the pay of the lumber companies would be anti-spam. No source for this alleged reasoning
  • Anti-spammers, of course, were quick to point out that this reasoning is far from the truth. There are many reasons why e-mail spam was, and continues to be, a threat to the Internet, and why people continue to fight spam either in their spare time or professionally. In addition, in recent decades only newsprint paper (which is used to print newspapers) is being made out of pulpwood (which is, also, very far from lumber), other fine papers (like the kind used to print glossy advertisements and brochures) are made out of cotton rags. It is thus unlikely that the any lumber or tree-harvesting industry would benefit from any change from junk mailing. Furthermore, lumber companies themselves have little to do with paper companies, and bulk mail constitutes only a small part of total paper use.No usable source for this position or argument.

See these points from:WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

Since none of these points can be properly sourced per WP:V, this material is considered original research. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. If this material can be sourced properly per WP:V then it can be reinstated.--Crossmr 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:V, under "Sources of Dubious Reliability," it states that "sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun...". As long as the article makes it clear that, for our purposes (which doesn't mirror reality), USENET is of dubious reliability, the sources aren't a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The source of dubious reliability is referred to as "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversigh". That sounds like a tabloid, or otherwise non-reputable print company. This might include non-reputable online magazines as well. Not usenet. WP:V directly links to this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources which clearly says "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources"--Crossmr 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, not anymore. Nor do I think that was ever truly the standard. Regardless, V is a policy, RS is a guideline, and V should trump RS in the event of a contradiction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr: You have to remember that this is about Usenet itself. If the wikipedia guidelines and logic are at cross purposes, try go with logic.

If you can't use usenet as a reliable resource about itself, you'd have to delete many articles about usenet. That'd be ... slightly odd.

Kim Bruning 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

except usenet isn't for example the microsoft website. Its a collection of self-published posts. Anyone can right anything. I could make a post claiming every user was a homosexual and then say it must me included in all Usenet articles on the basis that "someone" on usenet believes all usenet users to be homosexuals.--Crossmr 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
But if a post on usenet says X, then a post on usenet says X. Kim Bruning 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats right it does. But there is no way to verify if that post is accurate, or the poster was on a bender. So using it to establish a fact about something doesn't work. WP:V requires authors of self-published sources to be professional researchers or journalists and be published by a credible third party. Vladimir is none of that.--Crossmr 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this is about Usenet culture, and this is the post that started the phenomenon. The phenomenon's existence can be seen in the many external sources. DS 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Only a very tiny few and none reference this post. Making that claim is original research.--Crossmr 23:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested to see what you'll make of Kibo. DS 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying that you justify the poor citation in this article based on poor citation in another article? I've got a ripping good article I've been meaning to post about my big toe. I need to fire up my news reader and generate some citation.--Crossmr 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing OR tags

This is improper as the citation problems have not been addressed. --Crossmr 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made a small edit that should clear up any remaining WP:V concerns. The article no longer states that Duane wrote it, only that he was alleged to have, and no longer says flatly that the original essay came from Wallaces site, only that the claim was made. (To the best of my knowledge, those claims were never denied, but it does seem true that we have no proper source to present them as if they were proven fact either.) I don't see any further problems in this area. If you do, please discuss them here. Arker 06:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Duane Patterson should be removed. It's pretty flimsy that someone on a google group said that he was sent something by his General Manager who got it from a wannabe spammer who got it from Duane Patterson. This is not verification. It's not even enough to justify an allegation.
Likewise "sourced to Sanford Wallace's corporate website" also needs to go. "Sourced to" gives the impression that it is verifiable that this is the case, and I don't see the evidence for that. If the article is restricted to how people on usenet groups post about such theories, discuss them and spread them etc., then that is verifiable, at least. But to use those posts as any substantiation about third parties is not.
The Lumber Cartel meme can be discussed as a phenomenon in its own right without these highly questionable aspects. Tyrenius 06:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this logic is that the origins of the document are a significant part of the history here. While they may be impossible to source as definitively true, it's very easy to source them as the common understanding of those involved in the spread of the meme, and that's the only information that's needed for the article. Removing all reference to these pieces of the history would be somewhat analogous to, for example, removing all reference to the allegations that Lizzie Borden killed her parents, since she wasn't convicted. Ok, not a great analogy, but best one I could think of off the cuff. The point is, this is an important part of the story, and is adequately sourced. Arker 07:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry - they're very inadequately sourced, according to everything of good practice I've come across in wikipedia previously. The intro can read perfectly well without them:
The Lumber Cartel was a conspiracy theory, popularized on USENET, that claimed anti-spammers were secretly paid agents of lumber companies.
In November of 1997, a participant on news.admin.net-abuse.email posted an essay which described this conspiracy theory:
Tyrenius 08:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify what the article is about

1)Is this article about the Lumber Cartel? In this case usenet etc can't be used as verifiable sources and I would suggest AfD.

2)Is is about a usenet meme, i.e. the fact that loads of people talked about this on usenet? In this case usenet is acceptable as a source, because such sources can be used in a cautious way to provide information about themselves. No one is disputing that these posts took place. In this case I suggest clarifying the article's content by renaming it to something such as "Lumber cartel meme" or whatever. Then it becomes an article about an internet phenomenon, not about the subject of that phenomenon.

Tyrenius 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

This does seem to be a bit OR to me. Can at least some of these "points" be cited to actual anti-spammers? Also, words like "point out", "truth", "e-mail spam [is] a threat to the internet" are a bit POV. KWH 06:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-spammers were quick to point out that this reasoning is far from the truth. There are many reasons why e-mail spam was, and continues to be, a threat to the Internet, and why people continue to fight spam either in their spare time or professionally. In addition, in recent decades only newsprint paper (which is used to print newspapers) is being made out of pulpwood (which is, also, very far from lumber), other fine papers (like the kind used to print glossy advertisements and brochures) are made out of cotton rags. It is thus unlikely that the any lumber or tree-harvesting industry would benefit from any change from junk mailing. Furthermore, lumber companies themselves have little to do with paper companies, and bulk mail constitutes only a small part of total paper use."


"Spam is a threat to the Internet" is POV? DS 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. certainly not the spammer's PoV.--Crossmr 00:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pushing POV beyond the point of reasonable interpretation. Fortunately however the statement can be easily given verification in an OECD document:

In conclusion, there is a common understanding that spam is a threat to the Internet as an effective and reliable means of communication, and for the overall evolution of the e-economy. This common understanding has led to calls for greater co-operation among all stakeholders in finding common solutions to spam.
Why spam? How does it work?
Why is spam such a threat? The fact that the cost of sending e-mail is extremely low and does not increase in proportion to the number of messages sent is an incentive for spammers to send out as many copies of their e-mail as possible, with numbers that run into billions sent per day. The cost of spam is therefore shifted away from the spammer and onto the recipient.

The text continues if anyone wants to look it up. Tyrenius 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A statement like "a sharpened pin is a threat to an inflated balloon" is reasonably self-evident and doesn't need to be verified or cited. "Spam was and continues to be a threat to the internet", especially in this context (of directly rebutting the Lumber Cartel theory) is not self-evident, nor is it verifiable. "The OECD claims 'there is a common understanding that spam is a threat to the internet'" is verifiable, but the OECD was not responding to the Lumber Cartel theory. The problem with the above paragraph is that it makes all of these statements, with regards to the fact that spam is a past and present threat, the motivations of anti-spam activists, and all the bit about lumber companies, and seems to attribute them to what nebulous anti-spammers "pointed out." Did a discussion happen on nanae where someone talked about how "lumber companies themselves have little to do with paper companies, and bulk mail constitutes only a small part of total paper use"? KWH 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)