12.29.08
Microsoft and Jimmi Hugh: Wikipedia Censorship or Just Vandalism? (Corrected)
“In one piece of mail people were suggesting that Office had to work equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn’t force Office users to use our browser. This Is wrong and I wanted to correct this.”
–Bill Gates [PDF]
AS our regular readers may know, Microsoft was caught more or less sabotaging ACPI as a standard in order to make life miserable for GNU/Linux. It continues to this date in the sense that GNU/Linux users and developers must often wrestle with ACPI to make it work properly. Bill Gates was personally responsible for this, as shown more clearly than just implicitly in court evidence. He mentioned “Linux” by name and suggested the use of patents, too.
The Wikipedia article on ACPI had a link to an antitrust document (which is mirrored in several Web sites) regarding Bill Gates’ wish to make ACPI proprietary to Windows. This information is highly relevant to the article, since after all it is about a standard, and Microsoft were also part of the group responsible for that standard, therefore any corrupting influence on either the standard or its implementation should be a matter of public knowledge.
About a month ago we discussed Microsoft’s manipulation of Wikipedia, sometimes through hired professionals or PR agencies.
I recently noticed that the relevant part of the ACPI article which links to the antitrust exhibit has been removed, and even more insidiously the entire “Criticisms” section has completely gone. This is clearly a case of censorship.
There are two people responsible for this censorship and the details appear in the comments.
The person responsible for this censorship is a man by the name of Jimmi Hugh, whom I believe has a particularly infamous reputation on Wikipedia. One source describes him as “a shameless character with some kind of pro-Microsoft agenda.” █
“Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own unilateral extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this also.”
–Bill Gates [PDF]
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
AlexH said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:03 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advanced_Configuration_and_Power_Interface#Criticism_section_edited
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Very unconvincing. The mail showed bad intent.
AlexH said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Given “the mail” (your source?) fingered the wrong person for removing the reference and accuses him of removing an entire section (he didn’t; he split it in to and the piece removed was nothing to do with Microsoft), I find this hatchet-job on another bystander unconvincing.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm
If you look at the history page for that article, you’ll see the
relevant edits from the 18th of December, including two to reverse this censorship, which were subsequently reverted again by Hugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advanced_Configuration_and_Power_Interface&action=history
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I also see some nice wording there from gentleman Hugh:
“wtf… I merged the data you fucking childish retards”
It smells a little bit like mischief to me.
AlexH said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Yeah, I did actually check the page. Jimmi made _one_ edit on the 18th, and that removed the Criticism section again, yes. But as I pointed out, the information there was split in two, and the “some people don’t implement the standard quite right” paragraph was removed since it’s not a criticism of ACPI.
And Jimmi didn’t, as I said, remove the reference to the MS PDF – that was someone else.
So the History page actually shows things as I said they are. Unsurprising, since I did check my facts before posting my thoughts.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:36 pm
My facts remain correct. You did not falsify them, but you sure try very hard.
AlexH said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Sorry? You’re accusing Jimmi of making an edit he didn’t make, and your “facts remain correct”?
Roy Bixler said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm
It looks like some character named “FreeRangeFrog” deserves the credit for the idea of removing the “Criticisms”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advanced_Configuration_and_Power_Interface#Criticism_section_edited
He believes that the criticisms are only speculation that don’t prove anything and would want to see a “smoking gun” e-mail from Microsoft to prove sabotage of ACPI for others. He has somewhat of a point, but it seems to me that completely removing the criticisms is going too far. Perhaps they could have been restated in more technical detail. The childish comment from Jimmi Hugh certainly does give this a funny smell.
AlexH said,
December 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm
@Roy: precisely.
The comment from Jimmi is that someone has put back text which already exists elsewhere in the page, making it a bad edit (it duplicated existing text).
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 5:01 pm
There is more to it than I wrote here.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 5:02 pm
@Alex
Noted.
AlexH said,
December 29, 2008 at 5:22 pm
@Roy:
There usually is…
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Yes, and I refuse to accept revisionism.
AlexH said,
December 29, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Except when you’re revising the history of edits on Wikipedia
G. Michaels said,
December 29, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I took the time to write up an analysis of what you just said here. When you’re done appending red text to my post, you might want to read it.
If you spend all this time researching “facts” in order to smear someone like this, I think it’s only fair that someone else does the same to correct you.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
December 29, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I took the time to write up an analysis of what you just said here. When you’re done appending red text to my post, you might want to read it.
If you spend all this time researching “facts” in order to smear someone like this, I think it’s only fair that someone else does the same to correct you.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Roy Bixler said,
December 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Here’s what I meant. Instead of completely removing the criticisms section, the author instead could have incorporated the following text from:
http://lwn.net/2001/0704/kernel.php3
and
Why, this sounds to me like something only Microsoft would consider to be a good idea — complex, bloated and insecure.
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 7:27 pm
OK, so wrong target – but the accusation of censorship stands (and Hughs is not entirely innocent either, since reverting a reversion of censorship is also censorship).
Fine, let’s look at the “justification” for this censorship, shall we:
But Wikipedia is not a court of law … there are no “charges”, only facts (this is supposed to be an educational resource, after all), and the documented facts are that Bill Gates wrote his intentions to try to make ACPI not work with other platforms and/or patented to achieve a similar goal.
For informational purposes, it is more than sufficient to provide this court evidence which shows Bill Gates intentions. Like I said, this is not a court of law, it is merely an educational resource. The provided document is genuine and representative of fact. The point that this fact demonstrates intentions rather than proof of actions is wholly irrelevant – it is still nonetheless a genuine and relevant statement of fact, of particular interest to those seeking information about ACPI. That court document is what it is. That’s enough. It doesn’t need to be “evidence” of anything – beyond what Bill Gates wrote.
And as to the relevancy …
“Reads to me”???
In other words, this Wikipedian has basically censored the “Criticisms” section of that article based on his purely subjective opinion. He thinks there needs to be hard evidence of some action, and believes that the simple statement of intention is not in any way relevant, nor of any educational value.
Probably every article on Wikipedia contains statements from the people/companies involved who gave their opinion and/or intentions WRT the subject matter. Should all that be censored too, or only anything which places Microsoft in a bad light?
Inquiring minds want to know.
G. Michaels said,
December 29, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I’m still waiting for your good friend (who no doubt alerted you to my post, because you’re his “source”, drool) to amend his headline and smear job. Perhaps in between appending clever red text to my comments he can find the time to do that.
As to whether or not the edit was valid, I’d recommend you go to Wikipedia and work out your issues there.
Not only do we have Roy here spreading libel (thanks to you), but you also got caught editing the article and “fixing” the reference that is so important to both of you.
In short, busted. Both of you.
And BTW, if you’re going to play apology poodle to Roy, that’s all well and good, and it’s also good that you own up to what you did, but this is still his blog. I notice no corrections and no response from him so far, other than to say “there’s more to this”. I’d like to know what more there is.
So difficult, this “evangelism” business, isn’t it?
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
December 29, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Oh, and sorry for the double post there. My bad.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 7:55 pm
@Gordon Michaels
And just to be clear, there is no “smear” going on.
Fact 1: FreeRangeFrog censored that part of the criticism section dealing with the court evidence which shows Bill Gates’ intentions to make ACPI proprietary to Windows.
Fact 2: Jimmi Hugh then completed the hatchet-job, by completely censoring the entire criticism section.
Fact 3: The statement made in this Boycott Novell article is as follows:
And that statement is factually correct, according to the edit (reversion) he made on the 18th of December.
Tracking down the original point of censorship to FreeRangeFrog does not alter the fact that Jimmi Hugh also performed that same censorship.
So all you’ve accomplished here is to prove that two people are guilty, rather than just one.
If there is anything in any of the above that is not 100% accurate, then please feel free to level the criticism of “smearing”, otherwise perhaps your time would be better spent trying (like me) to determine exactly why this critical information was censored, and have it restored, so that revisionists don’t succeed in burying the truth about that multiple-convicted monopolist – Microsoft.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I was going to point that our earlier.
I modified this headline to reflect on the fact that it’s a dual job.
G. Michaels said,
December 29, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Not even. The last revert by the anonymous IP which restored the entire Criticisms section resulted in FreeRangeFrog deleting the Bill Gates reference only, and leaving the rest of the criticisms section intact. This in effect created duplicate information. The subsequent edit by Jimmi Hugh basically never even touched the Bill Gates reference, because it was already gone, again.
Whether this is “censorship” and they are “guilty” of it is of course your personal opinion. That does not correct the fact that your friend smeared someone because he got an email from you claiming something which is clearly incorrect. Wikipedia has processes to deal with this type of thing.
If you’re worried about the technical aspect of the criticisms, I suggest you read the article because they’re still all there. Although I doubt very much that you’re remotely worried about that part.
My analysis of the changes to that article and the contents of this blog post speak for themselves. And Roy must think he’s being clever by crossing out his name, when he should be removing any reference to him from the article, completely. This is what we call a smear where I come from. He must be familiar with the term, since he spends all his time claiming he’s a victim of it.
Wikipedia is not an evangelism platform, for Sun, Microsoft or your personal techno-dogma. If you have a problem with what happens on Wikipedia, I suggest you take the problem to Wikipedia, instead of being a bit too quick on the libel trigger and using proxies to publish things you don’t want to be seen publishing on your own blog.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 8:22 pm
@Gordon Michaels
Is there anything about that statement which somehow negates the accuracy of this BN article, or is in any other way relevant? It just makes you look like a thug, deviating from the actual issue to throw punches at people who you can’t win the argument against.
Eh???
Busted for what, exactly?
You’re an idiot.
Well you know what they say about libel … truth is the ultimate defence, and everything written in this BN article is demonstrably true. Jimmi Hughes did perform that edit which removed that entire criticism section. Fact. IMHO that is censorship. That last part is merely my opinion of course, and by design opinion can neither be true nor false, but the edit is a fact. The only “libel” here is you continually alleging that we’re engaged in a smear campaign.
We have documented proof of our claims.
Where’s your proof?
Given the subject matter, the fact that we are in the right and you are clearly in the wrong, and the considerable lack of sympathy anyone has for Microsoft and its “supporters”, what possible benefit do you suppose you can achieve by continuing to attack us in this fashion?
To the casual observer, it might seem like the motivation for your attacks were rooted in a desire to unjustifiably defend Microsoft, rather than quibble about who performed exactly what censorship at exactly what time. Both parties are still guilty, nonetheless. And now you are too, apparently – of supporting the “bad guys”.
Unfortunately for people like you, you can’t censor Boycott Novell.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Since the very beginning, “G. Michaels” was here just to attack people, attack the Web site and spin every little thing to create smears against the Web site, so I wouldn’t spend time replying to that vandal.
G. Michaels said,
December 29, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Just like your hit job, which proceeded as follows:
* Your pal Homer notices the link to his blog is gone from the ACPI article.
* He mistakenly thinks Jimmi Hugh is responsible for that edit (please don’t think people are stupid enough to believe that this is about the technical criticisms).
* He looks up his edits on Wikipedia, decides he has a “Microsoft agenda”, and he emails you the “evidence”, because he can’t be seen restoring a link to his own blog, and he can’t work up the courage to edit the page, either. Conflicts of interest and all that.
* You publish your little hit job.
* I rip you a new one, and you promptly inform him that he has to come in here and defend what he did, insults and all (because your friends can insult people here without fear of retribution). And he promptly does.
Did I get all of that right? You don’t really think people are stupid enough to not notice how you do business, right? Please tell me you don’t.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 8:40 pm
But you’ve just repeated exactly the same claim as in this BN article:
Jimmi Hugh removed the entire criticisms section. Fact. That section is now gone because of him. Fact. The point that the criticisms section was also partially censored earlier on by someone else, does not change that fact. IOW there is no factually incorrect statement in the original BN article.
Now certainly, further research would have also pointed the finger at FreeRangeFrog for that reversion to one specific part of the criticisms section, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the statement made is still factual and accurate.
In your eagerness to portray anyone who dares to challenge Microsoft revisionists, you seem to have forgotten simple logic.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 29, 2008 at 8:42 pm
The hecklers and vandals will always spin something, somehow to manufacture dirt. It’s wasteful to feed them. They are here just to cause trouble.
G. Michaels said,
December 29, 2008 at 8:52 pm
And considering it is a link to your blog that you need to have restored here, it makes you look like a coward that uses proxies to attack people without cause or provocation. Again, please don’t insult people’s intelligence by claiming you are distressed about the criticisms section being removed by Jimmi Hugh, since by the time he did that the link to your blog wasn’t even there, and he had worked the criticisms into the rest of your article. You do know how to read a WP diff, don’t you? If you don’t, let me know and I’ll walk you through one.
Organizing a smear job using a proxy based on the removal of a link to your blog by someone you characterized as “a shameless character with some kind of pro-Microsoft agenda.”
Or is it just a coincidence that you decided to come in here to argue with me?
To repeat myself, the libel is as follows: a shameless character with some kind of pro-Microsoft agenda. You just confirmed you provided that for inclusion in the blog post.
Ah, “we”. Yes. You sure have.
Please don’t bring out the “we’re right, you’re wrong and Microsoft is evil so whatever we do is right even if it’s wrong” party line. I’m not that retarded, and I’m sure you aren’t, either. Pointing out that you and your friend are smearing someone because a WP page doesn’t link to your blog is not defending Microsoft. Criticizing your SLOG and the bodies that litter the road behind it is not defending Microsoft. I have no vested interest in Microsoft, other than using their desktop OS to run Emacs, Java and Lotus Notes. If they disappear tomorrow as you so desperately wish they did, the extent of my discomfort would be getting used to booting some Linux distro and running Emacs, Java and Notes there instead.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
December 29, 2008 at 9:08 pm
You seem to be extremely talkative this evening Roy, considering you’re busy appending red text to my posts and you don’t want to “respond to the hecklers” and “vandals”.
By now your readers must have figured out that “heckler” is code for “people who dismantle the things I write, unmask my fabrications and generally make me nervous”. Just like Shane Coyle said.
Oh, and just to justify your red text, here’s a link with evidence of vandalism and trolling by your close collaborator and nymshifer friend ‘twitter’, a.k.a. William H. Hill of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I figure I might as well help you look like a good blogmaster than as a vindictive child on Prozac
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 9:30 pm
@Gordon Michaels
“Did I get all of that right”
It never ceases to amaze me the frothing lunacy that any criticism of Microsoft generates.
For your benefit, here’s the sequence of events:
1. Some time ago, whilst reviewing my Website‘s referrer logs, I noticed a hit from Wikipedia. Being rather pleased (and curious) about this, I followed that URL back to the referring page, but was confused and disappointed to discover that there was no such link on that page. At that time, it didn’t occur to me to check the history page, since (back then) I knew very little about Wikipedia, and didn’t really care about contributing (in fact I didn’t know I was allowed to). I thought nothing more of the incident, and forgot all about it. Since that point, there have been quite a few similar occurrences like that, involving other pages on Wikipedia (e.g. the Yahoo! page). It was a source of mild irritation and mystery to me, but nothing more.
2. On the 18th of December I was again reviewing my Website’s referrer logs, and again I noticed a hit from that same Wikipedia page on ACPI. So with some bemusement I followed the link. This time the link to my site was there, and since (by this time) I was more familiar with Wikipedia, I decided to correct the formatting on that URL link (I was pleased about it, and wanted it to be right).
3. Out of curiosity, I then had a look at the history page for that article, and was somewhat shocked to discover this comment: “Reversed censorship of critisism(sic)”. I was naturally rather disturbed by this, but since the censorship had been reverted, I was content to leave it at that, although I did add the article to my “watch list”, to see who was performing this censorship (I tried and failed to find the exact point where this had happened originally, since there must be hundreds of revisions, and I wasn’t going to sit there doing that all day).
4. Because I’ve been preoccupied with Christmas (like most people) I didn’t actually get around to checking my Wikipedia watch list until yesterday, and that’s when I discovered these reversions, and the rather thuggish comment “Reverted last edits… wtf… I merged the data you fucking childish retards, check the edits, and grow a couple” from that “gentleman” Jimmi Hughes. Since I’d never heard of him before, I researched both him and the talk page for ACPI, and came to the conclusion that it was probably a waste of my time to try to “debate” with such a thug (there have been many legitimate complaints against him). I also completely disagreed with the “rationale” for removing the criticism section, since there was no rationale at all – just one persons rather biased opinion.
5. It became rapidly obvious that I’d be wasting my time trying to reverse this censorship (only to have it reverted again by Hughs) using the conventional methods of reasoned discourse, and anyway I was so disgusted by this thug’s attitude; behaviour and censorship that I decided the best thing to do was “name and shame” him. It was at that point that I contacted Roy, pointed him to the censorship on the Wikipedia page, and described my disgust at the situation.
And in all this, the one point that I failed to mention was that one part of the criticism section, which was completely removed by Hughes, had first been removed by someone else (FreeRangeFrog).
Your response to this has been, rather than share our outrage at this censorship, to falsely accuse us of “libel” and “smear”, when in fact everything we’ve written is factually accurate (if initially somewhat incomplete).
What do you want? An apology? Fine … I apologise for not also exposing FreeRangeFrog as guilty of censorship along with Jimmi Hugh.
Satisfied?
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 9:52 pm
@Gordon Michaels
As for the single phrase you believe makes this article libellous:
1. You assume that I’m the only source for this article? I can tell you right now, I never wrote that phrase.
2. What part of that phrase could be construed libellous? Unless you believe that supporting Microsoft is, in and of itself, some kind of criminal offence, then describing someone as “pro-Microsoft” can hardly be described as libellous, now can it? So the only derogatory part of that phrase is the single word “shameless”. Let me ask you, seriously, how many people in the world do you suppose have ever been successfully prosecuted for calling someone else “shameless”? And the real kicker is, in Hughes case it happens to be demonstrably true (hint: “you fucking childish retards, check the edits, and grow a couple“).
So it seem the basis for every single part of your complaint against us has been completely disproved, and you’ve wasted the entire day doing nothing but making yourself look foolish.
Were you just bored, or did you have an argument with Heather, and decided to take it out on us?
Jimmi Hugh said,
December 29, 2008 at 10:18 pm
It’s a great honour to be mentioned in such a meaningless and non-notable blog. I’d just like to take a minute to thank the kind of people who post and comment on these useless sites; without your unrelenting stupidity, and inability to get facts correct, even when you’re picking only those that support your own incorrect views, then I might not seem even half as intelligent as I do. As it is, with people like you so far below me, I feel almost, god-like, if that was no of course a contradiction in terms.
And now, what is a comment on a blog, without a response that none will consider, even for a moment. Evidently, it seems that research is not a strong suit of Roy Schestowitz, an irony he is no doubt unaware of given his posting comment on a website dedicated to consolidating actual research. Had anyone cared to look back through the edit summaries alone, it was made clear that all relevant facts were merged into the content of the article, because as anyone who spent a second to research Wikipedia would be aware, sections dedicated to criticism are frowned upon for the undue weight they give a single view.
Even more disturbingly, if one was to care about the author and not simply find him laughable and backward, is the fact that while sources are freely available to claim that I am in some way a defender of Microsoft, this “article” feels it needs to fictionalise quotes about my person in order to emulate those real sources of social comment it is so envious of. I can therefore only conclude that this entire site is simply satire, and I do quite enjoy playing along by providing seemingly realistic response for those who come to enjoy the joke.
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 10:20 pm
@Gordon Michaels
Really? I have a “need” for that, do I?
What “need”?
Do I run some commercial Website with royalties for advertising hits, or something? (Answer: no.)
My only “need” is to ensure that the truth about these criminals called Microsoft isn’t buried.
And I absolutely dare you to claim that is “libellous” (Hint: Slated Antitrust)
The only reason this article is on BN instead of Slated, is for the very simple reason that BN gets more traffic (by an order of magnitude), and I wanted to ensure this censorship was exposed to as many people as possible. There’s no big mystery, other than the mystery of why you spend all day; every day; sabotaging this site and attacking Roy?
And yet you seem to spend so much of your free time “contributing” to BN, a site which exists to voice its dissent against the Novell / Microsoft “partnership”?
Why is that?
Jose_X said,
December 29, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I was looking at what wikipedia might have to say on Microsoft, and came to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish . It’s always nice to take a look at what others have to say about EEE. [note date now in case of revisions past this point.]
Despite Jimmi Hugh’s friendly reminder that wikipedia “sections dedicated to criticism are frowned upon for the undue weight they give a single view.” I stumbled upon the following, from which you get to the above EEE link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft . [Do note the title]
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 11:29 pm
@Jimmi Hugh
Welcome Mr. Hugh (sorry, I appear to have referred to you as “Hughes” on several occasions, but it’s late and I’m tired).
May I first thank you sincerely for refraining from using your usual obscenities in your comment. I realise it must be difficult for you, but your effort is greatly appreciated.
I’m sure Roy also appreciates you taking time out from your hectic schedule of revisionism to visit his “meaningless and non-notable blog”, although I must admit I am rather confused as to why you would feel such a pressing need to do so, if it is indeed so “meaningless and non-notable”. Nonetheless, I’m sure the many dozens of readers who enjoy your revisionism of such riveting articles as “ACPI”; “Plug and Play”; and the now legendary “BIOS parameter block”, won’t mind you spending a few moments of your precious time with us on our quaint little site. Such mortals as we, can only gasp in awe at your God-like powers of research, and pray to … er, well you – presumably, that we may one day posses even a small portion of your eloquence and grace. I can but dream.
And so, without further ado, I humbly grovel at your divine feet and beg your permission to proceed with my question to you:
What about this relevant fact?:
That wasn’t “merged” into the article?
Perhaps you could explain why you feel criticism of ACPI is not relevant to an article on ACPI, especially when that criticism concerns a desire by one of the main partners of that standard to exclude others from fully utilising it, and most notably when that ACPI partner has been convicted of antitrust crimes on two continents?
Heaven knows I’d hate to be responsible for a fatal case of frowning. Can’t have that, especially when the cause of that frowning is the truth.
Well since you seem to be claiming that the only “problem” here is the fact that these criticism are all rather inconveniently bunched together in one place, where people can easily find them, then I expect you’ll be looking forward to spending the next few minutes restoring the censored content (from above) somewhere else into the body of the article. All of it, rather than just the bits which don’t embarrass Microsoft (hint: those relevant bits from the antitrust case).
Oh but I forgot, you only censored those other criticisms, not the one linking to the antitrust document (so why are you here then? Oh, the title, right). But here’s the thing, Mr. Hugh (did I get it right this time, oh – OK) … even those parts which you “merged” have been censored, since you’ve taken that which was critical and transformed it into platitudes. Removing “sections” is one thing, but you have completely stripped even the slightest hint of negativity from that article. The points in that censored criticism section need to be said, and not because I am on some kind of “crusade” either, but because one of the most significant individuals involved in the creation of ACPI demonstrated (in hard-copy as court evidence, no less) his desire to pervert and control that standard.
That is very; very relevant, Mr. Hugh.
In English we usually just call that “opinion”.
Slated said,
December 29, 2008 at 11:54 pm
@Jose_X
Dear God! A whole article of criticisms (two in fact).
Looks like the Wikipedia revisionists will be suffering from a bad case of the “frownings” tonight.
Actually, yes I already knew about both of those articles, and I do appreciate the need to minimise redundancy, but you’ll notice that neither one of those articles mentions ACPI at all, and the ACPI article does not link to either one of them either, so the net effect is that this information has been buried (or to put it less diplomatically – censored).
I could understand these comments being removed if they were purely opinion (“Bill Gates corrupted the ACPI standard”), and I could understand if they were removed due to redundancy (see above), and could understand if they were removed because they were wholly irrelevant (the phrase “Microsoft have been convicted for antitrust violations” appearing out of the blue), but what I don’t understand is this citation of patently obvious relevance being removed with no more justification than “to me this reads like…” followed by one person’s series of platitudes.
This document was deemed relevant enough for prosecutors to use in evidence against Microsoft’s monopolistic practices, but it’s not relevant enough to provide balance to an article on ACPI?
And there’s the true irony of this situation, without that section this article is clearly not balanced and is indeed misleading. If the goal of this censorship was to introduce “balance” (where have I heard that before, eh Roy?) then the editors have actually subverted their own cause.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 30, 2008 at 3:32 am
And there goes your credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization#Criticism
Several months ago, after this site make Digg’s front page, someone — nothing to do with me — added a link to us from the article on ISO. That too was removed from the section above, but I never minded and I had nothing to do it with in the first place (other articles of mine are cited Wikipedia for whatever reason, because people find them informative).
Why is it that some people have an axe to grind with those who give a mirror to companies, and the companies don’t like what they see?
AlexH said,
December 30, 2008 at 3:53 am
Actually, his credibility is fine, because he’s espousing the documented Wikipedia policy which he was following:
Which is exactly what happened.
This site’s credibility continues to swirl around the soil stack, however. All of this energy to attack one guy, and why? Because he removed a single paragraph from a Criticism section which wasn’t even criticism (and certainly nothing to do with Microsoft). How vociferously these attacks must be supported, and how we must repeat the “fact” that this is someone with a Microsoft axe to grind, even the face of no factual evidence whatsoever.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 30, 2008 at 3:58 am
AlexH,
Have you ever said anything other than positive about Microsoft’s actions in your hundreds of comments, despite being presented with breaking of the law (there are more obvious examples)?
Do you justify what BillG did in this case?
SR said,
December 30, 2008 at 4:11 am
Good Christ on a stick.
I wait a year to be free of my being *forced* to run SLED, and being afraid to post because of, and I see this crap?
Dissenting but credible posts are red-marked? Logic gone out the window? Opposing voices speaking in logic censored with red?
God almighty. I append Astronomy articles *all the time* on Wiki, because there’s always some nutter who wants to throw in Niburu, Ancient Astronaut, or Viri Come from Venus crap into credible articles.
Editing the irrelevant nutter junk from Wiki can be a *good* thing. Would it still be censorship if someone proclaimed the Novell-MS deal the greatest thing to ever happen to *nix, and I removed it? Would it still recieve a harsh article?
How sad for a website I had several articles lined up for until I, myself, was censored by corporate
AlexH said,
December 30, 2008 at 4:18 am
@Roy: trying to label me as a Microsoft defender isn’t going to distract people from the attack you’ve just perpetrated on someone who we’ve comprehensively shown hasn’t done the things you’ve accused him of.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 30, 2008 at 4:20 am
Excuse me? He removed (censored) what I said he did.
AlexH said,
December 30, 2008 at 4:24 am
Er, no, Roy. Do keep up.
You accused him of removing the link to a PDF involved BillG. He didn’t, and even your “source” (who turns out to be an IRC buddy) admitted that.
You also accused him of removing an entire section of criticism. He didn’t; he incorporated it into the article and removed a single paragraph which wasn’t even criticism.
You can argue black is white until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t make it so.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 30, 2008 at 4:25 am
There were two people participating in this censorship. Since it’s not just this one guy, I modified the headline.
G. Michaels said,
December 30, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I updated the article on my site, where people can make up their minds as to whether or not you and your friend “in the right”.
And really Roy, if you two are just being dense (as opposed to merely dishonest), do let me know and I will gladly walk you through reading a Wikipedia article history sequence and interpreting diffs. I figured them out about three days after I joined the site.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
December 30, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Oh, here is the link again, in case someone missed it. And do remove that duplicate comment I made by mistake Roy, it’s OK.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
December 31, 2008 at 5:23 am
Oh, and you might want to also delete Jimmi Hugh’s name from the headline (not just strike it out), and remove the libelous statement (or reveal your “source” for it).
I think that would be the correct thing to do.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Roy Schestowitz said,
December 31, 2008 at 5:29 am
To quote:
G. Michaels said,
December 31, 2008 at 5:54 am
This is the first paragraph of the original criticisms section:
Worked into the article by Jimmi Hugh. You did notice that, did you not?
This is the second paragraph of the original criticisms section:
Also worked into the article by Jimmi Hugh, as per WP policy on standalone criticisms sections.
This is the third paragraph, which is the one that pointed to your friend’s blog:
This part was never touched or otherwise modified by Jimmi Hugh. You can read my analysis if you feel so inclined, and notice that in both instances where he actually touched the Criticisms section, the Bill Gates email reference and the link to your friend’s blog were already gone.
To quote your friend, who replied to Jimmi Hugh’s comment with the following:
Neither he nor you impress anyone by pretending you care one iota about the two paragraphs of technical criticisms, but even if you actually did, they were not removed by Jimmi Hugh but worked into the article. That means there is no censorship whatsoever, except perhaps in the case of the link to your friend’s blog, which was removed by the FreeRangeFrog user, not the target of your smear.
Really, I’m not sure how many more times I need to explain that to you and your friend? Do you require a translation to another language, perhaps? My Spanish is rusty and my French sucks, but I can give it a go.
Are the Wikipedia diffs not evidence enough for you and your friend?
So please, remove Jimmi Hugh’s name from the headline, and remove your libelous statement, or reveal your source. Although I’m pretty sure that there is no source.
Thank you.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
December 31, 2008 at 6:03 am
Aside from manually appending your red text to my comments as soon as I post them, you are going to reply, or you are going to remove Jimmi Hugh’s name from the headline, and you are also going to remove your libelous statement in the body of the article.
Right? When can your readers expect that? Soon?
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
December 31, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Roy? Are you planning on removing the name of the person you smeared from the headline, as well as the libelous statement you made?
When can that be expected? Soon?
http://sites.google.com/site/gordymichaels/thoughts-on-advocacy/hit-jobs-gone-wrong
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Todd Razuri said,
December 31, 2008 at 10:52 pm
While I agree that this is neither censorship nor vandalism, and Roy’s response has been nothing more than disgraceful, posting the same thing over and over again is probably not going to accomplish anything, just like your repeated posts about that twitter chap accomplished nothing, either.
G. Michaels said,
January 1, 2009 at 4:32 pm
@Tood,
If I managed to warn just one person about the kind of crap they were dealing with when they engaged in discussion with ‘twitter’, then that was enough.
As for this, imagine for a second if you were the target of the smear. I think it’s necessary for someone to bring this to attention somehow, especially given the constant claims that this blog is as important as Groklaw and the INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF MASSIVE TRAFFIC it allegedly gets, which according to the proprietors (I’m sorry, single solitary operator now, I forgot) somehow validates the contents.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
January 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I forgot… So Roy, are you planning on removing your smear from this article soon? When can your readers expect that?
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Jimmi Hugh said,
January 2, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@Slated
Thank you for the surprisingly warm welcome, while I didn’t plan to post again, given your presentation of arguments that sound almost logical, I thought it only fair of me to respond. You’ll be surprised (given your lack of research) to find that there’s no effort in me using the tone of comment I use in all constructive conversations and that I only bother refraining to obscenity and rudeness because I’m childishly bad at communicating in situations where discussion seems impossible. For example when the entire opposing argument is that I have taken action which I have in fact not taken at all… or when my edits are reverted without thought or consideration.
You can imagine, as it’s Christmas time, I’m not actively editing Wikipedia, Microsoft gave me the holiday off from my career at an opposing company where we write software in direct competition with them… I responded because while the blog is meaningless, given the laughable arguments and by definition non-notable given the (relatively) low traffic, it was slandering me to the extent that someone felt the need to post a rebuttal on my behalf, and therefore the polite thing to-do is to respond. I’m afraid to say though, that despite you wishing your importance that high to me, if it had been pressing I would have bothered sooner and probably remembered to return with slightly more haste. I’m sure you considered the rest of your drivel to be very clever, but as I never claimed to be god-like in any way, I’d hate to respond to someone who can’t actually understand the language I am using.
And in response, very simply, I did not remove that fact, not even on a single occasion while simply repeating a well considered removal. In defense of the edit, while I’ve never actual made any such edit, Wikipedia is not a source of original research and any consideration of that fact formed by comment and a direct link to evidence is not referencing secondary sources as required by the Wikipedia policy. The fact wasn’t merged into the article purely because it was not present when I made comment, and the reason I did not restore the edit was that it was against all policy. If you wish to add the information, please do so, I have absolutely no love of Microsoft, who without, I would have a far better paying job, and a larger market for the Operating System developed by my employers.
Obviously, because I assume you understand Wikipedia and aren’t simply making up its purpose before commenting, I can tell you that my opinion on the situation concerning anti-trust against Microsoft does not matter in the slightest. In fact any point not relevant to ACPI, like that one, is of no concern to me because I don’t synthesize facts or make any assertions of my own.
Perhaps you misunderstood my reference to Wikipedia policy; it breaks my heart to see someone without the mental capacity to understand the basics of a language they claim such fluency in. I never commented that the content was against policy, only that sections dedicate to criticism were best left out of articles that wanted to achieve any sort of readability. If the content is acceptable (based on the other policies, I’ve never mentioned here) then it should be written into the article, much in the same way I merged all the criticisms that existed at the time I made my edits.
As I am a volunteer in editing Wikipedia, I will of course not be doing that. There are many editors happy to be harassed into making edits, and you yourself are welcome to make them. If you make fair edits based upon policy, I will be the last person to revert them. I don’t feel any responsibility to make the restoration because I have no problem with the edit, and because I did not remove the information, you seem in a far better position to make the edits instead of complaining about someone who didn’t do what you claim.
You may wish to research the definition of the word censorship, which (obviously) does not apply to this case. Wikipedia is not a public forum, it is a Website that while open to public editing, is governed by a set of policies, none of which support the edits in question. Perhaps if you stopped worrying if you’d spelt Ritchie Hugh Blackmore’s middle name correctly and more time learning to properly command the English language you could have more productive discussions about improving Wikipedia, and perhaps the world, instead of simply arguing point with no basis in fact. Of course I stripped negativity; in the same way I didn’t add comments saying “ACPI is an awesome standard from those top lads at Microsoft”. This is an encyclopedia, it is cold, factual interpretation of verifiable secondary sources, and I have so little bias, it’s almost funny that you waste your time on me. If you want to find criticism and source it, please do, I disliked implementing the ACPI standard in my hobby OS for those very reasons, but my personal opinion once again, does not matter, we cannot source the primary source that derives criticism first hand, you have to reference actual criticism. That is relevant (you’ve probably managed to work out my second name is not Hugh) only on a website dedicated to sourcing facts about Microsoft business practices, it is very, very irrelevant to Wikipedia.
Actually, in English, or at least that correct English used here in England, that’s called a quote, and fictionalising one instead of taking one of the many public ones from my Talk page is called slander.
@ Roy Schestowitz
I hate to correct you, I’m sure you were simply misinformed of the facts and unable to access the internet to spend the few seconds it takes to check the facts before making comment. There are two pertinent and quite clear policies followed by editors of Wikipedia. One is that criticism sections are “bad”, the other is that no article, however highly considered, sets a precedent. Obviously you were probably aware of this and simply forgot, because you seem to have referenced an article and believe it to somehow “prove” me wrong.
I don’t understand your final comments, but assuming you, in your infinite wisdom, think Microsoft stupid enough to hire a Brit from a competing company who has a horrible temper and swears at illogical argument instead of keeping his cool, I promise you, as many discussions I have had on Wikipedia will show, I have no bias for Microsoft, and I certainly don’t work from them. They don’t need a defender, and they certainly won’t find it in me.
I would like to thank you for a chance to argue my case. While I’m sure my points will go unheard, I’ve been irritated since an article I spent much of the little free time I have working on was irresponsibly reverted with complete lack of though and no consideration of myself. While no editor on Wikipedia is more important than another, the fact that my edits were ignored in some editors’ crusade against Microsoft was enough to drive me to permanently mark the edit history of that page with unnecessary comments I might one day, come to regret.
G. Michaels said,
January 2, 2009 at 7:54 pm
ROY! You totally have to append some red text to Hugh’s posts! He’s clearly too dangerous and disruptive! He makes sense! Attack!
And by the way, are you planning on removing his name from the headline soon? When can that be expected by your readers?
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Slated said,
January 2, 2009 at 8:50 pm
@Jimmi Hugh
Thank you Mr. Hugh for your epic response. It would seem this humble site is becoming ever-more “notable” in your estimation, since you’ve chosen to dedicate so much of your valuable time to posting here. I’m sure Roy is as honoured as I am.
It may be difficult to grasp, but keep trying, and I’m sure you’ll get there in the end. Promise.
You’re far too modest.
G. Michaels said,
January 2, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Q: How can you tell someone has been smeared?
A: They try to defend themselves.
Q: How can you tell when the smear has gone terribly wrong?
A: The perpetrators spend an unholy amount of time and energy trying to keep justifying it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Ad hominems and creative sniping of posts help, too.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Jose_X said,
January 2, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Slated, I collated some of the replies you made that I felt were key to deciphering what is going on here since apparently there was a bit of confusion initially.
See this comment for the small list: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/02/microsoft-seeds-of-doubt/#comment-57270
Wrt the double starred comment (**) on there that was addressed to me, I agree with you. I think you misunderstood my sarcasm. AlexH did correctly show later on that criticism sections are disapproved by wikipedia policy (I didn’t know), but as you mentioned, a mostly correct article written in less than perfect style is preferable to an article that picks the stylistic nit but misrepresents certain types of historical facts.
You made a number of good points which I won’t try to recap here since people can just read the primary sources.
Jimmi Hugh said,
January 2, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Hehe, ok this one is simply for fun. Obviously there’s no point when you actually picked words out of entire statements and tried to argue them instead of the points. It’s a beautiful example of my very comments about the quality of this site and it’s users that you’re making such a fool out of yourself. Once again, it’s absolutely no problem at all, fascinatingly, my posting on this single article will not increase the sites traffic, and as long as its quality stays so low, nothing will increase its popularity. I do try indeed to grasp the stupid and illogical, but you’re all so foreign to me, that it really will take work to lower myself to your level.
Now, on the topic your inability to master the English language. I said I was bad at communicating in situations where I’m talking to people like you, and in fact, the statement you made proves the point I was making, no one can debate that point, they just have to sit back at laugh at your desperation.
Correct, your claim was that I censored something, I did not. That’s of course simply a lucky point, as the opposing argument comes from Roy, and not from you, and his point was indeed a complete fabrication, to the point I had moments in which I honestly believed this to be complete satire.
Your inability to understand context would suggest you’re in serious need of medical inspection. As is clear to anyone who reads my post before examining your arguments, my claims of slander were directly aimed at the fabricated quote, I never once mentioned your apparent accusations, and I certainly made no comment on them.
Perhaps you’d benefit from a dictionary? I’m all too happy to help define the odd word, but such unrepresented stupidity is completely new to me. The terms you should look up next are metaphor and comparison. It’s a questionable metaphor, but clearly a comparison to a feeling of god-likeness, definitely in no way a claim to be like a god. That’s of course obvious from the original statement and in no way in need of explanation; but like I would with a baby trying to grasp use of the alphabet, I feel I have to reiterate for the chance you’re not missing the vital component of mind. I’ll be kind and attribute that to your total stupidity and beg you to at least pretend to make arguments that don’t sound like they’re straight out of a comedy sketch.
Ahh, am I to assume you’re American then? Both unable to comprehend factual historical data, but under the impression that the language you speak is English. I’m sorry to disappoint you, with statement of actual fact (a word you’d do well to research) but I’m speaking English, and while you clearly use the words, your ability to understand it, is far from “getting the hang of it”. See that, I quoted something that was actually said by a person, your friend Roy would do well to learn from that.
Erm… That’s pretty much all any logical person could possibly have to say on that topic, you just completely proved my point, the E-mail is entirely a primary source, and policy (as I stated in the quote) requires reference to notable secondary sources which make comment on primary sources. Perhaps you could add the word “non-sequiteur” (non sequitur?) to your dictionary reading list. It’s the definition of the opposite of what my quote was, and I’m sure you can’t work out the rest.
I did not remove the criticism at al. I merged all of the information into the article without even the slightest amount of censorship. The fact that you don’t believe the points to be critical is a reflection on you, not upon Wikipedia, but does bring into question why you care about any of this if you don’t believe the criticism to be critical in any way. Unless of course, no, it couldn’t be that you mean the critical points were removed? That would mean you were wrong, entirely, and a complete idiot, which I am of course certain is not true.
My assertions were indeed true, so thank you very much for agreeing.
I do apologise for misspelling a word. I know with your extremely small brain, it must be hard for you to comprehend a sentence without every word being correct, especially when you can’t comprehend them when it’s entirely correct. I will try my hardest to get those words correct, and you try your hardest to actually combine the words into a sentence instead of reducing yourself to making irrelevant comment when your arguments are embarrassed to the point of no return.
I have absolutely no objection to the inclusion of factual, pertinent criticism of ACPI in your personal website. Unfortunately, I have this thing about following Wikipedia policy when I make edits there, and referencing primary sources, as I have stated before (and you would know if you bothered to check the policy so you wouldn’t sound misinformed) is against policy, so I won’t be doing that.
I’m glad we cleared that up.
Likely it is, you see my term “merged” has these horrible non-biased, uncaring and unemotional connotations; whereas yours has highly misinformed liberal connotations.
Thank you for the offer, but I prefer to stick to a good English dictionary, I’d hate to ruin my extensive quality book collection with any reference you would refer to. However, if you’d like to purchase a real dictionary, you should look up the word, realise your mistake and apologise. Perhaps that’s doubtful though, as you seem to have gone to the dictionary and come back under the impression there is more than one definition of obviously. Obviously (the real one) that isn’t so, at least not in any context under which it was used, so perhaps you should pick up a child’s book on how to read dictionaries first.
Once again, you show an acute inability to understand context, or in fact isolated sentences written in the English language. It’s clear from the fact I made reference to his middle name at the same point in my response to your “comments”, that it was in reference to your incorrect use of his name, as represented in my username.
It has indeed been a good week for me. I assume you meant good, and then were sarcastically listing events which didn’t occur because there is simply no way anyone is that stupid. I never claimed to correct you, I simply advised you to spend less time worrying about his name, advice which I’m not surprised you were unable to take, and so you continued to discuss it, because you can’t think of a single honest argument that could in anyway assert the claim that I have ever taken part in censorship.
Awww, now I feel sorry for you, you honestly are so incapable of using the basic functions of your brain, that you had to spend time researching and comprehending basic literary mistakes which any person with a less than average IQ could have easily seen through. I am so sorry for your. It must be horrible.
What happens to be true exactly? You claim that a lot, and yet, not one of your accusations or arguments to support your accusations has ever been correct.
Yes we do, once again I win the prize for upholding Wikipedia policy, absolutely no bias, no emotion; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I will be negative about ACPI on my personal website, not in an article on Wikipedia.
Jose_X said,
January 2, 2009 at 10:58 pm
OK. I see.
I went back and read the link to a comment by FreeRangeFrog from the first reply at the top. FreeRangeFrog explains why he removed the reference.
I may not agree with everything FRF said (would need to research more), but the conservative view seems to be to drop that section at least pending some “notable” source doing a write-up that implicates a major player.
Jose_X said,
January 2, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Well, I reread the section that was removed (see http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/29/jimmi-hugh-wikipedia-censorship-on-ms/#comment-57016 ), and I *do* see how that 3rd paragraph is relevant to an article on the whole of ACPI.
Jose_X said,
January 2, 2009 at 11:45 pm
I think this blog is fine G Michaels.
Wikipedia says this about what wikipedia articles can contain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies :
>> No original research
Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a “novel narrative or historical interpretation.”
Here is the paragraph that was removed:
>> A desire on the part of Bill Gates, the then-CEO of Microsoft, one of the ACPI partners, was that ACPI, despite being an open industry specification, be made to operate well only with Windows operating systems. An internal memo from Gates, dated January 24, 1999, presented in the Comes v. Microsoft anti-trust case (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3020),[10] Gates muses on the merits of making ACPI extensions “somehow Windows specific.”, continuing to say “If (sic) seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.” In the same memo, he suggests defining “the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others, even if they are open.”
What does the entire email say? The above looks like a very conservative repetition of what I imagine to be the contents of the Gates’ email.
It doesn’t contain any “unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, ….”
I think it was a mistake to remove that paragraph since an email by the CEO of such a major player in ACPI (with OS monopolies) is clearly relevant to a history of ACPI.
From what I gather, Jimmi did take this third paragraph out, even though he claims his decision was justified.
This looks like censorship to me. It looks like, intentionally or not, with ill-will or not, working on behalf of Microsoft or a Microsoft proxy or not, Jimmi was responsible for this censoring of that information.
From http://www.answers.com/censor censor means
>> To examine and expurgate.
Censorship is the practice of censoring.. etc.
Now, G Michaels, this is the title of this blog entry:
>> Microsoft and Jimmi Hugh: Wikipedia Censorship or Just Vandalism?
but with “Jimmi Hugh” struck out.
And this is the key part of the story:
>> I recently noticed that the relevant part of the ACPI article which links to the antitrust exhibit has been removed, and even more insidiously the entire “Criticisms” section has completely gone. This is clearly a case of censorship.
>> The person responsible for this censorship is a man by the name of Jimmi Hugh
The only possible objectionable portion of this is the use of the word “insidiously”, at least to the extent one may think it applies to Jimmi (vs Microsoft) and that one believes Jimmi was acting in good faith (not to imply he wasn’t).
Jose_X said,
January 3, 2009 at 12:18 am
Apologies, G Michaels.
http://sites.google.com/site/gordymichaels/thoughts-on-advocacy/hit-jobs-gone-wrong This was useful. I misunderstood/forgot that the other poster removed that paragraph.
If the first 2 para were worked into the article then the censorship (of the 3rd para) was by FreeRangeFrog not by Jimmi. Jimmi may have acted in bad faith and/or with knowledge of what FRF did.. or not, but the censorship should not be credited to him (and bad faith should not be assumed).
Roy, ..agreed?
Now, who is this FreeRangeFrog person… if this is even a person.
Dan O'Brian said,
January 3, 2009 at 1:54 am
You’d think after Roy and his cronies were caught making false accusations the first time, they’d learn to spend more time researching before making any new claims. Alas, this has not been the case. It would seem that Roy has instead begun making more and more claims, each more easily defeated than the last. This has gone on for years now.
Slated said,
January 3, 2009 at 5:53 am
@Jimmi Hugh
I looked for anything of relevance in your last response, but alas it seems to be nothing more than a rambling diatribe of dull wit and bitter rebuke, non of which actually disproves the claims at hand.
So (as you might say) I “merged all salvagable[sic] points”, and all that remains that is worth responding to is as follows:
1. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such should be an unbiased representation of pertinent fact, but your assertion that the court evidence (or any of the other critical points against ACPI) is not an unbiased and pertinent fact, is merely your opinion, and one which I happen to strongly disagree with.
2. No, I am not, nor do I ever intend to be, an American.
Slated said,
January 3, 2009 at 6:00 am
@Gordon Michaels
Sounds like a fairly accurate description of your daily activity, “Gordy”. I wonder what your wife Heather thinks of you spending all day attacking this Website. Maybe you should consider taking up something more relaxing, like Golf.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 3, 2009 at 6:20 am
Jimmi,
You’ve really steered away from the subject in that last comment.
FWIW, this post came after a conversation that I had. It was my own choice to raise this here as an issue and I stand by my convictions, which seem to involve two culprits, not just one.
G. Michaels said,
January 3, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Is it? Maybe it’s because I’m on vacation, unfortunately for you and your little smear operations that I’m sure you’d like to have pass unnoticed when they go terribly wrong. I’d like to thank Roy for posting this during my PTO break, BTW
Ooooh, implied threats with personal information gleamed from my site. Isn’t that what your buddy Roy calls “the SLOG”?
Tell you what, I can give you her cell number and you can call her. Just let me know so I can arrange to tape the whole thing. My wife is one of those women who don’t take shit from anyone, so it will be fun to hear her tell you to go fuck yourself (now that we’re into personal stuff) in that delightful Kennedy-esque accent of hers I love so much.
Hey, at least I don’t hide behind pseudonyms and sockpuppets like so many of the BoycottBoys.
Maybe you and your buddies would like to stop organizing hit jobs on people who don’t think like you.
And for the record, I hate golf.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
January 3, 2009 at 11:23 pm
The desperation evident on your friend Homer’s (Slated) comments pretty much eliminate that possibility.
For purposes of what you actually care about, it’s only one. You smeared the wrong one.
BTW, are you planning on removing his name and your libel from the article? When can your readers expect that? At least two of your supporters have already expressed their support for the evidence that proves you’re completely wrong and just doing damage control at this point.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Slated said,
January 4, 2009 at 5:55 am
@Gordon Michaels
You must have been “on vacation” for the entire month of November too.
Oh and please do feel free to pass on your wife’s contact details. If she ever found out what a poisonous little troll you’ve become, I bet she’d divorce you in seconds flat. Then again, I find it hard to believe that a compulsive obsessive personality as twisted with bitterness as yours, could possibly conceal that bitterness from your own family for very long, so she probably wouldn’t be especially surprised by the news. Please give her my condolences.
G. Michaels said,
January 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm
One has to justify the little red text appended to all of one’s comments
You seem positively fascinated by the fact that I’m married. I’ve seen that before online but I still fail to understand it. Why do you find my wife so interesting? Are you one of those sad nerds for whom getting laid involves cash transactions and industrial strength condoms? I just can’t fathom why you would even bring things like these up.
I suppose “obsessive-compulsive”, “poisonous” “thug”, “troll”, “idiot”, “bitter”, “twisted” and all those impressive-sounding adjectives you seem to like so much are just compensating for the fact that I ripped you and your buddy a new one. How else could all this abuse be explained? I doubt it’s because you’re glad and thankful that I helped you realize you smeared the wrong person.
http://sites.google.com/site/gordymichaels/thoughts-on-advocacy/hit-jobs-gone-wrong
(BTW Roy, since you’re about to take the time to paste your red text to my comment, please consider also righting your wrongs and removing Jimmi Hugh’s name and your libelous statements from this hit job)
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Shane Coyle said,
January 5, 2009 at 8:54 am
Thank you, Gordon, for staying on top of this one, your analysis sems to be fairly spot-on in regards to the timing of the edits, I am no Wikipediologist, but I think I get it – and you’re right. I won’t get into speculating on anyone’s motives, but it sure looks like the edit in question was not by Mr. Hugh.
I also would like to simultaneously thank Mr Hugh for dropping by as well as apologize to him – obviously this article, after undergoing scrutiny, has some factual errors that need to be addressed. I trust that it is underway, if not I will have a look.
As I have demoted myself to commentator for the time being, I would like to see BN further empower some of our community members voices – specifically, if this is Slated’s article then why don’t we bump him up to contributor and allow him his own by-line? Likewise for Jose_X and anyone else who has contributed in the past, or is interested.
It is my New Year’s resolution to participate in more discussions here, and hopefully help steer the discussions on-topic and towards the "truth".
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 5, 2009 at 9:04 am
Hi Shane,
It’s not Slated’s article. I saw the edits that he told me about (he’s typically in IRC) and maybe misjudged a little in my analysis, which ought to have shown 2 people — not one — responsible for that censorship.
I’ll correct the post some more by clarifying that another person was mainly involved.
G. Michaels said,
January 5, 2009 at 7:08 pm
@Shane,
You are welcome. Actually, thank you for posting. I was beginning to feel like I was arguing with children on a playground and needed an adult to step in.
Unfortunately, Jimmi Hugh’s name still appears rather notably in this, shall we say, article, and in fact now the first item in a Google search on his name happens to be this, shall we say, article. I understand your point about motives, but whether or not you consider this a smear or “hit job” as I’ve called it, I think the proper thing to do here would be to remove any references to him, completely. I hope you’ll agree that’s the right thing to do.
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
Jose_X said,
January 8, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Here is a sample I wrote up to possibly add to the ACPI article. It has problems however…
***
–Weaknesses with protocols of this nature and some business models
This proto requires a portion be implemented by the hardware vendor and a portion by the OS vendor. In cases where either of these parts is closed source and produced by a different entity than the other, there will be mismatches (bugs and/or other issues[[gates letter]]). This is particularly true for such a complex protocol as ACPI[[linus quote link]].
Some companies get around the closed source issue through NDA agreements, but this doesn’t solve the problems for their competitors[[linux foxconn]]. This is particularly troublesome when a single company dominates the software OS market[[ms monopoly usdoj link]] as ACPI would then provide yet another impediment to support such a monopoly.
***
If people like it let me know, but it has a number of problems I think.
I wrote a second version…
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 8, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Jimmi says criticisms are frowned upon.
Jose_X said,
January 8, 2009 at 6:15 pm
This second version is probably very roughly worded and also incomplete in details, but I think it shows a better approach…
***
–[ACPI] Market take-up
The main consumer desktop operating systems use parts of this protocol plus extensions.
Because of the wide market share enjoyed by the family of closed source operating systems produced by Microsoft, Microsoft has tremendous leverage against their hardware partners, who need to support Microsoft’s proprietary extensions in order to remain competitive; thus, we find closed source ACPI extensions within the hardware to match the closed source extensions within Microsoft’s OS.
This presents a real challenge and barrier to competing OS with much smaller market share and leverage. We got a glimpse of the extension incompatibilities scenario when ..[foxconn refs].
There is virtually no doubt that the CEO of Microsoft understands the value of closed source and of similar closed source tie-ins with their hardware partners[[various usdoj gates/execs quotes]], in particular wrt ACPI [[gates letter]].
***
Does anyone know if ACPI has ever been brought up in antitrust documentation/plans?
To defend any part of these paragraphs aggressively, we should be able to support that section fairly directly and conclusively through references.
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 8, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I believe that Microsoft settled Comes vs Microsoft too early (I consider bail or settlement illegitimate because it means that rich entities can bribe their way out of justice and pay to carry on committing crimes).
Jose_X said,
January 8, 2009 at 6:29 pm
>>Jimmi says criticisms are frowned upon.
I think Wikipedia prefers that criticisms be integrated into the sections where they apply rather than to be bunched up in one place. However, of course, if legitimate criticisms exist, even putting them all together into a catch-all Criticisms section is better than not including them.
Wikipedia describes the ideal and then recognizes that no article is ideal. Future edits can try and find a better home for individual criticisms.
Now, in the main Wikipedia article about ACPI, I think what is described in the earlier comment above (version 2) is important information very closely related to ACPI, even though that material is not related to the spec.
The material would be included in a section about market adoption of ACPI.
But, worst case, it would be included in a criticisms section.
The main goal for this Wikipedia article (I think we can all agree) is to say everything of importance in relation to ACPI and to be able to back it.
Shane Coyle said,
January 8, 2009 at 11:22 pm
@G. Michaels:
I agree that not only should Mr. Hugh’s name be removed, but I’m not so sure that Microsoft should remain either, unless it should be revealed somehow that "FreeRangeFrog" and⁄or Jimmi Hugh are in fact working at their behest.
I’m ambivalent on whether or not this is editing or censorship (I’ve ruled out vandalism), and it mostly seems like an argument for Wikipedia editors to hash out in terms of the proper way to include critical viewpoints while avoiding the frowned upon "criticisms section", and whether the material in question is on-topic – arguments that likely occur continuously on various Wikipedia topics not involving Microsoft at all.
macman said,
January 9, 2009 at 3:01 am
Shane, you are a very welcome voice of reason on this blog! Coming back to this place in the role of a commenter, you could act as a kind of mediator between Roy and the rest of the world and re-gain this site some of its long-lost credibility.
AlexH said,
January 9, 2009 at 3:33 am
@Shane: the BillG quote undoubtedly belongs on Wikipedia somewhere, but probably on an article about Microsoft. Although they talked about doing things with ACPI, there’s no actual evidence that they actually did it – ACPI, it seems, is sufficiently screwed up that they didn’t need to actually follow through.
Shane Coyle said,
January 9, 2009 at 10:55 am
Although they talked about doing things with ACPI, there’s no actual evidence that they actually did it.
Exactly, there’s a difference between expressing a desire or just talking and actually engaging in a conspiracy… for all we know, BillG received an email from legal that said "slow down, bud – antitrust".
Folks in the U.S. will likely be familiar with Governor Blagojevich and his alleged intent to ‘sell’ president-elect Obama’s vacant U.S. Senate seat – the Feds jumped the gun too early and tipped their hand, now he had the opportunity to instead appoint a ‘clean’ candidate.
Now, can we find somewhere in the archives some further proof of a followup to this or another company that was on the receiving end of one of those BillG emails, we’d be getting somewhere.
(and, it’s entirely possible that ACPI is so screwed up because of this, as is alleged – just it can’t be proven with current facts, yet.)
Note: writer of this comment is trying to make it seem like everyone gets one of these cool disclaimers on their comments.
AlexH said,
January 9, 2009 at 11:54 am
@Shane: if proof is required, you generally don’t need to look much further than the blogs of ACPI hackers and search for curse words
Jealous of the red footer
Shane Coyle said,
January 9, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@AlexH
We’d have to prove that it’s not only buggy and poorly written/designed, but that it is intentionally so due to coordinated efforts to exclude competitors, not just ineptitude.
We have the espoused intent or desire to bork ACPI documented, as well as the apparent resulting poor implementation, we just need some proof of the coordination in the middle… an email, or a disgruntled former employee of one of the companies involved, something.
Note: writer of this comment is trying to make it seem like everyone gets one of these cool disclaimers on their comments.
AlexH said,
January 9, 2009 at 12:27 pm
@Shane: oh, indeed. I doubt that such a thing is possible; indeed, if it was co-ordinated, it would at least have been co-ordinated in Microsoft’s favour. Seems Vista has similar troubles to Linux…
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 9, 2009 at 12:37 pm
In the coming days, I will post more obvious examples of technical sabotage from Microsoft.
AlexH said,
January 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm
More vendor extensions to CSS?
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 9, 2009 at 12:58 pm
No. Antitrust material.
G. Michaels said,
January 11, 2009 at 12:04 am
More obvious than this smear, or less? And when can your victims expect the removal of their names? Pretty soon? And what does that have to do with this particular hit job of yours, if you don’t mind me asking?
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
G. Michaels said,
January 11, 2009 at 12:05 am
@Shane,
Thank you again, and I totally dig your disclaimer. Soon now everyone will want one
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.
twitter said,
January 12, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Thanks for all of the links above, they have helped out my ACPI, M$’s Power Management Poison journal. I’m amazed by the time and effort wasted by the hecklers here but glad to see it backfire on them like that. It is clear that ACPI is the technically difficult thing that Bill Gates ordered regardless of how M$’s lawyers tried to cover ass.
ACPI Wikipedia article sabotage goes back farther than noted here. The first article was ACPI, as seen in this 2005 view with lots of links to useful GNU/Linux information. It’s pretty easy to connect the dots here and see a common interests from a company that admits to paying people to edit Wikipedia. Article mergers, deletions of sections, crapflooding with uninteresting details and the use of multiple accounts to do so are just elaborate means to the same ends. It’s basic censorship and historical revisionism.
G. Michaels said,
January 19, 2009 at 1:16 am
Engrossing reading indeed.
Backfire? Maybe you’re reading another article. What we have here is a smear gone terribly wrong, solid proof of it, people who agree with said proof, and rather weak and desperate attempts at holding up the fort by your friends using ad hominems, miscellaneous insults and veiled threats. Might I interest you on the proof I offered? Here it is, in case you missed it for some reason. I would highly recommend reading through it carefully. Other people did and came to the same conclusions.
Really Will (why don’t you use your real name, btw?), your “gut instinct” does not count here. That’s why Wikipedia has that wonderful history feature, so people can see the evolution (or I suppose in some cases, devolution) of articles. Maybe you’d like to offer proof of your claims. I for one would be happy to take a look at it.
In fact, maybe Roy could ask David Gerard, who is a respected WP admin and seems to be a regular here, to run checkuser on some of the authors and analyze the IP addresses that have edited the article. That would certainly help clear or solidify conspiracy theories, wouldn’t you say?
But like proof of your so-called personal attacks and targeting by Microsoft, I suspect that will be not really forthcoming any time soon.
WP is not a link farm, and your exciting view of “useful GNU/Linux information” was POV at best, off-topic if not. You probably know this. But the wonderful thing about WP is that anyone can edit it. So if the current state of the article is such an epic insult to your intellect and all that is good and holy with your choice in technologies, then I suggest just editing the article to suit your tastes. Be bold! As long as you follow WP policies and procedures, I’m sure you’ll be OK.
And Roy, I was wondering when you were planning on removing Jimmi Hugh’s name and the slanderous claims from a “source” you fabricated about him from the article? It’s been almost a month now. I have to tell you, I find it highly amusing that you keep going on about how you are outraged at how everybody “slanders” the things you care about, while you happily engage in the same attacks yourself. Not only that, but you seem to lack the maturity to accept your mistakes and correct them.
How do you expect to be taken seriously in light of things like these?
Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.