Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:18 am

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (T-H-L)

My God, have you Wikipedians no since of decency? Why on earth can't you wait a few months before they actually complete their investigations and figure out what the crap happened? Are you bastards really no better than the idiotic vultures in the media picking apart half-truths and false information for ratings? You owe it to your readers and human decency to get the truth.

I'm going to be physically ill. I go away for a weekend and come back to this shit? I think I'm going to take some time off from anything related to Wikipedia. Sickening.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:42 am

The Joy wrote:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (T-H-L)

My God, have you Wikipedians no since of decency? Why on earth can't you wait a few months before they actually complete their investigations and figure out what the crap happened? Are you bastards really no better than the idiotic vultures in the media picking apart half-truths and false information for ratings? You owe it to your readers and human decency to get the truth.

I'm going to be physically ill. I go away for a weekend and come back to this shit? I think I'm going to take some time off from anything related to Wikipedia. Sickening.

Um, people deal with this sort of news in different ways, but very very often it involves talking to people about what happened. This particular case is all over the internet, and in daily life, because in a world where horrible things happen on a daily basis, this one stands out (for various reasons we needn't go into). It would be really, really odd if Wikipedians responded by *not* writing about it based on what the media etc says; this is simply the performance of a natural human instinct in the manner they're used to. Non-Wikipedians are doing the same thing elsewhere in their own way.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:52 am

rd232 wrote:
The Joy wrote:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (T-H-L)

My God, have you Wikipedians no since of decency? Why on earth can't you wait a few months before they actually complete their investigations and figure out what the crap happened? Are you bastards really no better than the idiotic vultures in the media picking apart half-truths and false information for ratings? You owe it to your readers and human decency to get the truth.

I'm going to be physically ill. I go away for a weekend and come back to this shit? I think I'm going to take some time off from anything related to Wikipedia. Sickening.
Um, people deal with this sort of news in different ways, but very very often it involves talking to people about what happened. This particular case is all over the internet, and in daily life, because in a world where horrible things happen on a daily basis, this one stands out (for various reasons we needn't go into). It would be really, really odd if Wikipedians responded by *not* writing about it based on what the media etc says; this is simply the performance of a natural human instinct in the manner they're used to. Non-Wikipedians are doing the same thing elsewhere in their own way.

That's a terrible excuse. If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?

You can't get reliable information so soon after a catastrophe like this. You need time, patience, interviewing, and due diligence. Journalism should focus on what can be absolutely confirmed before jumping to conclusions. Wikipedia should wait until there is calm and some consensus among the secondary resources before creating an article about it. Right now, it's all a mess with so much conflicting information and everyone from gun nuts to anti-gun nuts is running around the Internet and media clouding up the issue. The rational people who want to wait and see and begging for calm are rarely believed.

This is a reason why I don't think an encyclopedia should allow for "current events." It doesn't help that there are Wikipedians that enjoy being the first to give out the bad news for the sake of ego. The latter angers me more than ever. Is waiting a month, at least, really that hard?

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:09 am

May want to merge this thread into this one. Not important if it's a pain in the neck to do so. I'm on "the joy's" team on this one.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:17 am

And I'll quote myself, from earlier in this forum, on this issue:

"Accretion" is a workable way of conducting responsible wire service journalism. It's been practiced, with ever greater levels of refinement, since Krakatoa last blew its top. In the late 20th century, this approach came to be known in US circles as the "four paragraph lede." Start with the basics, flesh out (and correct) as you go along on a big story. This is journalism. First draft of history blah blah blah.

But as a method of any kind of scholarship, or encyclopedia writing, it has always been and remains dreadful. As a term of art inside of journalism there's a type of story called a "tick-tock" -- a blow by blow of something that developed over weeks or months, after the fact. The tick-tock is generally a narrative device. A well executed and reliable one is a good place for an academic researcher to begin his inquiry. The little crows of Wikipedia think a tick-tock is the be all, end all, the academic destination. It's one of the reasons I find Wikipedia articles so awful (and, of course, Wikipedia tick-tocks have not the narrative coherence or respect for logical flow that an effort from the lamest US regional paper would have).

A sub-par tick-tock on a news story is the very best that Wikipedia comes up with. Why? Because there is no editorial control from people committed to fully understanding a subject and who have the editorial judgement to separate the key moments from the trivial, the red herrings, the false. If it was once published in a reliable source it's worth including, you see.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:24 am

The Joy wrote:That's a terrible excuse. If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?

That's not what I'm saying. It's more like having a rumour going round about someone jumping off a bridge and expecting people not to talk about it. In days gone by, such conversations would be intrinsically private. Today, they're often at least semi-public on the internet.

The Joy wrote:You can't get reliable information so soon after a catastrophe like this. You need time, patience, interviewing, and due diligence. Journalism should focus on what can be absolutely confirmed before jumping to conclusions. Wikipedia should wait until there is calm and some consensus among the secondary resources before creating an article about it. Right now, it's all a mess with so much conflicting information and everyone from gun nuts to anti-gun nuts is running around the Internet and media clouding up the issue. The rational people who want to wait and see and begging for calm are rarely believed.

But when the internet is in turmoil and journalists don't know what's what either, a current events article, intrinsically rapidly developing, can help process what information there is. We just don't live in a "wait til it's in tomorrow's newspaper" world any more, in which case, the question is really whether Wikipedia should exclude itself from those chaotic work-in-progress news processes. Arguments for that (around constructing useful *encyclopedic* articles on events, rather than reams of related articles full of minutiae) have nothing to do with your initial sentiment in this thread though.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:46 am

Why do people shoot up schools? Because the news media gives them attention. It's not violent movies, not violent video games. It's the reporters who cause mass shootings. And of course, the reporters refuse to admit they are to blame.

Charlie Brooker, 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ezlFNTGWv4

Roger Ebert, 2003:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 70301/1023

And more:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20866 ... ss-murders
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 14904.html

“because every time we have intense saturation coverage of a mass murder, we expect to see one or two more within a week.”

Wikipedia is simply following the "sterling example" provided to them by their loyal fans, average working-stiff journalists. The people who write most of Wikipedia's "reliable sources".

Meanwhile, overall homicide rates in the US are declining.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-lev ... 92032.html

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:16 am

rd232 wrote:
The Joy wrote:You can't get reliable information so soon after a catastrophe like this. You need time, patience, interviewing, and due diligence. Journalism should focus on what can be absolutely confirmed before jumping to conclusions. Wikipedia should wait until there is calm and some consensus among the secondary resources before creating an article about it. Right now, it's all a mess with so much conflicting information and everyone from gun nuts to anti-gun nuts is running around the Internet and media clouding up the issue. The rational people who want to wait and see and begging for calm are rarely believed.
But when the internet is in turmoil and journalists don't know what's what either, a current events article, intrinsically rapidly developing, can help process what information there is. We just don't live in a "wait til it's in tomorrow's newspaper" world any more, in which case, the question is really whether Wikipedia should exclude itself from those chaotic work-in-progress news processes. Arguments for that (around constructing useful *encyclopedic* articles on events, rather than reams of related articles full of minutiae) have nothing to do with your initial sentiment in this thread though.

What?

That's... not what encyclopedias do! I just checked Britannica Online and they have nothing on the Sandy Hook shooting yet. They'll wait until all, or at least most, of the facts have been accounted for before someone writes an article. The situation is fluid and emotional. I don't want half-truths, false information, hysteria, or the like coming from the news media or encyclopedias. I want the plain truth. It's unethical and universally immoral. I can concede that those that started and are subsequently editing the article are not intending harm, but they are causing harm. While there are Wikipedians that try to limit harm, the libertarian "WP:NOTCENSORED" culture of Wikipedia creates an environment where few give a damn about journalistic ethics, common sense, and human decency.

Kevin · Unread post by **Kevin** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:12 am

rd232 wrote:But when the internet is in turmoil and journalists don't know what's what either, a current events article, intrinsically rapidly developing, can help process what information there is. We just don't live in a "wait til it's in tomorrow's newspaper" world any more, in which case, the question is really whether Wikipedia should exclude itself from those chaotic work-in-progress news processes. Arguments for that (around constructing useful *encyclopedic* articles on events, rather than reams of related articles full of minutiae) have nothing to do with your initial sentiment in this thread though.

What? If journalists, and by extension the media, don't know what's what, how on earth can random amateurs possibly help the readers understand better? You can't process poorly informed speculation and get anything other than poorly informed speculation.

Wikipedia should absolutely exclude itself from chaotic work-in-progress news processes, because it is not a news orgaisation.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:42 am

If wikipedia was responsible(yeah, I know), they would have some sort of embargo on current events for at least a month. When big events happen the relevant article becomes a free for all because everyone wants to be the one that edits the page first with the news. Is there a WP:NOT the Newspaper policy?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:51 am

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/16/lt ... dia-sites/

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:25 am

lilburne wrote:http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/16/lt ... dia-sites/

Discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1409

Yes, it's a mess. Wikipedia's not helping.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:35 am

The Joy wrote:
rd232 wrote:But when the internet is in turmoil and journalists don't know what's what either, a current events article, intrinsically rapidly developing, can help process what information there is.
What?
That's... not what encyclopedias do!

Obviously. Whatever value there is in a current events article (if any), it's not an encyclopedic one.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:41 am

rhindle wrote:If wikipedia was responsible(yeah, I know), they would have some sort of embargo on current events for at least a month. When big events happen the relevant article becomes a free for all because everyone wants to be the one that edits the page first with the news. Is there a WP:NOT the Newspaper policy?

Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper (T-H-L) I think I did at least once suggest such an embargo. Never going to happen.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:50 am

The Joy wrote:
lilburne wrote:http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/16/lt ... dia-sites/

Discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1409

Yes, it's a mess. Wikipedia's not helping.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. Wikipedia may repeat errors from other media and social media (and obviously it would be better if they didn't), but the nature of the editing process on a current events article means errors probably get corrected more quickly and more clearly than in many other places.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:53 am

Another School Shooting(tm)

Not notable.

Applies to every shooting these days...

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:58 pm

TEACHERS should be given assault rifles, America’s bastard pieces of shit said last night.

US must choose between some gun laws and inoculating everyone against insanity

Right-wing Republicans responded to the country’s latest and most heart-breaking massacre by being their usual horrific fucking selves.

Texas Congressman Louis Gomhert reckoned the absolute best thing he could say was that the teachers should have been armed, but then refused to admit he was a festering turd who should be made to say sorry forever.

And Larry Pratt, head of the Gun Owners of America, insisted it was gun control supporters who had ‘little children’s blood on their hands’ in a move psychiatrists said was either pathologically sadistic or some kind of Tourettes Syndrome.

But Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: “Don’t let them off the hook with talk of ‘mental illness’.

“They really are just horrendous bastards who drink from an open sewer and then breathe it over everyone.”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 2121753763

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:52 pm

Wikipedia will not stop current-events reporting – in part because in cases like the Japan earthquake, its fast coverage has been praised. As an overview of what the latest media reports have said, it's not bad – but of course it's a question of garbage in, garbage out.

The question is how soon, and how many, newspapers will go belly-up when readers go to Wikipedia rather than to news sources for their news. Wikipedia's free, central news aggregation may end up killing off some of the "reliable sources" it relies on.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:48 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Wikipedia will not stop current-events reporting – in part because in cases like the Japan earthquake, its fast coverage has been praised. As an overview of what the latest media reports have said, it's not bad – but of course it's a question of garbage in, garbage out.

The question is how soon, and how many, newspapers will go belly-up when readers go to Wikipedia rather than to news sources for their news. Wikipedia's free, central news aggregation may end up killing off some of the "reliable sources" it relies on.

I think the newspapers are doing a perfectly fine job of going out of business without Wikipedia's help, real or imagined.

General statement here: I think Wikipedia does a decent job "aggregating news" for big breaking events like the recent Connecticut shooting. Big stories are very tightly monitored for vandalism and misreporting. It's not part of WP's formal function, but it is a function that has evolved. If the commercial Newsertainment web sites (known as Newspapers in a former century) want to attempt to do a comparably good job, which almost none of them do, there's nothing stopping them.

I think the entire notion of "reliable sources" is pretty asinine, I add. There is right and wrong information. There are sources that provide more or less right information. There are disputed facts, the debates of which need to be detailed. There are blank spots of coverage which need to be illuminated. So-called "reliable sources" is an idea pulled out of someone's backside and refined by control-freak bureaucrats who linger in the now discredited world of "Verifiability not Truth." The criteria for inclusion at WP should be verifiability and veracity.

RfB

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:43 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... l_shooting

Ugh... I think I'm going to be sick again.

However, I'm glad that some are fighting for accurate information and against the "We must post immediately with little to no good information!" crowd. I'll have to look at the conversation more closely later to see who are the good guys.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:05 am

What will be interesting is when authorities ultimately find out and report that Adam Lanza was a prolific Wikipedian, how will that be addressed in the Wikipedia article about his murderous rampage?

Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:07 am

thekohser wrote:Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?

The chances are quite good. I've already done searches on "Lanza" in userpages, talkpages, noticeboards etc, and come up with nothing. So he didn't use his real name. Without more information about his interests, there's not much else to try.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:26 am

thekohser wrote:What will be interesting is when authorities ultimately find out and report that Adam Lanza was a prolific Wikipedian, how will that be addressed in the Wikipedia article about his murderous rampage.

Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?

Myself, I'm waiting to see how the right wing talking heads deal with the emerging information that mama was a survivalist nutbag that taught her little crazy boy how to shoot...

RfB

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:22 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:What will be interesting is when authorities ultimately find out and report that Adam Lanza was a prolific Wikipedian, how will that be addressed in the Wikipedia article about his murderous rampage.

Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?
Myself, I'm waiting to see how the right wing talking heads deal with the emerging information that mama was a survivalist nutbag that taught her little crazy boy how to shoot...

RfB

I used to have as a hobby target shooting.
So I'm not a leftist gun-confiscator (if such a thing exists outside of rhetoric).

NRA fanatic at work tried to sell me on the proposition that "If only the kids had been trained about gun safety, fewer would have been shot."

I just walked wordlessly away, as far away as I could, went outside for a few minutes and inhaled the rain-fresh air.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:36 pm

The Joy wrote:My God, have you Wikipedians no since of decency?

Bwahahaha, "decency". You're talking about the Arsehole Rescue Squad mentality at play here; they don't wait for anyone, any thing or any time. Some local papers write a funny blurb about a dead cat with heli blades on its paws? Article. Woman on the phone walks into a mall fountain? Article. Some plane dips a wing on a runway causing a crash? Article.

These people have taken Jimbo's "the sum of human knowledge" comment to heart, and way to literally. Decency, shame, and responsible journalism are foreign concepts.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:11 pm

Zoloft wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:What will be interesting is when authorities ultimately find out and report that Adam Lanza was a prolific Wikipedian, how will that be addressed in the Wikipedia article about his murderous rampage.

Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?
Myself, I'm waiting to see how the right wing talking heads deal with the emerging information that mama was a survivalist nutbag that taught her little crazy boy how to shoot...

RfB
I used to have as a hobby target shooting.
So I'm not a leftist gun-confiscator (if such a thing exists outside of rhetoric).

NRA fanatic at work tried to sell me on the proposition that "If only the kids had been trained about gun safety, fewer would have been shot."

I just walked wordlessly away, as far away as I could, went outside for a few minutes and inhaled the rain-fresh air.

Strangely enough, I fit that category of leftist gun collector.

As for having the kids armed, I can just see the mayhem when Johnny and Bobby argue over who gets the next swing ride or who hit the ball out at four square.

The NRA is a cancer on the face of responsible gun ownership. They feed into the black UN helicopters, tin foil hat survivalist ... thing.

The other argument they bring it that the second amendment is designed to allow citizens to overthrow the government if things stray too far. This is absolute nonsense. Your little bands of fat, middle aged men running around the woods with a couple of rifles are going to fold like a tissue when infantry backed by Apaches show up. It might have been true in the late 1700s, but I'm not convinced.

The current situation is that we have 300M guns in private ownership and no good solution to prevent the 0.1% of whack-a-moles from using them.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:25 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:What will be interesting is when authorities ultimately find out and report that Adam Lanza was a prolific Wikipedian, how will that be addressed in the Wikipedia article about his murderous rampage.

Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?
Myself, I'm waiting to see how the right wing talking heads deal with the emerging information that mama was a survivalist nutbag that taught her little crazy boy how to shoot...

RfB

All over the Ron Paul sites:
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012/12/ ... o-testify/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012 ... eories.php

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:15 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:What will be interesting is when authorities ultimately find out and report that Adam Lanza was a prolific Wikipedian, how will that be addressed in the Wikipedia article about his murderous rampage.

Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?
Myself, I'm waiting to see how the right wing talking heads deal with the emerging information that mama was a survivalist nutbag that taught her little crazy boy how to shoot...

RfB

The Christian Fundamentalists are having a field day. It puts the worst of Wikipedians to shame.

A sample of the bile out there:

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:07 am

Tarc wrote:
The Joy wrote:My God, have you Wikipedians no since of decency?
Bwahahaha, "decency". You're talking about the Arsehole Rescue Squad mentality at play here; they don't wait for anyone, any thing or any time. Some local papers write a funny blurb about a dead cat with heli blades on its paws? Article. Woman on the phone walks into a mall fountain? Article. Some plane dips a wing on a runway causing a crash? Article.

These people have taken Jimbo's "the sum of human knowledge" comment to heart, and way to literally. Decency, shame, and responsible journalism are foreign concepts.

As well as ghoulishness.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:21 am

The Joy wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:What will be interesting is when authorities ultimately find out and report that Adam Lanza was a prolific Wikipedian, how will that be addressed in the Wikipedia article about his murderous rampage.

Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?
Myself, I'm waiting to see how the right wing talking heads deal with the emerging information that mama was a survivalist nutbag that taught her little crazy boy how to shoot...

RfB
The Christian Fundamentalists are having a field day. It puts the worst of Wikipedians to shame.

A sample of the bile out there:

Somebody should point out to that dumb ass that it was a right wing homeschool grad that "went where got wasn't welcome" and butchered first graders.

Hey Larry, got him on speed dial???

RfB

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:34 am

The Joy wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:What will be interesting is when authorities ultimately find out and report that Adam Lanza was a prolific Wikipedian, how will that be addressed in the Wikipedia article about his murderous rampage.

Member of the Technology Club at school. Then home schooled. Withdrawn. Socially awkward. Possibly Asperger's. Does anyone here have a doubt that he had at least 100 edits on a Wikipedia User account?
Myself, I'm waiting to see how the right wing talking heads deal with the emerging information that mama was a survivalist nutbag that taught her little crazy boy how to shoot...

RfB

The Christian Fundamentalists are having a field day. It puts the worst of Wikipedians to shame.

A sample of the bile out there:

How does that guy explain this then...

http://www.wnd.com/2007/12/45077/

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:03 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ination%29

Well, there was an attempt to delete it under "Wikipedia is NOT a Newspaper," but no luck.

As for the Christian Fundamentalists, Wikipedians are talking about adding their reactions. In fact, it may become an article all on its own!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandy ... _reactions

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:36 am

The Joy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ination%29

Well, there was an attempt to delete it under "Wikipedia is NOT a Newspaper," but no luck.

Maybe because "Bonkers the Clown" nominated it.

Anyway, here's further clue that Lanza was a Wikipedian. Didn't want anyone to get his admin bit.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:26 am

thekohser wrote:Anyway, here's further clue that Lanza was a Wikipedian. Didn't want anyone to get his admin bit.

According to this, he was also playing Call Of Duty on Xbox Live. They're arguing about that on the COD forums (all of which are completely crazy, paranoia-saturated places). Other online shooter games have similar arguments on their forums. No proof of anything.

http://elitedaily.com/elite/2012/adam-l ... bed-drugs/

According to a plumber who worked at the home in Newtown, Adam Lanza was ‘obsessed’ with weapons and violent video games such as Call of Duty.

Peter Wlasuk, 45, said the windowless basement, where Lanza’s older brother had lived previously, was all but self-contained with computers, a TV, a bed, and a bathroom.

Predictably, the UK tabloids are screaming about it. (Speaking as a crass American, the Sun is simply amazing. Is there a single story they can't misrepresent and turn into evidence of mortal sins? There's nothing comparable in the US, except for celebrity websites like TMZ.)

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:36 am

EricBarbour wrote: Predictably, the UK tabloids are screaming about it. (Speaking as a crass American, the Sun is simply amazing. Is there a single story they can't misrepresent and turn into evidence of mortal sins? There's nothing comparable in the US, except for celebrity websites like TMZ.)

The daily mail is far worse than the sun in the UK. The sun's readership are the poor and working class. The daily mail is aimed squarely at the voting middle classes. They both spin (make shit up too in the case of the mail) to their audience....

The games industry is well equipped to handle this in the UK now, there is plenty of data that backs up games dont have adverse effects on people. And since they just got some massive tax breaks as an industry, they are not about to let sensationalist shit rock the boat. There are some well respected MP's fighting their battles in the commons now too.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:27 pm

Here is a PhD post-doc fellow's assessment of the Wikipedia article about Sandy Hook and other shooting massacres:

How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting?

Lots of pretty graphs. No discussion of the ethics of anonymous, openly-edited news journalism.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:23 pm

thekohser wrote:Here is a PhD post-doc fellow's assessment of the Wikipedia article about Sandy Hook and other shooting massacres:

How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting?

Lots of pretty graphs. No discussion of the ethics of anonymous, openly-edited news journalism.

I've had a quick glance at Keegan's PhD. I notice that references to synthesising information or knowledge creep into double figures. Do we want to try to invite him to a new thread that discusses how all this synthesis fits with WP:SYN?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:15 pm

eppur si muove wrote:
thekohser wrote:Here is a PhD post-doc fellow's assessment of the Wikipedia article about Sandy Hook and other shooting massacres:
How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting?
Lots of pretty graphs. No discussion of the ethics of anonymous, openly-edited news journalism.
I've had a quick glance at Keegan's PhD. I notice that references to synthesising information or knowledge creep into double figures. Do we want to try to invite him to a new thread that discusses how all this synthesis fits with WP:SYN?

Let me take a crack of some "synthesis" of my own. The Virginia Tech shooting was far more "interesting" to Wiki-nerds, because it happened on a
major American college campus, and most of the victims were students. And Wikipedians tend to be American college students of the penile variety.

Prediction: if someone goes to a popular gaming or science-fiction convention and mows down 20-30 people with an assault rifle,
the resulting Wikipedia article will grow faster and be more heavily edited than any article in Wikipedia's entire history. It will put those
graphs of the Virginia Tech shooting article to shame.

Versus · Unread post by **Versus** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:36 am

Why wikipedia shouldn't be a newspaper. Well it wasn't Ryan J. Lanza and now it turns out Adam Lanza's mother was not a teacher at the school:

https://twitter.com/AlexNBCNews/status/ ... 5836113921

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =528054353

Had wikipedia just waited until the situation was clearer, mistakes like the above could have been avoided.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:42 am

thekohser wrote:Here is a PhD post-doc fellow's assessment of the Wikipedia article about Sandy Hook and other shooting massacres:

How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting?

Lots of pretty graphs. No discussion of the ethics of anonymous, openly-edited news journalism.

I should add that this particular article got lots of comment activity out of Wikipedia's resident Siberian white wolf fur-boy, Silver seren.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:16 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: Somebody should point out to that dumb ass that it was a right wing homeschool grad that "went where got wasn't welcome" and butchered first graders.

Hey Larry, got him on speed dial???

RfB

'cos with children dead, the most important thing is the politics of the accused. No, really, it's vital that we know it wasn't one of "your" lot. Much, much more important than any debate about child-safety, gun control or care for the mentally ill is making sure that you get a political dig in.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:43 pm

Notvelty wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: Somebody should point out to that dumb ass that it was a right wing homeschool grad that "went where got wasn't welcome" and butchered first graders.

Hey Larry, got him on speed dial???

RfB
'cos with children dead, the most important thing is the politics of the accused. No, really, it's vital that we know it wasn't one of "your" lot. Much, much more important than any debate about child-safety, gun control or care for the mentally ill is making sure that you get a political dig in.

Once more into the breach
http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/ ... 3.271.html

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:50 pm

lilburne wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: Somebody should point out to that dumb ass that it was a right wing homeschool grad that "went where got wasn't welcome" and butchered first graders.

Hey Larry, got him on speed dial???

RfB
'cos with children dead, the most important thing is the politics of the accused. No, really, it's vital that we know it wasn't one of "your" lot. Much, much more important than any debate about child-safety, gun control or care for the mentally ill is making sure that you get a political dig in.
Once more into the breach
http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/ ... 3.271.html

Awesome. Favourite-ised.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:56 pm

One of the participants in this topic is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:2010_SO16&diff=528132442&oldid=526301597

I've been editing Wikipedia from IP addresses since at least 2005 [...]

I generally don't trust people who post these sorts of disclaimers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Paum89&diff=519077343&oldid=516678348

I am a long-time IP editor who created an account for privacy concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cupco&diff=509665546

Hi, I'm focusing on some things where I thought I had to be logged in....

Users who post such disclaimers are generally building cover stories. Who's knows? Perhaps 2010_SO16 is one the few with an honest disclaimer.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:35 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:I generally don't trust people who post these sorts of disclaimers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Paum89&diff=519077343&oldid=516678348

I am a long-time IP editor who created an account for privacy concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cupco&diff=509665546

Hi, I'm focusing on some things where I thought I had to be logged in....

Both "This account is a suspected sock puppet of Nrcprm2026 and has been blocked indefinitely."

Users who post such disclaimers are generally building cover stories. Who's knows? Perhaps 2010_SO16 is one the few with an honest disclaimer.

He only lasted 12 days; and his edit history looks familiar, except for the Sandy Hook dispute. I think he's a sock of one of the pro-science POVers.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:44 am

EricBarbour wrote:Both "This account is a suspected sock puppet of Nrcprm2026 and has been blocked indefinitely."

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Users who post such disclaimers are generally building cover stories. Who's knows? Perhaps 2010_SO16 is one the few with an honest disclaimer.
He only lasted 12 days; and his edit history looks familiar, except for the Sandy Hook dispute. I think he's a sock of one of the pro-science POVers.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:34 am

Just finding this now. Yeah, 2010_SO16 is Cupco. I received an email from someone with evidence before I saw it discussed here ...

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:49 pm

Alison wrote:Just finding this now. Yeah, 2010_SO16 is Cupco. I received an email from someone with evidence before I saw it discussed here ...

Thanks. I decided to look for Cupco socks after I saw Sj suggest unbanning him:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiptoety#Cupco (permalink)

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:16 pm

Oh, right, we're talking about Salsman here. That guy is amazing. Very smart, hopelessly in love with the Magic Wiki, and yet a miserable nitpicking
pain in the balls everywhere he goes. And still can't figure out why he's banned.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:25 am

Huge sprawling debate going on at the deletion debate for the wholly unnecessary International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (T-H-L):

This comment caught my attention:

I can think of several ways to improve the article and reduce the focus of news. However, with deletion threatened that is like telling someone to do work with a gun pointed at their head. There have been quite a few commentaries in the foreign press, much more than just some condolences by heads of government. Auchansa (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis mine. Do people like that think before they write?