EconLib and the spam blacklist

[Pudeo]

Not that many people follow the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (T-H-L) noticeboard or the log. There's no need to keep an eye on that because the spam blacklist is just used for malware sites and porn spammers, right?

One of the most interesting examples on that blacklist is Econlib.org, a website for the Liberty Fund (T-H-L). That is an American right-wing libertarian think tank and a publishing house which hosts the The Library of Economics and Liberty. It also hosts blogs under the title EconLog.

Although this is a staunchly libertarian think tank, its Concise Encyclopedia of Economics has been contributed to by several left-leaning Nobel laureates like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and James Tobin as well. The Econlog is written by many present academics.

The site was added to the spam blacklist by JzG (T-C-L) in March 2017, as a part of a batch of 27 websites used by paid-editor Vipul (T-C-L) related to immigration law. Econlib.org stands out because many of the other websites are of completely different nature, such as law office websites that offer help with green cards.

JzG also removed many of the links and wiki sentences referenced to the site in wholesale deletions. There was an ANI thread about that in March 2017. Even Snooganssnoogans (T-C-L) had this to say about the site: "Econlib definitely has good content and pieces published by it have often been quoted or cited in reliable secondary sources. Many of its authors are AFAIK professors of economics", so it hardly can be considered a fringe publication.

According to the spam blacklist archives, various users have requested removing the site from the list 15 times. Each time JzG or Beetstra (T-C-L) have refused to remove it, despite threads in which there seemingly is a consensus to remove it (August 2017 example).

In the August 2017 thread, Beetstra stated that Vipul's aim was SEO (search engine optimization) which makes it WP:SPAM. He also stated that Vipul (real name Vipul Naik) is connected to Bryan Caplan (T-H-L), as they have written a book together. Caplan, a George Mason University professor, in turn is "connected" to Econlib. This is rather flimsy, because apparently Caplan doesn't own or host any of it, just writes a blog there.

JzG has said that the name Library of Economics and Liberty is "Orwellian-titled". He also opined that "The Liberty Fund is a fundamentalist libertarian group, and its publications serve that agenda" in denying yet another call to remove it from the blacklist. Clearly no personal bias at play here.

I wonder if it's still indefinitely blacklisted in, say, 2027 because Vipul added some links to it a decade ago? And as a bonus: WikiLeaks is currently being considered to be added to the spam blacklist because it hosts copyright violations.


There is a 2009 ArbCom finding of fact that JzG misused the spam blacklist in a content dispute he was involved in.

[Poetlister]

This is a good example of the way that admins with strong POVs can bias Wikipedia. I don't know if ArbCom would consider that a review of the blacklist is within its remit. It's not exactly a content dispute, and nor is it on the same footing as the decision to downgrade the Daily Mail, which at least had some sort of debate even if it wasn't exactly by a representative body of editors.

[Bezdomni]

No discussion at WP:RSN, unabashedly deceptive burial in a stack of black-listings... yeah, that pretty much stinks the stench.

Not entirely surprised to see Snoog singing in the Chicago economist's choir for that matter either. Someone not wearing a WIKID-19 mask (my gag = Chicago and Indianapolis are both in post-depression Amerigo) should bring that to RSN.

Crush your KPIs
Delight Visitors in 150 Milliseconds
Better than BoZos

source

[Moral Hazard]

The library of liberty publishes excellent books.

When I was interested in market socialism and workers' cooperative, I picked up Alchian's selected writings there, cheaply. I think they publish Adam Smith's writings, etc.

[Death To Wikipedia]

The Daily Mail is often cited in reliable sources, and has countless columnists considered experts in their field. No (suitable) evidence was presented to back any of the claims made about the Mail's supposed unreliability, and some that was, was ironically, fabricated.

To this day, the claim that the Mail is unreliable, fails verification in Wikipedia's own article on the publication. It's fake news. Who cares? Nobody cares. Nobody has even noticed, because nobody ever checks whether Wikipedia is what it claims to be, an encyclopedia.

Guy Chapman (JzG) was instrumental in both decisions.

There's really nothing you can do to stop these Level 10 Wikipedians from getting what they want.

It's been an open secret that the spam list isn't just for spam, for decades, just like it was an open secret Bbb23 likes peeking through bedroom windows.

[Poetlister]

To this day, the claim that the Mail is unreliable, fails verification in Wikipedia's own article on the publication.

So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source and no article can be cited as such elsewhere on Wikipedia.

[Death To Wikipedia]

To this day, the claim that the Mail is unreliable, fails verification in Wikipedia's own article on the publication.

So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source and no article can be cited as such elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The fuck do you mean so what?

On what planet should the people claiming they live and die by their reliance on reliable sources, get away with deciding a source is unreliable, using unreliable means?

Lest you forget, because in truth this is the really fucking important part. Reliable sources on Wikipedia are not used simply to reassure the public that their quiz answer is hopefully correct. It is also the primary means the Foundation claims that living people are protected from harm arising from things said on their platform as they go about their internal business, stuff like deciding if a source is unreliable. Stuff like, y'know, people at this paper "routinely fabricate" their stories, even "direct quotes". And those are, direct quotes.

[Poetlister]

To this day, the claim that the Mail is unreliable, fails verification in Wikipedia's own article on the publication.

So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source and no article can be cited as such elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The fuck do you mean so what?

On what planet should the people claiming they live and die by their reliance on reliable sources, get away with deciding a source is unreliable, using unreliable means?

Lest you forget, because in truth this is the really fucking important part. Reliable sources on Wikipedia are not used simply to reassure the public that their quiz answer is hopefully correct. It is also the primary means the Foundation claims that living people are protected from harm arising from things said on their platform as they go about their internal business, stuff like deciding if a source is unreliable. Stuff like, y'know, people at this paper "routinely fabricate" their stories, even "direct quotes". And those are, direct quotes.

I mean that it is irrelevant whether the Wikipedia article describes the Daily Mail as reliable or unreliable, because you cannot use a Wikipedia article to decide what is a reliable source. Obviously, a reliable source in Wikipedia terms is a source deemed by policy to be reliable. And policy is set by the community. If there is a discussion that concludes that your posts on here are reliable sources, so be it.

[Death To Wikipedia]

To this day, the claim that the Mail is unreliable, fails verification in Wikipedia's own article on the publication.

So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source and no article can be cited as such elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The fuck do you mean so what?

On what planet should the people claiming they live and die by their reliance on reliable sources, get away with deciding a source is unreliable, using unreliable means?

Lest you forget, because in truth this is the really fucking important part. Reliable sources on Wikipedia are not used simply to reassure the public that their quiz answer is hopefully correct. It is also the primary means the Foundation claims that living people are protected from harm arising from things said on their platform as they go about their internal business, stuff like deciding if a source is unreliable. Stuff like, y'know, people at this paper "routinely fabricate" their stories, even "direct quotes". And those are, direct quotes.

I mean that it is irrelevant whether the Wikipedia article describes the Daily Mail as reliable or unreliable, because you cannot use a Wikipedia article to decide what is a reliable source. Obviously, a reliable source in Wikipedia terms is a source deemed by policy to be reliable. And policy is set by the community. If there is a discussion that concludes that your posts on here are reliable sources, so be it.

You entirely missed the point. It's not about using the article, it's about what their inability to have their articles match their claimed reality says about their judgement and ethics.

But on a point of fact, if they could stand this claim up in their article, their policy justification would be met, indisputably. Indeed it would have been the easiest and least controversial means to do so, saving them all those accusations of bias, and worse. Begs the question then, why didn't they do it? Because the claim is horseshit.

[Poetlister]

You entirely missed the point. It's not about using the article, it's about what their inability to have their articles match their claimed reality says about their judgement and ethics.

But on a point of fact, if they could stand this claim up in their article, their policy justification would be met, indisputably. Indeed it would have been the easiest and least controversial means to do so, saving them all those accusations of bias, and worse. Begs the question then, why didn't they do it? Because the claim is horseshit.

Obviously, there are many questions to be asked about the judgement and ethics of some Wikipedia editors. However, it is unlikely that the people who use the Daily Mail as a reference are among those who voted to declare it unreliable. Indeed, most of them were probably unaware of the discussion.