Hypocritical Electronic Frontier Foundation concerned only about bloggers

The hypocritical Electronic Frontier Foundation claims to be concerned about defending the rights of all Internet users but is in fact concerned only with defending the rights of bloggers. The "About EFF" webpage says,
.

From the Internet to the iPod, technologies are transforming our society and empowering us as speakers, citizens, creators, and consumers. When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990 — well before the Internet was on most people's radar — and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. From the beginning, EFF has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights.

However, the EFF website is concerned only with defending the rights of bloggers. The EFF website has nothing about defending the rights of blog commenters on the issues of arbitrary censorship of comments, libel on blogs, the right of a libel victim to post a rebuttal on the blog that libeled him/her, etc.. And though cyberbullying hurts both bloggers and commenters, there is nothing on the EFF website about cyberbullying.

Below are the email addresses of the EFF staffers, for those who want to send in a protest --

bankston@eff.org, katina@eff.org, ren@eff.org, andrea@eff.org, cindy@eff.org, hugh@eff.org, pde@eff.org, gwen@eff.org, marcia@eff.org, rebecca@eff.org, erik@eff.org, julie@eff.org, corynne@eff.org, le@eff.org, nicole@eff.org, danny@eff.org, lety@eff.org, seth@eff.org, jason@eff.org, derek@eff.org, sobel@eff.org, ssteele@eff.org, lee@eff.org, fred@eff.org, mattz@eff.org, doctorow@craphound.com, jstyre@eff.org
.

READ MORE

"Pajama-clad" arbitrarily censoring bloggers and the "reporter's privilege"

The abstract of a law journal article titled, "Citizen Journalism and the Reporter’s Privilege" Minnesota Law Review 91 (2007):515-591, by Mary-Rose Papandrea, Boston College Law School, begins,

The reporter’s privilege is under attack, and “pajama-clad bloggers” are largely to blame. Courts and commentators have argued that because the rise of bloggers and other “citizen journalists” renders it difficult to define who counts as a reporter entitled to invoke the privilege, its continued existence is in grave doubt.

The "reporter's privilege" is the right of journalists to keep their confidential sources secret. As for the term "pajama-clad," pajamas are a symbol of leisure, casualness, informality, and privacy. Famous pajamas wearer Hugh Hefner said, "I have about 100 pairs of pajamas. I like to see people dressed comfortably."

Despite what many people think, public blogs are not private by any stretch of the imagination. A public blog is not like a private letter, email, or telephone call -- a public blog can be accessed by anyone in the world who has open Internet access. A claim that a public blog is private becomes even more tenuous when that blog is authoritatively cited or referenced by a court opinion, scholarly journal article, a scientific database (e.g., the listing of arbitrarily censoring blog Panda's Thumb in Thomson Scientific's ISI Web of Knowledge index), or other authority.

Well, at last I have a name for bloggers who arbitrarily censor comments while hiding behind a claim of "privacy": "Pajama-clad." Pajama-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton, pajama-clad blogger Sleazy PZ Myers, etc.. Sounds good.

Anyway, back to the quote from the abstract of the law journal article. IMO arguing that a protection should be abolished because some people with a weak claim to it might invoke it is stupid. It is like saying that we should abolish freedom of speech because people who shout "fire" in crowded theaters might invoke it.

The abstract continues,

The accompanying Article argues that this hysteria is misplaced. The development of the internet as a new medium of communication in many ways poses the same kinds of challenges to the reporter’s privilege that courts and state legislatures have faced for decades as television reporters, radio commentators, book authors, documentary filmmakers, and scholars seek to invoke its protections. After exploring the history and purpose of the reporter’s privilege, and the increasingly significant contributions of citizen journalists to the public debate, this Article makes a radical proposal: everyone who disseminates information to the public should be presumptively entitled to invoke the reporter’s privilege, whether based on the First Amendment, federal common law, or a state shield law. Rather than attempting to limit the category of individuals who are entitled to the privilege by focusing on the medium of publication, the “newsworthy” nature of the desired information, or a “functional” approach that unconstitutionally requires judicial scrutiny of the editorial process, the focus should instead be on limiting the scope of the privilege itself. This Article offers several exceptions to a presumptive privilege that appropriately balance the public’s fundamental interest in a vigorous and informed debate against its equally important interests in fairness and justice.

So here is a "let them eat cake and have it too" (to borrow from Marie Antoinette) proposal for giving bloggers special rights without requiring special concomitant responsibilities. The above abstract says that bloggers should be presumptively entitled to invoke the reporter's privilege when they "[disseminate] information to the public." But what if, say, that dissemination of "information" to the public is an attack on a particular individual? Should that individual not have the right to post a response on the blog that attacked him/her? IMO, the "fairness doctrine" -- which requires allowing presentation of all views -- should be applied to blogs. The reasons for exempting other kinds of forums from the fairness doctrine do not apply to blogs because comment space on blogs is virtually unlimited and free of charge to the bloggers. Also, people can normally buy space or time in a newspaper, magazine, and radio and TV stations, but I never heard of anyone buying comment space on a blog.

OK, I admit that my "let them eat cake and have it too" analogy was unfair because the journal article never addressed the issue of arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation -- which falsely claims to champion the rights of all Internet users -- is also in favor of generally allowing bloggers to invoke the reporter's privilege, but nowhere on the EFF website did I see anything supporting the freedom-of-speech rights of blog commenters. I plan on posting more about the EFF later.

A full copy of the journal article is here. It has a good comprehensive general discussion of the reporter's privilege.

As I said, laws are nice but are not the complete answer because many wronged people do not have the time and/or the money to sue. However, laws serve as guiding principles and also serve as deterrents even when they are rarely invoked. And as I said, there is a need to change the current Internet culture that condones and even approves such things as arbitrary censorship and cyberbullying.
.

READ MORE

A new member of Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers!

The first member other than myself has joined the ANCB, leaving the following entry in the ANCB membership list:

Member n° 2
Name: Alan Fox
Blog: Languedoc diary
Date joined: 9th May 2007

As the victim of several bans from pro-ID sites and having seen heavy moderation prevent the free exchange of ideas and create animosity where none need exist, I thought i would experiment with a blog that had no moderation or censorship beyond reserving the right to delete spam and obscenity. You can judge for yourself if the experiment worked.

Alan's blog has been in my sidebar's link list for some time.

Alan even posted the ANCB logo in the sidebar of his blog. Unfortunately, I cannot post this logo in the sidebar of this blog because I use the old blogger.com "template" mode here instead of the new "layout" mode. I am staying in the template mode because the link list format in the layout mode is bad -- I cannot insert my own link list titles and links that are two lines long or longer are not separated from the other links by extra spacing or indentation. Before, another reason was to keep my SiteMeter, but I finally found the instructions for adding a SiteMeter in the layout mode.

READ MORE

My policy on citing Wikipedia

Some readers might be wondering why I continue to cite Wikipedia after trashing it as unreliable because of arbitrary censorship of disputed items. Here are the reasons --
.
I think that where there is no dispute as to facts or definitions, Wikipedia tends to be a very good reference that is comprehensive and accurate. Also, Wikipedia articles often have good lists of external links and other references. For these reasons, I am continuing to cite Wikipedia. And on subjects that are known to be controversial, e.g., the evolution controversy, knowledgeable people have the sense to take Wikipedia with a big grain of salt. I feel that the real trouble arises when people mistakenly trust Wikipedia because they have no reason to suspect that a particular disputed item has been censored. An example was the controversy over whether or not to list "Of Pandas and People" -- the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned officially in public school classes -- in the Wikipedia list of "banned books." IMO most people would agree that it should have been listed -- it met the same criteria as many other books that were listed (the control freaks at Wikipedia completely rewrote the whole "banned books" article rather than list this book). Another example was the controversy over whether the definition of "reverse engineering" should include the "reverse engineering" of natural objects as well as man-made objects. I have proposed that Wikipedia handle disputed items by simply adding them to Wikipedia along with statements that they are disputed and external links to websites where the dispute is discussed or debated.
.

READ MORE

No, Ed, it's not your blog -- blogs are not private or personal

How often have we heard the statement, "it's my blog and I'll do what I want here"? That is what I heard from Fatheaded Ed Brayton when he permanently kicked me off his blog because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule (not that it matters, but Ed did not even give me a chance to make a single response to his disagreement with my interpretation). No, Ed, blogs are not private or personal. Increasingly, blogs and bloggers are being governed by laws, regulations, and government policies. Some of the laws in this list apply to bloggers. One such law is 47 USC §230, titled "Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material," from the "Communications Decency Act." Interestingly, there is no law for the protection of private blocking and screening of inoffensive material! LOL. A long list of court cases about Internet law is here, and many of these cases involve blogs or other quasi-personal websites.

Here are some good reasons why blogs should not be regarded as private or personal and why arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on blogs should be banned or discouraged:
.
(1) By no stretch of the imagination is a public blog a private communication. It is open to anyone in the world who has access to the Internet (this statement added 4:45 PM PST, 05-08-07).

(2) The freedom-of-expression right of blog visitors should be given priority over the bloggers' freedom-of-the-press right to control content.

(3) The more popular blogs have become major de facto public forums. Many of these blogs are dominant now because they got off to any early start and many of their bloggers are now playing "King of the Hill" by denying others an opportunity to express their opinions on these blogs.

(4) The "fairness doctrine" should be applied to blogs. The reasons for exempting other kinds of forums from the fairness doctrine do not apply to blogs because comment space on blogs is virtually unlimited and free of charge to the bloggers. Also, a person who is defamed on a blog should be given an opportunity to respond on that blog. Also, people can normally buy space or time in a newspaper, magazine, and radio and TV stations, but I never heard of anyone buying comment space on a blog. Hey, Ed and PZ -- how much do you charge for comment space on your blogs? Do you charge by the word or by the column inch? What credit cards do you accept? Don't laugh, folks -- people are selling advertising space on their blogs, so why not sell comment space? And maybe Ed and PZ could make some extra dough on the side by advertising that they don't accept American Express cards -- just like in the ads on TV.

(5) Blogs are being authoritatively cited by court opinions, scholarly journal articles, etc.. IMO a blog that is cited by a court opinion becomes like an official governmental rulemaking public comment period in which all comments must be accepted. Furthermore, since court opinions have cited thousands of law journal articles and since law journal articles have cited hundreds of blogs, it is very likely that a blog could influence a court decision indirectly through a court's citation of a journal article that cites the blog. It is not inconceivable that a single act of cybercensorship could be the deciding factor in an important court decision. Since it is often not predictable which blogs are going to be authoritatively cited, it is important that all blogs that have a potential to be authoritatively cited avoid arbitrary censorship of comments. An example of a statute governing governmental rulemaking comment periods is 42 USC §7607, "Administrative hearings and judicial review," for US EPA rulemaking on air quality control regulations. 42 USC §7607 (d)(4)(B)(i) says,

(i) Promptly upon receipt by the agency, all written comments and documentary information on the proposed rule received from any person for inclusion in the docket during the comment period shall be placed in the docket. The transcript of public hearings, if any, on the proposed rule shall also be included in the docket promptly upon receipt from the person who transcribed such hearings.

and 42 USC §7607(d)(5) says,

(5) In promulgating a rule to which this subsection applies

(i) the Administrator shall allow any person to submit written comments, data, or documentary information;
(ii) the Administrator shall give interested persons an opportunity for the oral presentation of data, views, or arguments, in addition to an opportunity to make written submissions;
(iii) a transcript shall be kept of any oral presentation; and
(iv) the Administrator shall keep the record of such proceeding open for thirty days after completion of the proceeding to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.

Of course, cybercensorship also causes big problems in fields other than law. I just used the field of law as an example.

The statements here about cybercensorship on blogs also apply to cybercensorship on Wikipedia. Like blogs, Wikipedia is also a major de facto public forum and is also being authoritatively cited by court opinions, articles in scholarly journals, etc..

Laws are nice, but all the Internet laws in the world are not going to protect the average Internet user who has neither the time nor the money to pursue Internet lawsuits. What needs to be done is to change the Internet culture so that cyberbullying and arbitrary censorship of comments are widely frowned upon.
.

READ MORE

"Should Online Defamation be Criminalized?"

The Law Blog Metrics blog reported a law journal article titled, "Should Online Defamation be Criminalized?". Here is the abstract of the article:

Abstract:
In 1961 the drafters of the Model Penal Code decided that defamation should not be criminalized, even though libel was a common law crime. They based their decision on two assumptions: One was that defamation does not inflict “harm” of a severity comparable to rape or murder; the other was that while defamation concededly inflicts a lesser “harm,” the likelihood of its being inflicted was too slight to justify the imposition of criminal sanctions. This article argues that our increasing use of cyberspace makes the second assumption increasingly problematic, and therefore requires that we revisit the need to criminalize online defamation.

Below is an expanded version of a comment I submitted to the Law Blog Metrics blog in response to the above abstract -- this comment is still awaiting approval there. This comment's embedded URL links are shown as "CLICK HERE" because embedded links on the Law Blog Metrics blog are not conspicuously highlighted by underlining or other means.

In 1961 the drafters of the Model Penal Code decided that defamation should not be criminalized, even though libel was a common law crime. They based their decision on two assumptions: One was that defamation does not inflict “harm” of a severity comparable to rape or murder . . . .

For one thing, I think that "rape" is not a good comparison because rape often does not result in physical or mental harm (particularly not statutory rapes where the "victims" are male and the rapists are attractive females). And IMO the comparison to murder is unreasonable. There are even many felonies that do not begin to compare with murder. I don't think that deciding whether or not something should be criminalized should be based on a comparison to murder.

. . the other was that while defamation concededly inflicts a lesser “harm,” the likelihood of its being inflicted was too slight to justify the imposition of criminal sanctions. This article argues that our increasing use of cyberspace makes the second assumption increasingly problematic, and therefore requires that we revisit the need to criminalize online defamation.

I agree that the Internet has increased the opportunities to defame, but I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether or not libel should be criminalized. Few people have the opportunity to embezzle one million dollars, but that does not mean that such embezzlement should not be criminalized.

For the following reasons, I feel that libel cases should remain in the civil courts and stay out of the criminal courts:

(1) Decisions on whether to prosecute crimes are discretionary, and criminal prosecution of libel is much more likely when the libel victim is rich, famous, and/or well-connected.

(2) Libel cases often involve claims for substantial monetary damages, and the government should not help people collect such damages.

I think that "cyberbullying" in general and arbitrary censorship of comments submitted to blogs or other websites are far more serious problems than libel (though libel on the Internet may be considered to be a form of cyberbullying). By "cyberbullying," I don't mean just letting off some steam, but I mean such things as credible threats of violence and disparagement of people's race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and national origin. By "arbitrary censorship of comments," I mean the censorship of comments solely because the blogger or other website administrator disagrees with them.

Arbitrary censorship of blog comments is generally not considered to be a problem because most people still think of blogs as being private or personal websites where the bloggers should have complete freedom to censor comments as they wish. However, many popular blogs -- particularly blogs that got off to an early start -- have now become prominent de facto public forums. Some of the bloggers on these blogs are now trying to play "King of the Hill" by preventing some others from posting comments on these popular forums. Because the Internet has the potential to greatly enhance our ability to communicate, efforts to prevent Internet communication are actually a form of anti-intellectual and unscholarly Luddism. Also, many blogs are now being authoritatively cited by court opinions, scholarly journal articles, etc., and such citation should end any pretense that the cited blogs are strictly private or personal. Should authoritative citation of arbitrarily censoring blogs be prohibited or discouraged? I think so. For practical purposes, the status of many of these popular blogs as de facto public forums is no different from that of newspapers, major magazines, radio and TV stations, etc..

IMO, a fundamental part of libel law is the question of the right of the libeled person to post a rebuttal on the site where the libel occurred. The courts have answered this question in different ways for printed publications and radio & TV broadcasters -- CLICK HERE

In the case of radio and TV broadcasters, the obligation to present differing views has been called the "fairness doctrine" (the "equal-time" or "equal-space" rules are similar to the fairness doctrine but are different). There is a conflict between the freedom-of-the-press right to control media content and the freedom-of-expression right of outside commenters. In applying something like the "fairness doctrine" to blogs, I think that the courts would tend to side with the commenters rather than the bloggers because commenting space on blogs is virtually unlimited and is free of charge to the bloggers.

A lot of bloggers want to have their cake and eat it too -- they want their blogs to have the benefit of being considered private without any of the responsibilities. For example, while wanting complete freedom to arbitrarily censor comments submitted to their blogs, they do not want to be held responsible for others' comments that they allow to remain on their blogs.

The title of a federal law, 47 USC §230, says that this law provides "protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material" on the Internet. Ironically, there does not appear to be any federal law that provides ""protection for private blocking and screening of inoffensive material" on the Internet! LOL. 47 USC §230 was enacted as the "Communications Decency Act." For the text of 47 USC §230, CLICK HERE. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Bloggers' FAQ webpage on this law says,

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." . . .

Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it.

It is crazy that we have the above law that gives bloggers and other website administrators immunity from prosecution for libelous material from a 3rd party while there is no "fairness doctrine" or "equal-time" law requiring them to post rebuttals from the libel victims (regardless of the source of the libel)! Thus, Fatheaded Ed Brayton (Dispatches from the Culture Wars) and Sleazy PZ Myers (Pharyngula) are free to take potshots at me on their blogs without being obligated to post my rebuttals on their blogs. I think that many libel victims would rather post rebuttals on the sites that libeled them instead of going to the expense and trouble of a libel suit -- indeed, the purpose of a libel suit might be to pressure the libeler into allowing a rebuttal on the libeler's site.

I don't think that laws alone are going to solve the problems of Internet cyberlibel, cyberbullying, and arbitrary censorship of comments. What we need is an Internet culture that frowns upon these things. That is not the Internet culture that we have now.

Cyberbullying is discussed on my blog at -- CLICK HERE and CLICK HERE

Arbitrary censorship of comments is discussed in the following groups of articles on my blog:

CLICK HERE and CLICK HERE


Larry Fafarman
Founder, Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers
.

READ MORE

Study says up to 80% of blogs have "potentially offensive content"

An article titled "Global Threat Report -- March 07", posted by "ScanSafe," says,

ScanSafe reported that up to 80% of blogs contain potentially offensive content, which can range from adult language to pornographic images, and about 6% of blogs host malware. The most requested blog site during the month was blogger.com.

I presume that "malware" means things like viruses, trojan horses, and phishing programs.

I suppose that if "potentially offensive content" is defined loosely enough, most blogs can be considered to have potentially offensive content, and that is what the study showed. I don't consider mildly offensive content to be a problem. To me, the big problems are extreme cyberbullying and arbitrary censorship of comments. I tolerate abusive comments on this blog so long as there are no credible threats, no invasions of privacy, and no disparagement of anyone's race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.

Also, blogger.com is not a blog site but is a blog service that supports millions of blogs, including this one. It is a very popular blog service because it is free and anyone can use it -- you don't need to belong to a special group or need the approval of the blog service.

READ MORE

Criticism of Wickedpedia grows

.

The clowns who run Wickedpedia. Picture is courtesy of the Wikitruth website. "NPOV" stands for "Neutral Point of View," the name of one of the Wickedpedia content policies and a policy that Wickedpedia frequently ignores.

===================================================================

A website called Wikitruth says,

Wikitruth is a website dedicated to the subject of flaws and issues with the Wikipedia, another website run by Jimbo Wales and a massive, insane army of Wikipedians that he controls with his mind rays. It's very hard to really explain Wikipedia, but if you visit it, it says it wants to be "the free encylopedia that anyone can edit". Instead, however, it is often filled with crazy people, experiences some issues with manipulative personalities, and falls prey to abuse and censorship. And that's a real shame.

Jimmy "King Jimbo" Wales -- I like the sound of that name. It sounds like the name of a cult leader -- like Jim Jones of Jonestown. King Jimbo is a cult leader who has suckered thousands of people into donating their time to work on Wikipedia while he runs the show and reaps the rewards.

The Tech Law Prof Blog says,
.

The stories in the press and on the web about the Wikipedia editor Essjay, real name Ryan Jordan, are unfortunate. That's the same term that Jimmy Wales used in describing the situation where Essjay misrepresented his credentials as a tenured professor of theology when in reality he was a college drop out. Now Jordan is gone and Wikipedia is now going to verify the credentials of the 650 or so general editors of the project.

What's interesting about this is not that this occurred at Wikipedia. It could have happened at Britannica, or any of the other web sites that promote online expertise. It's the response that the other editors have to verify their claimed credentials. Wikipedia started out as a populist project to harness the knowledge of (the) people and to document it. Events happened such as politicians enhancing their bios and smearing those of opponents. Disgruntled individuals made outrageous claims about other individuals that rose to the level of defamation.

Darwinists have been misusing Wikipedia as a "grudge factory" for defaming critics of Darwinism.

Links to several media articles about the Essjay scandal are at the bottom of this webpage. One of the articles quotes a disgruntled Wikipedia editor as saying,

We've stopped being an encyclopedia. We've stopped using common sense. We've taken our eye of (sic) the big picture and focused on ourselves, our myopic power games, our petty process, and our internal need to keep every one in line. We count sources to determine notability -- because we need objective rules. Never mind the fact it is absurd . . . . I'm sick of the little people and their little rules. For now, I want no part of them. I thought there were signs of hope. And I was wrong.

Verifying the credentials of the 650 Wikipedia administrators is not going to do any good because highly credentialed people are as capable of being as biased and manipulative as anyone else. Without a fundamental change in the way Wikipedia operates, verifying the administrators' credentials is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I strongly recommend my simple suggestion of resolving really serious disputes on Wikipedia by adding the disputed item along with (1) a statement that the item is disputed and (2) links to external websites that discuss or debate the dispute. Adding a disputed item to a printed encyclopedia would have the disadvantage that no instant links to outside discussions or debates could be provided; however, Wikipedia is an Internet encyclopedia, not a printed encyclopedia, and there is no reason to run it like a printed encyclopedia.

The frustration that I and some others experienced in trying to get "Of Pandas and People" -- the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned in public school classes -- added to the Wikipedia list of banned books was only the tip of the iceberg. Those control freaks over at Wikipedia would not even accept my sensible proposed compromise of listing the book along with (1) a statement that the listing was disputed and (2) links to external websites that discussed and debated the dispute. Because many people feel that the book should be listed as a banned book, merely saying that my proposed compromise was pointless because the book was not really a banned book does not resolve the dispute. The arbitrariness of those jerks who run Wikipedia is like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

The Wickedpedia organization is now locked into an ever-widening spiral of intellectual and moral degeneracy -- its wickedness tends to attract wicked people and repel decent people, making it even more wicked, which in turn increases the attractiveness to wicked people and the repulsiveness to decent people, and so forth.
.

READ MORE

Proposed reforms of Wikipedia rules

.

"I don't make the rules." Famous restaurant scene in "Five Easy Pieces"

====================================================

There is no question that Wikipedia is in serious trouble. There is now a big debate going on over the reliability of Wikipedia as a reference. For example, the history department at Middlebury College has decided to prohibit students from citing Wikipedia as an authoritative reference -- see this and this. There is also a big debate going on over legal citation of Wikipedia by court opinions and other court documents -- see this, this, and this.

Many people falsely believe that Wikipedia's reliability problems are solely the result of its open editing policy which allows editing by unknowledgeable and biased people. Wikipedia also has a severe problem of censorship by favored editors who have hijacked Wikipedia for their own partisan purposes. The censorship of the attempt to add "Of Pandas and People" -- the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned in public school science classes -- to Wikipedia's list of banned books is an excellent example of this censorship problem. Of course, sometimes censorship of attempted Wikipedia additions is appropriate, as in cases involving invasions of privacy, threats, defamation, violations of copyrights, violations of confidentiality, etc.. Censorship on Wikipedia is a particularly serious problem because Wikipedia is a single source whereas blogs are multiple sources so that what is censored on one blog could appear on another -- there are of course other online encyclopedias besides Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is by far the biggest and most consulted.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a very democratic website that is open to editing by all, but it is obvious that some Wikipedia editors are more equal than others -- they have the power to tyrannize Wikipedia by locking up Wikipedia articles to prevent any editing, censor edits that they don't like and insist on keeping edits that they do like, and temporarily or permanently block the IP addresses of rank-and-file editors (I have commented extensively on the evils -- and frequent ineffectiveness -- of IP address blocking). I don't even know what to call these people -- administrators, chief editors, monitors, arbiters, or whatever (the latest term is "constables"). I have no idea how they were chosen for their positions. A recent Christian Science Monitor article reported the following scandal:

Just this month a dark cloud fell over Wikipedia's credibility after it was revealed that a trusted contributor who claimed to be a tenured professor of religion was actually a 24-year-old college dropout. He was also one of the appointed "arbiters" who settled disputes between contributors.

Wikipedia has three content policies: NPOV (neutral point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. Wikipedia says, "Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." The problem is that the Wikipedia administrators have been overemphasizing the "Verifiability" and "No original research" policies at the expense of the NPOV policy, sometimes to the point of absurdity.

Here are my proposed additions and changes to the Wikipedia rules:

(1) Where possible, disputes should be resolved by adding the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and external links to websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. This new rule would have the following advantages: (a) the note that the item is disputed would show that the item is not endorsed by Wikipedia; and (b) the external links would eliminate any need to clutter up Wikipedia with long discussions and debates over disputed items (for this reason, the disputed item on Wikipedia should be as brief as possible). Also, the existence of discussions and/or debates on external websites would be evidence that there is a serious dispute over the item. That's the "NPOV" way of doing it. IMO the "Verifiability" and "No original research" requirements should be waived for Wikipedia items satisfying this new rule, because there would be no suggestion that these items are endorsed by Wikipedia. This new rule would -- or should -- help prevent the "edit wars" that frequently go on at Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be wonderful if what can easily be done on the Internet -- adding notes that something is disputed along with instant links to discussions or debates about the dispute -- could be done with all printed matter? Welcome to the 21st century!

(2) A requirement that rule #1 above be followed whenever there is a significant dispute over an item that a Wikipedia administrator (or "arbiter," "monitor," or whatever) insists on keeping.

(3) The "reliable published source" requirement should be scrapped. There is often no agreement as to what is such a source. Also, it would be difficult to find a "reliable published source" that verifies something that is obvious or self-evident, e.g., the sun rises in the east, bears shit in the woods, and "Of Pandas and People" is a banned book. Also, in many areas, finding a "reliable published source" is nearly impossible -- for example, the book "Monkey Girl," which is about the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design case, is supposed to be neutral but is in fact heavily biased in favor of Darwinism.

Trying to deal with the obstinate Wikipedia staff is reminiscent of the iconic restaurant scene in the movie "Five Easy Pieces" where Bobby (Jack Nicholson) is trying to get a side-order of toast with his omelet but the waitress tells him that it is against the rules:

Waitress: I'm sorry, we don't have any side orders of toast. I'll give you a English muffin or a coffee roll.
Bobby: What do you mean "you don't make side orders of toast"? You make sandwiches, don't you?
Waitress: Would you like to talk to the manager?
Bobby: You've got bread. And a toaster of some kind?
Waitress: I don't make the rules.
Bobby: OK, I'll make it as easy for you as I can. I'd like an omelet, plain, and a chicken salad sandwich on wheat toast, no mayonnaise, no butter, no lettuce. And a cup of coffee.
Waitress: A number two, chicken sal san. Hold the butter, the lettuce, the mayonnaise, and a cup of coffee. Anything else?
Bobby: Yeah, now all you have to do is hold the chicken, bring me the toast, give me a check for the chicken salad sandwich, and you haven't broken any rules.

.

READ MORE

Why so few court citations of blogs?

Originally I was somewhat surprised that court opinions have begun to cite blogs -- now I am surprised that there have been so few court citations of blogs. In fact, they are almost scarcer than hens' teeth. A recent survey (Aug.-06-06) listed only 27 court opinions that cited blogs, and all but 8 of these court opinions cited just one blog, Sentencing Law and Policy. In contrast to just a handful of citations of blogs, the courts have cited thousands of law journal articles over the past several decades -- see this post and this post. Of course, blogs are relatively new, but they have been around for a few years. Also, there have been a few hundred citations of blogs in law journal articles.

Here are some things that are related to court opinions' citations of blogs:
.
Courts' acceptance and adoption of Internet technology: I don't see this as a potential problem area that might be inhibiting court citations of blogs. Many courts -- particularly big, important courts -- are taking full advantage of Internet technology, e.g., many courts instantly post opinions on-line and even allow litigants to file and serve court documents electronically. Also, the frequent citation of law journal articles set a precedent for citations of sources other than court opinions, thus setting a precedent for the citation of blogs.

The great increase in numbers of court case precedents has reduced the need to cite other sources: Points of law in court opinions today are often followed by long strings of court case precedents. I assert that the great increase in the numbers of court case precedents over the years has greatly reduced the need to cite other sources, including blogs and law journal articles, and I think that this helps to explain the great decline in the frequency of court citations of law journal articles. Other reasons have been given for the decline in the frequency of citation of law journal articles, but I dispute these reasons: (1) law journals have become more interdisciplinary; (2) law journals articles have become more theoretical as opposed to dealing with actual cases; and (3) the Internet has made it easier for judges and court staffs to do their own research rather than depend on law journal article authors to do research for them.

Opportunities for citations of blogs by court opinions: I am not aware of any rule prohibiting litigants from citing blogs in court documents, so I presume that it is common for litigants to include blog citations in their court documents, and so it seems that judges who adopt the reasoning of litigants would tend to cite blogs that were used to support that reasoning. Also, judges and their staffs can do their own Internet searches to find blog material. Judges can also find blog material in law journal articles, which have cited hundreds of blogs.

Court customs and traditions: Of course, court citation of blogs is not a long-established court custom or tradition, but I am not aware of any court rule against court citation of blogs or any organized national effort to discourage court citation of blogs. Decisions on whether or not to cite blogs are basically decisions of individual judges, and I can see no basis for a general collective decision of judges to avoid citing blogs. I do not see this lack of a custom or tradition of citing blogs as a possible explanation for the great scarcity of court citations of blogs, except in regard to the snobbery of judges (I discuss this snobbery factor separately below). Even if, say, 90 percent of judges had a policy against citing blogs, that would not even come close to explaining the great scarcity of court opinions' citations of blogs.

Possible bias or one-sidedness of blogs: The problem of one-sidedness exists to an even greater extent with law journal articles -- which have been cited by the thousands in court opinions over many decades -- because blogs allow (theoretically at least) instant unlimited debate and presentation of differing viewpoints. The more popular blogs -- e.g., the Volokh Conspiracy and Balkinization law blogs -- receive large numbers of visitors and comments and so get a wide range of views on different subjects. This problem of possible one-sidedness can be minimized by a policy of not citing blogs whose bloggers arbitrarily censor comments. IMO a blog that is cited by a court opinion becomes like an official governmental public hearing that must accept all comments -- and when a court cites a blog it is too late to uncensor comments that were censored. Also, severe cyberbullying (e.g., credible threats of physical harm as opposed to just letting off a little steam), which discourages people from blogging and commenting on blogs, needs to be discouraged. Also, if bloggers demand civility from one side, they should also demand it from the other. Anyway, knowing typical judges, I don't think that this censorship issue would be a factor in most judges' decisions on whether or not to cite blogs.

Credentials of bloggers and blog commenters: Because law is a subject which many laypeople are able to discuss intelligently, credentialism is rampant in the law profession and many legal professionals have a jealous disdain of any legal opinion expressed by a layperson (attorneys have told me that judges are prejudiced against pro se litigants). For example, law journal articles -- regardless of their length -- that are written by law students are just called "notes" rather than "articles." Also, it is relatively easy to be self-taught in the law, particularly in a narrow specialty (e.g., I probably became the world's foremost authority on federal issues concerning California's grossly unconstitutional smog impact fee). Even some prison inmates with little formal education have become skilled "jailhouse lawyers." In contrast, I know as an engineer that many engineering subjects cannot be discussed intelligently by people who do not have long formal training in the engineering specialty being discussed (as a mechanical engineer, I am often unable to discuss electrical engineering subjects or even some specialties in mechanical engineering). However, many if not most bloggers on law blogs are law professionals: law professors, attorneys, and maybe even judges. Also, many of the bloggers on other scholarly blogs are professionals in their fields. It is noteworthy that of the few court citations of blogs, many of the citations are of the visitors' comments rather than the original blog articles, even though the visitors are much more likely than the bloggers to be laypeople. In the law, the legal background of a person stating an opinion is usually irrelevant because the opinion can be evaluated on its own merits -- as the saying goes, "you can't judge a book by its cover."

Instability of blogs: Blog articles, their comment threads, and associated URL links are of course subject to deliberate erasure, accidental loss, and alteration, and this instability might be a deterrent to court citations of blogs. However, this instability problem is easily surmountable -- electronic and/or paper copies of this blog material can be added to the court records. The same problem exists with citations of obscure paper documents, which could be hard or impossible to find.

Snobbery and the low prestige of blogs: Snobbery might help explain the low frequency of court citations of blogs. For example, the main law journals (as distinguished from specialized journals) of Ivy League law schools -- particularly the Harvard law school -- have been cited with far higher frequency than other law journals. However, it seems that judges should try to cite the best sources, regardless of the sources' levels of prestige. As the saying goes, a book cannot be judged by its cover, and accordingly a law journal article should not be judged by the title of the law journal. The old adage "it's not what you know, it's who you know" applies with a vengeance in the field of law. Ironically, the reputation of journals should be less important -- not more important -- in law than in, say, science and engineering, because errors, flaws, and weaknesses are generally much easier to spot in law journal articles than in scientific or engineering journal articles. In scientific and engineering journal articles, experimental and analytical results would often take too long to reproduce and so the reader is often dependent on the knowledge, carefulness, and honesty of the authors. I have heard of scientific journal articles being exposed as frauds because of fabrication of data, but I have never heard of a law journal article being exposed as a fraud because of fabrication of references. However, a policy against citing blogs would have to be nearly universal among judges in order to explain the great rarity of court opinions' citations of blogs.

Citations of unpublished court opinions vs. citations of blogs: There is a very controversial new national federal court rule authorizing the citation of unpublished court opinions in any federal court, though the individual federal courts have the discretion of not using these unpublished opinions as binding precedent. Some of the criticisms of this new rule are: the case histories given by the unpublished opinions are sketchy or even non-existent; the judges' reasonings are too sketchy; some court cases are not suitable to be precedents; often the opinions' authors themselves do not want the opinions to be cited; many unpublished opinions are written only to satisfy the litigants that there was some reasoning behind the decision; as a result of this rule, sometimes judges will spend more time writing unpublished opinions, increasing court backlogs and taking judges' time away from writing published opinions; judges will stop issuing unpublished opinions in many cases in order to avoid being cited; many unpublished opinions are written by court clerks; there is too big an expansion of citable precedents; it increases the likelihood of conflicts between precedents; and pro se litigants, who often do not have access to the best online legal search engines and who are likely to be unfamiliar with unpublished opinions in particular areas, are at an even greater disadvantage. Etcetera, Etcetera, etcetera. The pros and cons of the new rule are also discussed here and here. There has been a tendency of the courts to expand the kinds of sources that may be cited, e.g., I am confident that the 9th Circuit federal court of appeals once had a rule that no district court opinion -- published or not -- could be cited in any court of the 9th Circuit. Could the practice of citing blogs be any worse than the practice of citing unpublished opinions? After all, many blog articles and their comment threads are often much more thorough than unpublished opinions, since the blog articles are often carefully written and can have dozens or even hundreds of comments, many of them written by very knowledgeable people. Also, blogs, unlike unpublished opinions, are not court precedents. Though this new national court rule allows federal courts to continue treating unpublished opinions as non-binding precedents, a federal court that chooses to disregard an unpublished opinion risks being accused of inconsistency.

Citations of Wikipedia vs. citations of blogs: The courts are now citing Wikipedia as well as citing blogs. It is often assumed that errors in Wikipedia are caused solely by its open editing policy which results in editing by unknowledgeable and biased people, but Wikipedia has a severe censorship problem as well. This censorship problem is even worse in Wikipedia than in blogs because Wikipedia is a single source whereas blogs are multiple sources, i.e., something that is censored on what blog could appear on another blog. A good example of censorship on Wikipedia occurred in the recent effort to add the book "Of People and Pandas" -- the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned in public school classrooms -- to the Wikipedia list of "banned books." Favored editors who have hijacked Wikipedia kept insisting that they would not list the book unless a "reliable non-partisan source" could be found that verified that the book was actually banned. That is like trying to find a "reliable non-partisan source" that verifies that bears shit in the woods. The Wikipedia requirement of a "reliable non-partisan source" was obviously intended only for things that are not self-evident or that could not be independently verified. I proposed a compromise of listing the book along with a note that the listing was disputed and links to external websites where the dispute was discussed and debated, but to no avail. Trying to deal with those stubborn jackasses over at Wikipedia is reminiscent of that famous restaurant scene in the movie "Five Easy Pieces". Those lousy jerks over at Wikipedia decided to completely rewrite the whole "banned books" article rather than concede that the Pandas book was banned or even "challenged." The reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is rapidly going down the tubes -- for example, the history department at Middlebury College has ruled that students may not cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source.

Well, this article was more long-winded than I originally intended it to be, but I wanted to cover all the bases as best I could.

Overall, IMO there does not appear to be any really good reason(s) for the apparent reluctance of judges to cite blogs in their written opinions.

READ MORE

Cyberbullying and arbitrary censorship of comments

When I posted the article on cyberbullying, I did not realize that cyberbullying and arbitrary censorship of comments are both symptoms of the same sick Internet culture that tolerates and even approves preventing and/or discouraging people from expressing their ideas on the Internet. I am talking about extreme cyberbullying, e.g., credible death threats as opposed to mere zealous advocacy or just letting off some steam. And by "arbitrary" censorship of comments, I mean censorship of comments solely because a blogger or other website manager disagrees with them. This general approval or tolerance of arbitrary censorship of comments even extends to the authoritative citation -- e.g., by court opinions and scholarly journals -- of blogs whose bloggers arbitrarily censor comments. The irony of all this is that the Internet had the potential to be a gargantuan leap in our ability to disseminate and debate information and ideas.

Cyberbullying can take subtle forms, e.g., when bloggers look the other way when their self-appointed goons taunt dissident commenters and then pounce on dissident commenters who dare to retaliate.

The New York Times article on cyberbullying quoted the following astute observation:

"Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,” said Lisa Stone . . ."

Once you have played the part of a fox, cooperated with foxes, or even just ignored foxes, it is difficult to get a job guarding a henhouse.

Repent, you sinning bloggers and blog commenters -- before it's too late.

READ MORE

Thomson-Scientific admits wrongdoing

Well, almost but not quite. I received the following very suspicious-looking email from the general counsel of Thomson-Scientific (background info on this matter is here, here, here, and here). Don't anyone try charging that this email is a forgery -- there is no way I could forge this email because the header is provided by my ISP:
.

Dear Mr Fafarman
I am the General Counsel for Thomson Scientific.
I understand from Allison Hagan, our Director of PR and Communications, that you have raised a complaint relating to our inclusion of the 'Panda's Thumb' website in the index of the Web of Knowledge. We have carefully reviewed your complaint but, for the reasons explained to you by Kathleen O'Donnell, we will not be removing the website from that index.
We regard this as the end of this matter. We have instructed Allison and the members of our customer support team neither to take your calls nor respond to your emails.
If you continue to harrass Allison, the Customer Support team or any other employees of Thomson Scientific, we will have recourse to all legal remedies available to us.
Yours sincerely
Jane Reeves
General Counsel Thomson Scientific

As for your statement, "We regard this as the end of this matter," my answer is that "it ain't over until the fat lady sings," you blustering shyster.

The threat to sue me is of course an idle threat -- I can't be sued just for exercising my legal right of protesting the company's practices. The email's defensiveness and attempt at intimidation does raise some very big suspicions, though. I of course cannot compel any Thomson-Scientific employee to respond to my communications, but why would the company deny its employees the discretion to respond to my communications? That is very fishy -- it implies that the company is afraid that the employees might expose some wrongdoing.

Anyway, one thing I want is information about any government funding that the ISI Web of Knowledge may have received. This is something I have a right to know, and if Thomson-Scientific won't tell me, I hope to get this information by means of a Freedom of Information Act request. Our tax dollars should not support Thomson-Scientific's condoning of arbitrary censorship of our views, and particularly not the condoning of the abominable practice of IP address blocking, which is hardly even censorship because it often blocks comments from a large number of people who share the same ISP proxy IP address.

As for other points in the email:

. . . you have raised a complaint relating to our inclusion of the 'Panda's Thumb' website in the index of the Web of Knowledge.

That was only part of my complaint -- my complaint was much broader than that.

We have carefully reviewed your complaint but, for the reasons explained to you by Kathleen O'Donnell . . .

Kathleen O'Donnell did not explain any reasons at all -- she did not answer any of the points that I raised. Also, O'Donnell edits the index only in the areas of agriculture, biology, and environmental science, and there was no evidence that she was also speaking for the editors in other areas of science.

. . . we will not be removing the website from that index.

I did not expressly request that Panda's Thumb be removed from the ISI Web of Knowledge index.

If you continue to harrass Allison, the Customer Support team or any other employees of Thomson Scientific, we will have recourse to all legal remedies available to us.

One must start doing something before one can continue doing it. I did not "harass" those people -- I did not telephone them with any great frequency, and in many cases they did not respond to my telephone messages.

Also, I asked that this matter be brought to the attention of Thomson law affiliates Thomson-West et al., who sponsor the Law Professors Blogs network, but there is no evidence that this was done.

In a way I am glad that Thomson-Scientific brought this matter to a head quickly rather than string me along for a long time.

Anyway, folks, please keep those protest emails coming -- they are obviously having an effect.
.

READ MORE

Dr. Egnor, reverse engineering, and Wikipedia reform

.
(additions as noted were made to this post on 04-23-07)

In an article in Evolution News & Views, Dr. Michael Egnor wrote,

On April 4th, the Wikipedia reference to biological reverse engineering was airbrushed out. It was changed to:

Reverse engineering … is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device or object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. The verb form is to reverse engineer.

This was airbrushed:

Reverse engineering is essentially science, using the scientific method. Sciences such as biology and physics can be seen as reverse engineering of biological 'machines' and the physical world respectively.

The biological reverse engineering analogy was part of the original definition, and had been present until the day that I linked to it in my post. Someone (perhaps a Darwinist?) went to work with an eraser.

The history of the redactions shows that "DrLeeBot" deleted the phrase applying reverse engineering to the scientific method. He wrote, "Removed reference to scientific method; the analog [sic] is too abstract to be worth mentioning."

I feel that the airbrushed statement above is only partly right. Reverse engineering can of course use engineering methods as well as scientific methods, so it is wrong to say, "Reverse engineering is essentially science, using the scientific method." And in a broader sense, reverse engineering sometimes uses neither scientific methods nor engineering methods but just produces a copy of the original. Also, I feel that the purpose of reverse engineering is to recreate or reproduce some object or function, and this is not the purpose of a lot of biology and physics, so I think it is wrong to make the broad statement, "sciences such as biology and physics can be seen as reverse engineering of biological 'machines' and the physical world respectively." However, Egnor apparently did not compose the airbrushed Wikipedia statement, and a clarification of his views are here, where he cited this airbrushed statement in an article that he posted on April 3. For example, he said that "much" -- not all -- of modern biological research is reverse engineering: "Much of modern biological research, and most research in molecular biology, is reverse engineering." As Egnor said, the airbrushed Wikipedia statement was airbrushed on April 4, only one day after he cited it! Those usurpers who tyrannize Wikipedia did not waste much time!

Though the term "reverse engineering" usually refers to reverse engineering of man-made things, the process is essentially the same for "reverse engineering" of things in nature. If two processes are essentially the same, why not use the same term for both of them? If "reverse engineering" of things in nature is not going to be called "reverse engineering," then what should it be called? Words are not always used literally or in their original senses -- for example, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory once had a "Station for Experimental Evolution" (it merged with the Eugenics Record Office to form the Carnegie Institution's Dept. of Genetics ). The term "experimental evolution" appears to be oxymoronic -- maybe a more appropriate term would be "experimental breeding." Well, maybe "experimental evolution" could mean a simulation of evolution in a hypothetical situation. Anyway, here the term "evolution" is used in a broad, figurative, high-falutin, or even jocular sense, just like using the term "engineering" in "reverse engineering" of things in nature.

One of the best examples of reverse engineering is the airplane. IMO without the example of the birds, we might never have realized that sustained heavier-than-air human flight is possible. Insects and bats fly but do so only by rapid flapping of wings, a poor model for aircraft -- the root of the word "aviation" means "bird," not "insect." In fact, it is commonly believed that theoretically a bumblebee cannot fly. There are also "flying" (actually gliding) mammals and fish, but these are also natural examples of "flying." Birds directly inspired the "flying wing" designs of Jack Northrop, who thought that flying wings were closer copies of birds -- particularly soaring birds -- than were conventional aircraft; however, all modern airliners basically have the same layout as the DC-3 of the 1930's. Most examples today of flying wings are stealth aircraft (the flying wing design helps make the aircraft stealthy), but stealth is a disadvantage in commercial and private aircraft (just ask any air traffic controller). Of course, finagling Darwinists could argue that the airplane is not really an example of "reverse engineering" because birds know nothing about aeronautical engineering.

"Reverse engineering" is also extensively used in "bio-engineering" and "biomedical engineering." Cybernetics is also reverse engineering -- the Wikipedia article on cybernetics says, "cybernetics is the study of feedback and derived concepts such as communication and control in living organisms, machines and organisations."

And what about "genetic engineering"? This involves reverse engineering and it is even called engineering. The term reverse engineering should be applied to any analysis of an existing thing for the purpose of modifying it. (this paragraph added on 04-23-07)

Sometimes "reverse engineering" is not really engineering at all, but just production of a knock-off of the original design. For example, Wikipedia itself says,

As computer-aided design has become more popular, reverse engineering has become a viable method to create a 3D virtual model of an existing physical part for use in 3D CAD, CAM, CAE and other software. The reverse engineering process involves measuring an object and then reconstructing it as a 3D model.

If it is OK to apply the term "reverse engineering" to copying something without analyzing it at all, then why is it not OK to apply the term to an engineering or scientific analysis of something in nature as opposed to something that is man-made? (this sentence added 04-23-07)

Also, as quoted above, Wikipedia also says of reverse engineering,

It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. (emphasis added)

IMO, the above bolded statement is an overly restrictive generalization. As the quotation preceding the above quotation says, reverse engineering often involves nothing but copying. IMO, reverse engineering should be a broad term and any attempt to restrict the term's meaning is arbitrary.

Of course, knock-offs were produced long before we had computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM -- also called "computer-aided machining").

Many references on the web define reverse engineering as just involving computer hardware and software, but this definition is of course much too narrow. BTW, in reverse engineering of software, the terms "black box," "white box," and "gray box" are used:

White-box analysis

White-box analysis consists of analyzing and understanding the program code, without running the program. Static analyzers are used by taking the program file(s) as input and outputting not only the potential program but also statistical data on some of the characteristics of code.

Black-box analysis

Black-box analysis consists of probing the external behavior of a program with inputs. Black-box analysis helps in identifying areas of white-box analysis exploration. Black-box analysis is usually done first.

Gray-box analysis

Gray-box analysis consists of using black-box analysis in conjunction with white-box analysis. For instance, nested code segments can be treated in a black-box fashion and then upon diving further into the code segment white-box analysis can be conducted.

IMO these terms "white box," "black box," and "gray box" could be applied to reverse engineering generally. "White box" reverse engineering could be considered to consist of examination of the original in detail and "black box" reverse engineering could mean just reproducing the function of the original. A good example of "black box" reverse engineering was the Soviet spacecraft "Buran", a reproduction of the USA's Space Shuttle. The Buran orbiter vehicle looks like a dead ringer for the Space Shuttle but the Soviets did not have access to the Space Shuttle itself or Space Shuttle drawings and specifications. Again, I think that the term "reverse engineering" should be used very broadly.

Anyway, the usurpers who tyrannize Wikipedia insist on allowing only entries that they approve and barring entries that they disapprove, often using Orwellian reasoning. For example, they refused to add the book "Of Pandas and People" to the Wikipedia list of banned books, essentially claiming that Judge Jones did not really ban the book but merely "removed" it from the curriculum.

Wikipedia could often handle disputes simply by adding the disputed entry along with a note that the entry is disputed and links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. This method of handling disputes is nowhere suggested in the Wikipedia rules. I suggested this method for handling the dispute over the Pandas book, but to no avail. To the Wikipedia usurpers, "it's my way or the highway."

I could make another "edit war" on Wikipedia like the one I made over "Of People and Pandas," but these edit wars are futile because the Wikipedia usurpers are arbitrary and unyielding. The only solution for Wikipedia is to throw the bums out.

Wikipedia is squandering the good reputation it once had, e.g., Wikipedia was rated as comparable to the vaunted online Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy on scientific subjects. However, recently the history department at Middlebury College ruled that students could not use Wikipedia as an authoritative reference.
.

READ MORE

NY Times on standardized blog comment policies

A recent (04-09-07) front-page New York Times article reported (this is a two-page article -- do not miss the second page):

Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate . . . .

Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.

"Able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship"? Holy crap, I'd be happy if bloggers just stopped censoring comments merely because of disagreement with the comments' opinions or arguments!

The New York Times article continues,
.

A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,” said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company’s site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.

Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.

Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.

Will there be a "seal of (dis)approval" logo for a policy of censoring comments merely because the blogger disagrees with them? That is now the policy of many of the blogs that I have encountered -- e.g., Panda's Thumb, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Pharyngula, and Uncommon Descent. It is also a policy that is approved by Thomson-Scientific, whose policy is to list arbitrarily censoring blogs in the ISI Web of Knowledge scientific database. Ed Brayton of the popular Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog kicked me off his blog permanently because my literal interpretation of a federal court rule did not agree with his preconceived notions of the purpose of the rule -- he did not even give me a chance to answer his reply to my comment.

The NY Times article says,

Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.

One of the causes of this "firestorm" is an Internet culture that approves of blog comment censorship for the most trivial of reasons, including a blogger's disagreement with the opinions or arguments presented in a comment. The accepted rule of netiquette should be that if you can't tolerate comments that disagree with you, then either you shouldn't blog or your blogs should not accept any comments at all. "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen" (Harry Truman) And it should be understood that blogs whose bloggers insist on exercising their right to arbitrarily censor comments will not be referenced for any official authoritative purpose, particularly not by a government entity or by an entity that receives direct or indirect government support.

Blogs that are authoritatively referenced -- e.g., by court opinions and scholarly journals -- should be expected to meet exceptionally high standards of comment tolerance. Authoritative referencing of arbitrarily censoring blogs is not generally considered to be a form of "cyberbullying," but it sure as hell should be. It is a particularly virulent and vile form of cyberbullying because it has the wholehearted approval of the courts, government agencies, scholarly journals, etc..

Other articles about cyberbullying are at --

Business Week

Yahoo! News

Yahoo! News

For more articles on Internet censorship, just click on "Internet censorship (1 of 2)" and "Internet censorship (2 of 2)" in the post label list in the left sidebar (the list is not visible on the webpages of individual blog articles).

Arbitrary censorship and other forms of cyberbullying defeat the Internet's very purpose, whick is supposed to be a speedup in the exchange of information and ideas.

Larry Fafarman

Founder, Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers
.

READ MORE

Form letter, new email addresses for protesting arbitrary blog comment censorship

To help increase responses, I am providing a form letter here. Of course, a protest in your own words is best, but this form letter is far better than nothing. Please send me a copy at LarryFarma@aol.com to help me gauge the support for this protest. For background info on this protest, see this post.

Do not underestimate the power of your email. I knew a dissident engineer who was getting nowhere in trying to get an invitation to testify before a Senate committee -- then 50 of his supporters sent in form letters and he was invited immediately.

I have also provided some new email addresses for this protest. Most of these new email addresses are for bloggers on the Volokh Conspiracy and Balkinization blogs. I selected these two blogs because (1) both have high numbers of citations by law journal articles -- 62 citations and 32 citations respectively according to a fairly recent study -- and (2) I have seen these two blogs frequently cited on the Internet. These long lists of email addresses are necessary -- it would be a tremendous help if just one of these bloggers were persuaded to post an article on this subject. I have also combined the new email address list and the old email address list to form a single list that is ready for insertion into your email. I can't make it any easier for you.

Suggested subject line: Protest of authoritative referencing of arbitrarily censoring blogs

Suggested text:

By arbitrary censorship, I mean that comments and/or commenters are censored for the sole reason that the bloggers disagree with the opinions and/or arguments of the comments or the commenters. Bloggers who arbitrarily censor comments have shown an intention to present just one side of controversial issues and the blogs of these bloggers should therefore not be quoted, cited, or listed for authoritative purposes -- e.g., by court opinions, scholarly journals, and scientific databases. Citation of blogs by law journal articles is already widespread and citation of blogs by court opinions has begun -- see

http://3lepiphany.typepad.com/3l_epiphany/2006/08/law_review_arti.html

-- and --

http://3lepiphany.typepad.com/3l_epiphany/2006/08/cases_citing_le.html

Arbitrary censorship on blogs can include IP address blocking, which is disreputable and irresponsible as well as often being ineffective. IP address blocking can block comments from large numbers of Internet users who share the same ISP proxy IP address.

IMO, a blog that is cited by a court opinion becomes like an official governmental public hearing that must accept all comments.

For more information, see --

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/04/protest-of-authoritative-referencing-of.html

Sincerely,

- - - - - - - - - -

===========================================
(end of proposed letter)

Additional email addresses:

Bloggers on the Volokh Conspiracy blog:

dalecarp@umn.edu,
dbernste@gmu.edu,
David.Post@temple.edu,
jaffe@esjpc.com,
volokh@law.ucla.edu,
isomin@gmu.edu,
jlindgren@law.northwestern.edu,
jha5@case.edu,
choset@gmail.com,
okerr@law.gwu.edu,
paul.ohm@colorado.edu,
rbarnett@gmail.com,
korobkin@law.ucla.edu,
volokh@post.harvard.edu,
benjamin@law.duke.edu,
tzywick2@gmu.edu,
tcowen@gmu.edu

Bloggers on the Balkinization blog:

jackbalkin@yahoo.com,
ian.ayres@yale.edu,
lee-epstein@northwestern.edu,
mgraber@law.umaryland.edu,
sgriffin@tulane.edu,
shorto@law.columbia.edu,
akoppelman@law.northwestern.edu,
marty.lederman@comcast.net,
slevinson@law.utexas.edu,
david.luban@gmail.com,
kimlane@princeton.edu,
dsolove@law.gwu.edu,
tamanahb@stjohns.edu,
mtushnet@law.harvard.edu


Webcontent.gov -- Guide to Managing U.S. Government Websites, General Services Admin.:

Sheila.campbell@gsa.gov,
webcontenttoolkit@gsa.gov,
webmanageruniversity@gsa.gov

Additional Thomson-Scientific:

jane.reeves@thomson.com,
ts.current.web.contents@thomson.com,
GeneralInfo@Thomson.com

==============================================

Combined email list -- this post's email addresses plus the email addresses from the previous list here.
(Reminder -- please send me a copy at LarryFarma@aol.com to help me gauge the support for this protest)

allison.hagan@thomson.com,
kathleen.odonnell@thomson.com,
marylou.warwick@thomson.com,
jane.reeves@thomson.com,
ts.cts.amer@thomson.com,
service@techstreet.com,
rs.info@thomson.com,
rs.sales@thomson.com,
foundation-press@thomson.com,
west_lawschool@thomson.com,
support@westacademic.com,
paul.caron@uc.edu,
berman.43@osu.edu,
nancy.soonpaa@ttu.edu,
faigmand@uchastings.edu,
David.Kaye@asu.edu,
Michael.Saks@asu.edu,
JSanders@central.UH.edu,
edward.cheng@brooklaw.edu,
mgiangra@depaul.edu,
ianbest@sbcglobal.net,
joe.hodnicki@gmail.com,
JONESRE@UCMAIL.UC.EDU,
jaywex@bu.edu,
quarter@wulaw.wustl.edu,
rosenhjd@jmu.edu,
nmsrdave@swcp.com,
abottaro@pandasthumb.org,
ed@pandasthumb.org,
brauer@pandasthumb.org,
reed@pandasthumb.org,
welsberr@pandasthumb.org,
rbh@pandasthumb.org,
garyhurd@pandasthumb.org,
minlay@pandasthumb.org,
jkrebs@pandasthumb.org,
jml@pandasthumb.org,
ianfmusgrave@pandasthumb.org,
pz@pandasthumb.org,
tara@pandasthumb.org,
wilkins@pandasthumb.org,
webmaster@seedmediagroup.com,
newblogger@seedmediagroup.com,
advertising@seedmediagroup.com,
dalecarp@umn.edu,
dbernste@gmu.edu,
David.Post@temple.edu,
jaffe@esjpc.com,
volokh@law.ucla.edu,
isomin@gmu.edu,
jlindgren@law.northwestern.edu,
jha5@case.edu,
choset@gmail.com,
okerr@law.gwu.edu,
paul.ohm@colorado.edu,
rbarnett@gmail.com,
korobkin@law.ucla.edu,
volokh@post.harvard.edu,
benjamin@law.duke.edu,
tzywick2@gmu.edu,
tcowen@gmu.edu,
jackbalkin@yahoo.com,
ian.ayres@yale.edu,
lee-epstein@northwestern.edu,
mgraber@law.umaryland.edu,
sgriffin@tulane.edu,
shorto@law.columbia.edu,
akoppelman@law.northwestern.edu,
marty.lederman@comcast.net,
slevinson@law.utexas.edu,
david.luban@gmail.com,
kimlane@princeton.edu,
dsolove@law.gwu.edu,
tamanahb@stjohns.edu,
mtushnet@law.harvard.edu,
Sheila.campbell@gsa.gov,
webcontenttoolkit@gsa.gov,
webmanageruniversity@gsa.gov,
ts.current.web.contents@thomson.com,
GeneralInfo@Thomson.com
.

READ MORE

Thomson-Scientific is violating law in UK

An email that I received from Thomson-Scientific contained the following information:

The Thomson Corporation PLC is a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (registered number 2978875) having its registered office and address for service at First Floor, The Quadrangle, 180 Wardour Street, London W1A 4YG

That really surprised me because I always thought of Thomson affiliate Thomson-West as being a quintessentially American company -- it is one of the largest publishers, if not the largest publisher, of law books in the USA. Maybe Thomson-West once was an independent American company -- I think it was known as Westlaw (at least that was the name printed in law books). Talk about globalization!

Anyway, as I pointed out, a Thomson-Scientific scientific database, the ISI Web of Knowledge, lists the Panda's Thumb blog, which practices IP address blocking, which -- as I show here and here -- is illegal in the UK, where Thomson-Scientific is incorporated. So Thomson-Scientific is in cahoots with bloggers who are violating the law in the very country where Thomson-Scientific is incorporated!

American courts have not only started to cite blogs but have also started to cite foreign laws. So maybe American courts could convict Thomson-Scientific under UK laws (that would save me the trouble of suing Thomson-Scientific in a UK court). LOL
.

READ MORE

Blog comment censorship discussed in UK

A recent editorial in the Guardian Unlimited discussed the issue of arbitrary censorship of comments on blogs. It is noteworthy that neither the editorial nor the following comment thread raised legal issues as I did -- the legal issues I raised particularly concern the possibility of court opinions citing blogs whose bloggers arbitrarily censor comments (incidentally, several court citations of blogs were of the visitors' comments rather than the bloggers' initial posts). IMO a blog that is cited by a court opinion becomes like an official governmental public hearing that must accept all comments.

The editorial uses the same kind of doublespeak as used by prevaricating Darwinists who claim that Judge Jones did not really "ban" the book "Of Pandas and People" -- he merely "removed" it from the curriculum. The editorial says,
.

I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the notion that the removal of an individual's comments on a blog amounts to censorship, partly because it cheapens the word. Censorship is what China does to search engines, prison warders do to letters and the Lord Chamberlain used to do to plays. It is not the action of a blogger who decides to remove your comment from the bottom of their post.

Whether or not it is called "censorship," the end result is the same -- so we might as well call it what it is.

BTW, just a personal anecdote --
When I was fighting California's grossly unconstitutional vehicle smog impact fee, my name appeared 31 times in a 49-page ruling of the US Environmental Protection Agency, even though my comments did not specifically address the subject of the public hearing! LOL
.

READ MORE

Thomson-Scientific refers blog comment censorship issue to legal counsel

I have been informed by telephone that Thomson-Scientific has referred the blog comment censorship issue to its legal counsel and that other staff will not discuss the issue further with me. I don't know if this referral means that Thomson-Scientific and its affiliates in the field of law are giving this matter more attention or less attention.

Arbitrary censorship of comments on blogs is not necessarily a legal issue, but IMO it can be. IMO it is definitely a legal issue when a blog is cited by a court opinion. It might be feebly argued that court citations of blogs are no different from the courts' thousands of citations of law journal articles -- however, several of the court opinions' citations of blogs cited visitors' comments rather than the bloggers' original posts. An important legal decision can hinge on whether or not a particular comment or commenter was arbitrarily censored by a blogger. Listen up, Darwinists -- theoretically you could lose an important case against the fundies because some blogger arbitrarily censored your comment. Also, IMO this censorship is a legal issue whenever a blog is referenced by any authority -- such as a scholarly journal or a scholarly database -- that receives direct or indirect government support.

Please send in your protests (see this post) -- and please send me a copy so I have some idea of the amount of support I am getting ( my email address is LarryFarma@aol.com ). Even if your blog comments have not been arbitrarily censored in the past, they might be arbitrarily censored in the future. If it happens to you and you did not join this protest, you will have no one but yourself to blame.
.

READ MORE

Protest of authoritative referencing of arbitrarily censoring blogs

At last, my piece de resistance -- an organized protest of arbitrary Internet censorship. This post has a list of email addresses and telephone numbers for participating in the protest. I am posting this stuff because I have not been getting adequate responses to my own protests.

By arbitrary censorship, I mean that comments and/or commenters are censored for the sole reason that the bloggers disagree with the opinions or arguments of the comments or the commenters. If you get pissed off at bloggers who arbitrarily censor your comments, you are not alone. This arbitrary censorship is bad enough by itself, but IMO it becomes intolerable when blogs whose bloggers arbitrarily censor comments are quoted, cited, or listed for authoritative purposes -- e.g., by court opinions, scholarly journals, and scientific databases. Bloggers who have shown an intention to present only one side of controversial issues do not deserve to have their blogs used for authoritative purposes. That's all there is to it.

Comment censorship in blogs is discussed in the posts listed here and here (these lists of posts may also be found by clicking on "Internet censorship (1 of 2)" and "Internet censorship (2 of 2)" in this blog's left sidebar). These posts show that the use of blogs as authoritative references is already widespread and is growing.

If you don't mind such authoritative use of blogs that have arbitrarily censored your comments, then I beg you to not join this protest (in a Scotch whiskey ad -- I think it was for Glenlivet whiskey -- the brewmaster said, "if you won't drink this whiskey in the proper way -- that is, warm instead of on the rocks -- then I beg you to drink another Scotch"). And no, Voice in the Wilderness, you don't need to thank me for the opportunity to make a counterprotest -- I don't need your thanks for helping you and your pals to make complete fools of yourselves.

To Darwinists who might be reading this post: there is no law, regulation or policy that says that the anti-Darwinist Uncommon Descent blog, for example, may not be referenced for an authoritative purpose. This arbitrary censorship is not just an anti-Darwinist issue, it is not even just an evolution-controversy issue -- it is a universal issue.

IMO a blog article that is cited by a court opinion becomes like a governmental administrative public hearing where all comments must be accepted (of course, by the time a blog is cited by a court opinion, it is too late to accept comments that were previously censored). And blogs may indirectly influence court opinions through the opinions' citations of scholarly journals that cite the blogs. Actually, any blog that is referenced by an entity that is supported by our tax dollars should be considered to be a public forum.

Arbitrary censorship on blogs can include IP address blocking, which is disreputable, irresponsible, and possibly illegal as well as often being ineffective. IP address blocking can block comments from large numbers of Internet users who share the same ISP proxy IP address. If we do nothing else, let's put an end to this abominable IP address blocking.

Aims of protest:

(1) Discouraging authoritative use of blogs whose bloggers arbitrarily censor comments and/or commenters.

(2) General discouragement of arbitrary censorship on blogs. Creating an Internet culture of disapproval of such censorship. At the least, this censorship is very inconsiderate because often a lot of time is spent writing comments.

(3) Ending the abominable practice of IP address blocking.

(4) Discouraging blog services from aiding and abetting this arbitrary censorship. Blog services aid and abet this censorship by offering IP address blocking or other means of censorship. Discouraging blog services from leaking commenters' IP or email address information to bloggers (such leakage may already be illegal in Europe).

(5) Discouraging comment "moderation" (the holding up of comments pending approval by the blogger). Comment moderation prevents the timely posting of comments, disrupts and greatly slows down discussions, loses comments, and leaves commenters up in the air wondering when and if their comments are going to be posted.

(6) Encouraging bloggers to post a comment policy. This blog's comment policy is linked at the bottom of the left sidebar.

(7) Establishment of a government agency that certifies blogs as being free of arbitrary comment censorship. Government rules prohibiting citation of uncertified blogs by courts, government agencies, people or organizations receiving government funds, etc.. (this idea was added on 04-20-07).

(8) Automatic archiving of censored comments on blogs. Then if there is an intention to authoritatively reference the blog, the archive can be checked to see if there are any arbitrarily censored comments (this idea was added on 04-20-07).

(9) When a blog article and/or its visitors' comments are authoritatively quoted or cited by a court opinion, scholarly journal, etc., then the article, its comment thread, and any linked websites should be permanently and securely archived somewhere for possible future reference (this idea was added on 04-21-07).

(10) Bloggers who practice arbitrary comment censorship should not be considered to be eligible to receive blogging awards (this idea was added on 04-21-07).

(11) Prevent or discourage the "banning" of particular commenters. It makes no sense to ban particular commenters and then complain when they post comments under false names or multiple names in an attempt to evade the ban (this idea was added on 04-24-07).

List of email addresses and phone numbers:

The following email list includes the following:

(1) Staffers of Thomson-Scientific, which maintains a scientific database called the ISI Web of Knowledge. They told me that it is their policy to include arbitrarily censoring blogs in this database.

(2) Email addresses of Panda's Thumb bloggers. PT practices arbitrary censorship and is listed in the ISI Web of knowledge. PT admits to practicing IP address blocking.

(3) Email addresses for Thomson-West, a law publisher that is affiliated with Thomson-Scientific. Thomson-West sponsors a group of law blogs called the Law Professor Blogs.

(4) Emails of the bloggers on Law Blog Metrics, a member of the Law Professor Blogs network. A Law Blog Metrics blogger, Ian Best, sent me a very rude email refusing to post a comment of mine -- fortunately one of his co-bloggers posted the comment. Ironically, my comment was a complaint about the possibility of a court opinion citing an arbitrarily censoring blog.

(5) Some other emails of bloggers on the Law Professor Blogs network. Law blogs are particularly likely to be cited in law journal articles and court opinions.

(6) Scienceblogs blog service. Scienceblogs is a blog service with a lot of "science" blogs. Commenters' IP and email addresses are leaked by Scienceblogs to Scienceblogs bloggers. Scienceblogs has enabled IP address blocking. There is a fair chance that a Scienceblogs blog may be used for an authoritative purpose.

I have made it easy to create a single string of email addresses by keeping interruptions in the email list to a minimum.

Your protest email could, for example, state the aims of this protest or describe incidents of arbitrary censorship of your comments by bloggers. You might also say that the "show me" guy from Missouri sent ya. You could also send a copy of your protest to me at LarryFarma@aol.com You could also tell your friends about this protest.

Take advantage of the power of the Internet to make your thoughts widely known.

Remember, folks, if this protest fizzles, the situation will be worse than it was before -- the protest will then be seen as evidence that people don't care about authoritative referencing of blogs whose bloggers arbitrarily censor comments.

Thomson-Scientific:

allison.hagan@thomson.com,
kathleen.odonnell@thomson.com,
marylou.warwick@thomson.com,
ts.cts.amer@thomson.com,
service@techstreet.com,
rs.info@thomson.com,
rs.sales@thomson.com

Thomson-West et al.:

foundation-press@thomson.com,
west_lawschool@thomson.com,
support@westacademic.com

Law Blog Professors Network:

paul.caron@uc.edu,
berman.43@osu.edu,
nancy.soonpaa@ttu.edu,
faigmand@uchastings.edu,
David.Kaye@asu.edu,
Michael.Saks@asu.edu,
JSanders@central.UH.edu,
edward.cheng@brooklaw.edu,
mgiangra@depaul.edu

Law Blog Metrics bloggers:

ianbest@sbcglobal.net,
joe.hodnicki@gmail.com,
JONESRE@UCMAIL.UC.EDU

Misc. law:

jaywex@bu.edu,
quarter@wulaw.wustl.edu

Panda's Thumb bloggers:

rosenhjd@jmu.edu,
nmsrdave@swcp.com,
abottaro@pandasthumb.org,
ed@pandasthumb.org,
brauer@pandasthumb.org,
reed@pandasthumb.org,
welsberr@pandasthumb.org,
rbh@pandasthumb.org,
garyhurd@pandasthumb.org,
minlay@pandasthumb.org,
jkrebs@pandasthumb.org,
jml@pandasthumb.org,
ianfmusgrave@pandasthumb.org,
pz@pandasthumb.org,
tara@pandasthumb.org,
wilkins@pandasthumb.org

Scienceblogs:

webmaster@seedmediagroup.com,
newblogger@seedmediagroup.com,
advertising@seedmediagroup.com

Also, there are these telephone numbers:

Thomson-Scientific:

1-800-336-4474

Allison Hagan, ext. 1881
Department of Public Relations and Communications

Marylou Warwick, ext. 1591

.

READ MORE