Jump to content

Talk:CrimethInc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramorx (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 10 January 2009 (→‎Plagiarism: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleCrimethInc. has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 14, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Template:Anarcho-article Template:Maintained

Reception amongst anarchists

I have an issue with this section, despite the fact that a quote from me is included in it. This section appears to be a weasel attempt to include material critical of Crimethinc. This kind of section is not commonplace for organizational entries on Wikipedia. I'd vote for deleting the section in order to make the article more concise. Chuck0 (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean "weasel" exactly? All the opinions are clearly attributed. I have included any reactions to Crimethinc. by any marginally significant anarchists; Clamor, Libcom and Perspectives on Anarchist Theory are at least as significant as Red Emma's infoshop, and even including your quote is a stretch, as it wasn't from a published article (i.e. on Infoshop News) but your personal blog. The section is certainly true and accurate in the sense that it does not misrepresent (to my knowledge) any of the opinions expressed. I would also argue that it is of great value for the reader in order to put CrimethInc. into context - by following a link or two the reader will learn CrimethInc. is associated with the post-left/"lifestylist" current and opposed by some in the platformist/anarcho-communist/"class struggle" milieu. As the peer review recommended, we need as much context and background as reliable sources and noteworthy opinions will allow, because for the average/uninformed reader it is quite difficult to understand. If you have access to or knowledge of any well-written coverage or noteworthy opinions on CrimethInc. that I've missed, I would love to use them. Regards, Skomorokh 02:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the subsection "Reception Amongst Anarchists" is a weasel phrase that avoids titling the section "Criticism." If the section were titled "Criticism" then it would be challenged by more editors, as criticism sections in organizational entries is frowned upon on Wikipedia. I think that this section represents an attempt by CrimethInc critics to insert their opinions about CrimethInc into this entry. This is a no-no on Wikipedia.
Yes, the content in this section may be cited, but my concern is with the inclusion of this section, which runs afoul of standard Wikipedia practices. The fact that information in any subsection is cited is a separate issue from the editorial decisions about the inclusion of the section in the first place.
Your comments here represent several inaccuracies which demonstrate my point about this section. Crimethinc is neither a post-leftist nor a "lifestylist" current. The latter claim is preposterous, as there is no such thing as a "lifestylist currrent." Certain sectarians in the movement may think that such a thing exists, but Wikipedia is no place for the inclusion of irrational sectarian attacks masquerading as facts. Nobody identifies as "lifestylist." I'm also a prominent post-leftist and know several of the prominent post-leftist writers. Crimethinc has never come up in our discussions as being a post-leftist project. People are confusing Crimethinc articles critical of leftism with post-leftism. Anarchists of many stripes have been critical of leftism for around 150 years. Criticism of leftism is not the same thing as post-leftism. And even if Crimethinc published an article or two that represented post-leftist thinking and analysis, that does not make the Crimethinc project into a representative of post-leftism. This is a error that has been compounded by Wikipedia editors who don't understand the nuances of anarchist theory. Chuck0 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Two points to be addressed:
  • I didn't say (and neither does the article) that CrimethInc. are post-leftist or lifestylist. I said they are associated with those currents/concepts. For example, I often find criticism of CrimethInc. from this angle by anarchist communists associated with NEFAC, Worker's Solidarity Movement, Libcom and Anarkismo.net. (read the comments on those links for an idea). I'm not saying it's accurate, I'm saying it's there.
  • I agree with you that Wikipedia articles on people/organizations should not have Criticism sections, and that if what are effectively criticism sections are masquerading under other titles, they should be honestly retitled "Criticism". But I don't think that is the case here: we have three items of praise (Graeber, Munson, Red Emma's) and three of criticism (Ryan, Libcom, Clamor). In my browser, the praise is seven lines long, while the criticism is six or seven (if you include the reference in the pull-quote). So you'll understand if I disagree that this is anything other than a collection of notable anarchists' impressions of Crimethinc — good, bad or ambiguous. If you have any other notable reactions, I'd be happy to include them. Sincerely,Skomorokh 01:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people out there who associate things that aren't associated. Just because a few anarchists think, or desire, that Crimethinc be associated with something doesn't make it so. This has to be established through working relationships between people, such as a post-leftist press publishing a book by Crimethinc, for example (this hasn't happened). What this is really about is another effort by a few anarchists to bad mouth Crimethinc by associating it with things that they don't like or that they think will tarnish Crimethinc's reputation. This is basically a dishonest way to engage in criticism or opposition to something. It gets even sillier when people use Wikipedia to normalize their political vendettas. Chuck0 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but these are philosophical objections to Wikipedia's modus operandi, which aren't likely to radically change any time soon. As you say, plenty of people associate CrimethInc. with plenty of things. How are we (as Wikipedia editors) supposed to decide which evidence "makes it so" and which doesn't? What if I were to say that your post-leftist press is a capitalist farce? The compromise Wikipedia uses is "report relevant associations made by notable figures as neutrally as possible as let the reader decide what to make of them." Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be arguing that someone make an informed subjective choice about which associations to represent; that would be an unworkable solution for an ahierarchical encyclopedia because everyone thinks they are the person whose judgement is best. Skomorokh 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can find any number of Wikipedia policies to support my argument that the number of critical links in the Crimethinc entry are excessive. How about the one about using Wikipedia to conduct activism? I've experienced numerous efforts by people editing entries to reflect their own sectarian political agenda. The fact is that the number of critical links on this entry are excessive when compared to similar entries on organizations. Chuck0 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I respectfully disagree, and don't think we are going to get much further with this discussion, would you like to put it to a third opinion from an uninvolved editor? Regards, Skomorokh 00:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think we should mull it over for some period of time. This isn't a critical issue and it reflects issues of style, emphasis and scope in an article. As you may know, I'm in favor of adding more content to Wikipedia articles, whereas the current regime across Wikipedia favors terse articles. Chuck0 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Given your preference for adding more content to Wikipedia articles, and your close ties to the anarchist media, do you think you would be able to find reactions to CrimethInc. from noteworthy anarchists that I have missed? That might go some way to add balance. I'll have a look for responses from Crimethinc. Thanks again for your input, Skomorokh 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of censorship?

Some of these links take you down some strange avenues, brother. For example, citation 22, at first, appears to be information linked to the police informant issue regarding the convergences. It follows immediately after the sentence about the two instances when that request has been violated. Upon clicking the link, the html heading at first says something regarding "the student underground" and "affidavit". However, within two seconds it leads to hotel listings in Rome. Is this some kind of fake blocker site or just wacky html screwups. Idunno. See for yrself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.15.249 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, whoever owned the website which hosted the copy of the affidavit apparently failed to renew their contract and lost control. I'll try and resolve this soon. Skomorokh 17:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be usable now. Skomorokh 17:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 convergence sources

Some refs from the recent convergence:

Skomorokh 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Unrelated interview in Swedish anarchomag: http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2008/09/11/cwc-interview-in-swedish-syndicalist-paper/#more-354 Skomorokh 10:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

I do not see the need for the split of the publications section at this stage. It is not overly large. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review suggested that there was repetition and discord between the section's attempt to describe the groups publishing history and the list of works. It is not terribly long, but there is certainly potential for expansion, as I have omitted much in an effort to keep it brief thus far. Skomorokh 00:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, having a list in the middle of the article disrupts the flow of the text, and the list could not be moved to the end of the article as books are the most noteworthy publications of the group. Skomorokh 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the split for each of the points raised above. Sharpening the focus of the article will be an important step towards featured article quality, and of course, the publication list can also become featured someday. --Cast (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this topic is impossible to write a featured article upon, given the patchwork sourcing, but that's no reason we shouldn't try to improve it. I'm going to go ahead and implement this split. Do you think the Videos section should stay or split with the books etc.?Skomorokh 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People tend to think of printed material when they use the word "publication", but so long as they is produced and published by the group, videos belong on the list. I say include them.--Cast (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

I would like to point out that under the Philiosophy section of the Crimethinc entry, my name is erroneously associated with the anti-plagiarist work of George MacDonald Ross. In fact I am an enthusiastic advocate of plagiarism and my reference to Crimethinc's plagiarism is that it is poorly executed in the book Days of War, Nights of Love...which I refer in "Ryan, Ramor (2004) Days of Crime, Nights of Horror, Perspectives on Anarchist Theory. Retrieved 2008-02-22." to as 'a bad photocopy of a good (situationist) book'. So I would appreciate if the reference to me in this context was taken out, thanks. Ramor Ryan

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CrimethInc.&oldid=263241832"