Jump to content

Talk:History of IBM

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rwwww (talk | contribs) at 01:07, 15 April 2010 (→Wikipedia - The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge: Try at neutral WW II paragraph). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fresh start

Administrative review of the history of this article and its talk page has resulted in a user being blocked for massive sockpuppetry. It's fairly obvious that the article has been unduly influenced towards a particular point of view, especially with regards to the "IBM and the Holocaust" accusations. Black's singular book isn't enough to substantiate the facts alleged here or in the IBM and the Holocaust article (which should be renamed to reflect that it's an article about a book with that title, not about the subject itself). Would anyone like to help organize a team to give the articles a good editorial review? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to participate in said review, although for obvious reasons (potential COI, see my talk page) it would preferable if I were not be the primary lead here. But if whoever takes on the lead feels that there's a role I can play to make these articles more objective and useful to the reader, s/he need only ask. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Paul -- I personally have seen no concerning behavior from you, but I think we may best be suited to use you as a resource for clarifying and organizing thoughts, and let the actual wordsmithery be handled by others. After I started this thread the SSP admin helpfully restored the article to the pre-sockpuppetry version, so my concern is slightly less now than it was before.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I think that my participation in any dialogue around IBM's role in the Holocaust is likely to become a distraction. So I'm going to recuse myself from this particular discussion. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IBM and the Holocaust moved to IBM and the Holocaust (book) for exactly the reason given above. I've also requested a CSD for the original page instead of a redirect. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxthos and Paul: I have referred this entire exchange to the Edwin Black website and suggested the author's personal review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.168 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Black has a clear conflict of interest with regards to this subject; with no disrespect intended towards Mr. Black intended, I don't think that his involvement will be helpful, as it's perfectly clear that he supports a specific agenda through the promotion of a singular source (his own book). What we need are more objective Wikipedians contributing, not involving the figure central to supporting fringe accusations and a subjective POV. Until there are other independent reliable sources that support Mr. Black's conclusions and accusations, it is a violation of several core Wikipedia policies (WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV) to make such broad statements in an encyclopedic article based on one man's research (no matter how well constructed it may be). To be perfectly clear: my issue is not with the book or the research itself (which is wholly irrelevant to my point), the issue is assigning proper weight based upon independent academic secondary sources; if we only have one nonfiction book by a journalist we can't dedicate paragraphs to speculation, accusation, and damnation of any subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that Mr. Black and his work IBM and the Holocaust are being treated fairly here, nor do I think his work has anything to do with a fringe. This is unfair treatment directed at a specific person and I think someone needs to say it.I also think Blaxthos should consider doing what Paul did--recuse himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.200.13 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I demand that we comply with core policies like diverse reliable sourcing and proper weight? Negative -- you've already been blocked for sockpuppetry, and Mr. Black has been blocked for making legal threats. Despite what you may believe, Wikipedia is not a wild west devoid of rules -- single-agenda-driven editors who show no interest in and contempt for our policies and guidelines (by way of repeatedly violating them) are not welcome. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:COI is more demanding than the common usage of the phrase "conflict of interest" - it applies only when "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". Edwin Black might very well be more interested in providing verifiable, reliably sourced information than in any particular outside agenda. WP:AGF and WP:BITE should have applied. It is true that 29 hours and 7 edits after registering, User:Edwin Black Washington DC (if he really is Edwin Black) was indefinitely blocked, as was an IP address in Washington DC posting in response. The block decision could deserve further elaboration - I was under the impression that a cease and desist letter had to tell someone to cease and desist or face legal action, whereas Black simply told them to cease and desist without saying that. What is certain is that Wikipedia has lost yet another potentially invaluable contributor. Wnt (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point with regards to WP:BITE, however it should be noted that this came on the tail end of a very large number of sockpuppets being blocked for rather obviously trying to unduly influence the article (which probably reduced the amout of good faith he encountered (coupled with his immediate demands of C&D, threats to involve the media, and attempted outing of Wikipedia editors). There was a pretty hefty discussion of Mr. Black's actions at ANI, and he was blocked after persisting to issue legalistic threats ("cease & desist" warnings have only one intent -- a chilling effect with a hidden (if not stated) implication that legal action will follow) after being directed to OTRS and warned to stop by several administrators. I'll refrain from responding to the COI points, as it seems that this issue is moving towards resolution -- hopefully it's a moot issue at this point anyway, and I don't want to risk upsetting the applecart.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Edwin Black's syndicated article regarding Wikipedia and these recent exchanges will be of interest. Five versions are shown. I am posting this message to the 4 pages which I believe have an interest in the articles.

Edwin Black: see it Edwin Black: this might be better formatted Edwin Black: I believe Edwin Black's syndicated article regarding Wikipedia and these recent exchanges will be of interest. Five versions are shown. I am posting this message to the 4 pages which I believe have an interest in the articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxstudio (talk • contribs)


I would ask no one to add text in my name or colour my words as was just done and please remove them or sign them yourself. Saxstudio (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

they are your words, they get signed with your user name. A simple concept. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge

Thanks in no small part to a recent series of problematic edits here a 6,000 word article has appeared criticising Wikipedia's reliability. A topic worthy of significant, sustained coverage (not to mention a dedicated non-fiction book) has in the last month been reduced to three heavily biased sentences, the first of which is constructed to discredit the latter two:

A book published by the year of 2001, as well as a dismissed lawsuit against the company, speculate on the uses of Hollerith equipment by the Nazi government and IBM's role. IBM's German subsidiary during the 1930s – Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen GmbH (Dehomag) – supplied Hollerith equipment. As with hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time, Dehomag came under the control of Nazi authorities prior to and during World War II.

If IBM was indeed involved in the automation of persecution then this is most certainly pertinent to an article dealing with its history and it should be covered in a neutral manner. It most certainly should not be actively concealed so as to give rise to what appears to be a legitimate complaint about the accuracy of Wikipedia. -- samj inout 01:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this could be worded more specific and the word "speculates" seems too weak. (I have not read Black's book though.) Andries (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People who are involved in this dispute should be asking themselves whether Black's book is a either fine well-documented scholarly book that does not exaggerate, does not have major omissions, does not blow things out of proportion. If that is the case it will likely have positive scholarly reviews and Black's views will be shared by mainstream historians. The opposite may tbe true too: it is a flimsy hyped grossly exaggerated book. Andries (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, I think that those of us who have been involved of (or aware of) the complete history of this article and the Black situation seriously object to Mr. Black's portrayal of the facts. I think that your assertion that something is being "actively concealed" and that there are some complaints as to "the accuracy of Wikipedia" goes a long way towards abandoning good faith for established and respected admins & editors in favor of affording it to a journalist who has been indefinitely blocked for violating our core policies. There are plenty of demonstrably false statements in his article, and I don't think you can both argue that we present things neutrally and argue that we should accept Mr. Black's book as the single authority on this topic -- at its core, neutral presentation requires multiple reliable sources. I've asked for some independent (preferably academic) sources to help bolster his claims and help us assess proper weight, however no one has been able to produce any. In the case where there are no independent reliable sources to support his assertions, it's fair to conclude that the theory may be fringe and shouldn't be afforded undue weight. Keep in mind, when the New York Times reviewed the book, the conclusion even stated:

"...one wonders if Mr. Black has properly calculated the degree of the company's culpability... Mr. Black, in his fervor to find I.B.M. culpable, weighs only punch cards in this particular balance... he does not demonstrate that I.B.M. bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."

To me, even the Times recognizes that Mr. Black has a "fervor" to right some Great Wrong that isn't supported by other historians and sources (or, if they are, none have ever been presented), and his actions here on Wikipedia and in his article have shown that his number one goal is to promote his beliefs (not improve Wikipedia articles within our policies and guidelines); his article only seems to give credibility to my conclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an attempt at a neutral WW II paragraph.
World War II was a total war, the countries involved committing all their resources to war efforts. Early computers found war-time applications in such areas as the aerodynamics of glide bombs (Konrad Zuse, Germany), cryptography (Colossus, England), and naval mathematical computations (IBM ASCC, United States). Punched card technology was applied to war efforts, notable in the United States was its use in the computations needed to develop the atomic bomb.[1] In both the United States and Germany concentration or internment camps were established; citizens of each country utilizing the available punched card technology in their operation. In the United States IBM, at the request of the government, was the subcontractor for the concentration camp's punch card project. [2]
  1. ^ Richard Feynman
  2. ^ Tyson, Thomas N (June 2006). "Aaccounting for interned Japanese-American civilians during World War II: Creating incentives and establishing controls for captive workers". The Accounting Historians Journal. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    3. ------------- (2nd ref above doesn't indent). tooold (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_IBM&oldid=356082314"