Talk:Benjamin Mako Hill

Media Hound and ScaraB

Media Hound and ScaraB, after going over all your previous postings about the ICD, it is very hard to ignore the feeling, that you are not a neutral and objective user, but rather individuals who are for whatever reason (perhaps former intern/worker/partner there, or carrying a hidden agenda, even perhaps the owner of the hater blog against the ICD, but you surly had some sort of relation with them) aiming to discredit the ICD, or create doubts about its legitimacy, using the Wikipedia source as a tool. I have doubts, as well, that you are using Mako (probably you also contacted him directly), who seems as a legitimate guy (he is also not hiding behind any anonymity) to be on the look-out for so called “controversies” about the ICD (such as working agreement between Interns/volunteers and the ICD), while on the other hand using your computer skills ignoring, annulling, deleting the hundreds of legitimate independent resources that are notable by Wikipedia standards, and which I am currently working on to restore and to publish them according to the best rules/norms/guidance of Wikipedia.

For example, National Public Radio covered some of their conferences in a very interesting way, which can be found in a 5 second Google search, see here ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111346468 ). I found it, and I was surprised to see that it was also on the Wikipedia page and was taken down by Mako. Furthermore, I was shocked to read the comment below made by Mako, who now has doubts also regarding NPR and their reporter Monika Mueller Kroll?!! To my understanding a public remark like this one, could easily fall into the category of Slander/Defamation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel . I see it necessary to contact Monika Mueller Kroll, as well as NPR and inform them about Mako´s statement.

Please see the controversial statement of Mako here:

“The most convincing coverage from a reliable source on the list is definitely the work from NPR. That said, I'm a little worried by issues with conflict of interest here as well. All of the NPR pieces are written by one person -- Monika Mueller Kroll. Monica herself has her work hosted and promoted by ICD [40] and NPR Berlin (presumably, through Monica) has hosted events with/at the ICD. —mako๛ 06:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)”

Therefore , my main concern here is that you are not an objective nor neutral wiki users, and this is why?

From a very brief check you can see that actually all of your activities around the ICD, are on a negative side and you are not trying to bring any kind of neutral sources (which could be easily found) and you attempt only to publish a non-fact information in order to de legitimize the creditability of the ICD.

In addition to the one-sided postings coming from your side, I can learn from the speed of your reaction to the corrections made my Mako and from your willingness to support any negative claim in a very short time, that you are very much committed to promote a non-objective, biased campaign against the ICD.

In addition, I am very curious about the last pdf file that media hound posted here in this page and I am wondering how did you acquire this document? I tried to get this pdf in Verdi´s website and also on the internet and failed. I would be happy if you can send me a reliable source where I can download this document.

I am also wondering, as you are for some reason so interested with the ICD, whether you are in direct contact with them, for example in order to ask them for their assistance in referring you to already published reliable sources? Have you? If you did not contact them, it could imply that you are not an objective user that is interested and willing to do a serious research as reasonably required. The first source to search for information about an organization is to contact the organization itself (especially in cases like this where doubts/concerns are raised), because they can assist you and also can refer at the same time to any concern you or others may have (every professional write/journalist would do so). As you never mentioned did nor published any information about the ICD (except these negative posts and the work made by Mako, which actually simply deleted all text in the page) I assume that you did not contact them and are not interested to be in dialogue with the ICD. This strength my concerns about your motives and interests in editing the ICD wiki article, and my feeling here is that probably you cannot really remove the anonymity of your users, as you have a serious conflict of interest . I would suggest that firstly you will contact the ICD, to try to get all of the material you are interested in from them, I feel it will be much more efficient, appropriate, right and fast. You wanted to be in contact with me, but not with the source directly (the ICD) for some reason, why?

Once viewing the video clips of lectures, and events of the ICD, as well as reading in full other press articles, one can learn that there are many legitimate independent resources that can support this page. In addition, once viewing similar organizations wiki pages you can notice that the wiki articles for other organizations are not in any different standards, to say the least. I wonder and will be very interested to know, why you have chosen the ICD wiki page from all these thousands of organizations, and if you are planning to show such same care and concerns about the pages of other organizations, or you keep this privilege of dedicating your full attention, free time and devotion to the ICD only. From the first place, I could not understand what is the big fuss about the ICD, an organization like many hundreds of thousands across the world, that according to their website, and the publications, such as videos, reports, etc. are simply trying to promote their very legitimate agenda and achieve their objectives and why should be so many talks about this. I’m also surprised to see how such talented people are wasting their days to run such a campaign.

My dear Wikipedia colleagues, all of these activities are seem to be lone-sided and will not be able to be supported by Wikipedia standards. Excuse me, but it doesn't look like a work of a regular user who has honest intentions, it is simply does not make any sense to me. I think that Wikipedia administrators and staffers should be reported about this activity and of the above concerns of using Wikipedia for personal Agenda of a campaign against the ICD, compromising Wikipedia’s standards and reputation.. As mentioned above I am currently working to restore and to publish the page according to the best practices/rules/norms/guidance of Wikipedia.

--Hessin fahem (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Acetarium

What is it? Why does he own it? http://www.acetarium.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.38.231 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2007

it's probably not real, like acetaria. 18.85.19.47 04:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What is Acetaria and why do you claim that is not real? —mako๛ 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the Acetarium. It is real. Aaronshaw (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Poetry

"Hill is known within the hacker community for his essays and innovative package-name poetry."

...What? --24.184.131.16 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

---

he coordinated the construction of a community around the Ubuntu Project as project "community manager" (later succeeding the role to Jono Bacon)

Is this supposed to say "... later ceding the role ..."? BretMartin (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

editedhere flag

Can someone remove the "editedhere=yes" tag from {{notable wikipedia}} tag at the top of this talk page? As it stands it says my "editing has included significant contributions to this article" and points people to the WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NPOV policy pages.

I've certainly made a bunch of edits to other things, but I've really tried not to edit this article. Looking through the history, I think I've made four edits to it. Three were changes to categories and one was a link fix. You can see them all here here: [1] [2] [3]

I would do it myself on any other article but I'd rather have someone take a look at the evidence and make the changes themselves because I do take WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO seriously. :) Thanks! —mako๛ 23:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for providing the diffs. Steven Walling 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)