Talk:Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 The difficulty of NPOV in these troubling times
- 2 Positive press articles?
- 3 Funding, Quotations
- 4 AdTI and tobacco industry
- 5 Linking to Disinfopedia
- 6 "pseudo think-tank"
- 7 Ken Brown article
- 8 AdTI Samizdat reply
- 9 Groklaw articles on AdTI
- 10 AdTI education papers
- 11 "well known" or "best known" for Linux attacks?
- 12 Comment from Minix
- 13 Trivia section
- 14 Cleanup
- 15 2004 staff list
- 16 Current president?
- 17 Location?
- 18 Numerous Issues
The difficulty of NPOV in these troubling times
This is quite a fair write-up so far. I suggest people pissed off with ADTI's work should not affect the bias of this article but link to this article. - SalimFadhley
- I was gritting my teeth so hard I nearly broke a filling. I have taken care to link to all studies I could find linked on their appallingly-designed website or through Google, not just the open source ones. - David Gerard 20:46, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
Really good work in putting together a portfolio, all we need to do is get enough people to link to this page using the words "Alexis de Tocqueville Institution", and this will be the top search result on Google. --Salimfadhley 00:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Positive press articles?
Are there any positive press articles on AdTI of any quality, i.e. that aren't press release reprints? - David Gerard 21:23, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
- No, I used to work in a related industry and believe me, the idea is to take advantage of the hackish tendencies of most IT journalists. They will tend to do the bare minimum of research, merely paraphrasing an agency press-release. If journalists paused to investigate what they are writing then the whole ADTI business model would collapse. --Salimfadhley 11:46, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I seem to remember a great quote from Ken Browne along the lines of 'We will take money from anybody', contrasted with his claims not to be anybody's PR shill (the 2nd one is at the bottom of the ZD net article). Do you think this ought to go into a quotations section? --Salimfadhley 11:51, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly in the funding section. Keeping that understated and factual will be a test of one's NPOV abilities ;-) - David Gerard 11:53, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Were you able to find the article about ATDI accepting money from anybody? That (if a genuine quotation) is a clear and unambiguous statement of funding policy? --Salimfadhley 19:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
- Not yet. I might have a look this evening or tomorrow - David Gerard 20:53, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
- No luck. I did manage to find a pile of other articles on AdTI, as you'll see from the recent additions (which are all worth a read). Hard part is finding articles on them not relating to Linux/Open Source.
- I've put both quotes in. Not sure about the links, 'cos they'd be redundant with the "news" ext links ... I'm referencing them with the dates - David Gerard 11:21, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
AdTI and tobacco industry
The article needs a section on this - their 1994 report was apparently used by a lot of tobacco companies at the time. See also Disinfopedia:AdTI-Funding for some info on this (though that would require a heavy-duty NPOVing for Wikipedia, and may constitute original research ;-) - David Gerard 13:23, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Acording to this blog article, Philip Morris released bunches of documents as part of their Tobacco Settlement Agreement, among them docs that could be construed as Philip Morris hiring ADTI to do PR. The documents seem to be genuine, as they're hosted on http://www.pmdocs.com/, and it sure does seem like that's what happened, but I have to wonder why no one reported on this, or challenged ADTI's non-profit status, if this is what actually happened. -- Khym Chanur 00:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed. The Disinfopedia article "AdTI-Funding" writes on this, but it's more notes for future investigative journalism than something we could point to as a source for such an assertion (even if it uses the term "damning circumstantial evidence"). The hard part will be writing a sensible paragraph or two on the subject that doesn't constitute original research - David Gerard 14:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Just took the Lambert blog article and turned it into a paragraph. Needs work. - David Gerard 21:53, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We really need more than a para on the AdTI's tobacco work. Who would know anything about it to contribute? Is Tim Lambert a Wikipedian (yet)? - David Gerard 08:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Linking to Disinfopedia
Rather than credit them at the end, should we not link to these guys in 1st links section; it is after all a major collection of information about AdTI. I suggest that the link should also include the phrase "Alexis de Tocqueville Institution", that way Google will pick it up it's key relevance. --Salimfadhley 21:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- I put the link to Disinfopedia in for GFDL author acknowledgement purposes - see thread on WikiEN-L. Much as Wikipedia acknowledges sources like FOLDOC and so on - David Gerard 23:13, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
I see this term is widely used, but fear it may verge on inherently POV. The status of think tanks and their backers is a variable spectrum ... What would be a few good examples of non-pseudo think tanks? - David Gerard 15:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- I've removed it, for now at least - pseudo think tank doesn't exist yet, and it smells a bit POV to me (accusation by statement). Also, I don't think it's necessary - their own works condemn them as much as is needed; a mere statement of the facts gets their character across - David Gerard 08:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ken Brown article
Has been started at Ken Brown. It's verging on gibberish at present. Could do with the above and info from his Disinfopedia article. Hurry, hurry! (I'm busy putting away the shopping and doing housework ...) - David Gerard 20:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I've imported the Disinfopedia article. It's a good one too. A lot of the newspaper articles linked from that article should be in this one too under "AdTI writings," I suspect - David Gerard 08:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
AdTI Samizdat reply
That "Linux is a leprosy" quote is a doozy. Perhaps a sixth paragraph in the article about Ken Brown continuing the spat publicly. This piece also leads with a quote to confirm the statement in the article intro about the intended audience for AdTI's works.
Could we do with article on the term "hybrid source code"? Microsoft and Sun appear to be pushing the term, and it's apparently shown up in proposed legislation! (Details somewhere or other on Groklaw.) - David Gerard 08:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Groklaw articles on AdTI
The assorted Groklaw articles on AdTI/Samizdat should probably be added to the criticism section. Although the crit. section is getting a bit long and may benefit from being cut down to really significant criticism (most quoted articles, articles that have become part of the story like the Tanenbaum ones). I'm reluctant to cut much though - it's all on-topic.
Although Groklaw is unashamedly partisan and stridently POV, right down to the article titles ... Note that some of the below are just reprints of other listed criticisms and may not be worth listing for themselves. Remove URLs from the list below as they're put into the article - David Gerard 08:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock (Groklaw, 17 May 2004)
- Tanenbaum Responds: Linus Wrote Linux, ADTI's Ken Brown Doesn't Have a Clue and Should Apologize (Groklaw, 20 May 2004)
- Andrew S. Tanenbaum's Reply to ADTI (Groklaw, 22 May 2004)
- straight reprint of first two Tanenbaum criticisms - probably not worth listing
- A Tweak to the Patch Submission Process and a Word on AdTI (Groklaw, 23 May 2004)
- Man AdTI Hired to Compare Minix/Linux Found No Copied Code (Groklaw, 27 May 2004)
- Stallman and Salus Also Contradict Ken Brown's Discredited "Samizdat" (Groklaw, 29 May 2004)
- No Minix code in Linux Ever -- More Evidence (Groklaw, 19 April 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
AdTI education papers
Jeez there's a lot of 'em. Articles, letters, position papers (i.e., unpublished articles), pages of links to more pages ... This stuff should be indexed here because AdTI has removed the index pages that used to link to it, though not the articles themselves. Remove URLs from the list below as they're put into the article.
The education work was clearly a major project and needs a good writeup. - David Gerard 08:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"well known" or "best known" for Linux attacks?
The AdTI's Linux attacks have made the mainstream: a Wall Street Journal article.
Note that the AdTI has generally operated in stealth mode, not seeking too much fame for itself, and certainly not this sort. With this mainstream attention upon them and specifically for these attacks, I submit that the Linux attacks are what the AdTI is in fact "best known for" - David Gerard 10:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. I am sure it is best known among Linux fans for its Linux attacks, and probably among Wikipedia users, but I don't know that that is what they are best-known for overall. It's sometimes difficult for netheads (and I include myself) to step outside the Internet echo chamber. A Google search on "Alexis de Tocqueville Institution" turned up mostly Linux stuff, but a search on LexisNexis Academic, surveying print media, got 41 hits in Magazines and Journals, of which only 4 dealt with open source (3 with the Linux attack, one with how open source can make our infrastructure vulnerable to terrorists [?!]), and 114 in Major Papers, with only five dealing with open-source (four Linux, one the open-source terrorist thing). I think that the best that can be said is that it is best-known of late for the Linux attacks, but I'd rather remove the statement altogether.--Max power 17:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree :-) I have subscribed to Google News for "tocqueville institution" and "tocqueville institute". At present, it's all they're known for.
Comment from Minix
Possibly useful content, entirely inelegant presentation. The AdTI quote isn't mirrored in full anywhere (heh!); I've pointed Alexa at it and it should show up on the Wayback Machine. Then we can just link to it in the AdTI writings - David Gerard 21:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- True, probably inelegant :) I figured it should go in there. I also got an email from Lee Gomes who told me he thought it was just normal mirroring. Good idea to get it archived though! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:22, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You mean, of what Linux Today do? If Lee Gomes stated that publicly somewhere, or agreed to said email being released and put up somewhere, that should be referred to as well. "Gomes himself disagreed with this characterisation ." Or do you mean of us quoting it? - David Gerard 13:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Er, sorry. I meant it was a good idea to get the AdTI site archived. I suppose I could ask Gomes whether I could get an official response. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article, in particular with regards to the Linux stuff. There were three or four separate sections that discussed this, which I consolidated as best I could. It might still need more editing to make it all fit together. Paul 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2004 staff list
The entire tobacco section is unsourced. The text makes reference to documents at Tobaccosecrets.org, which obviously has issues with WP:RS, and the section about "links" to other entities appears to be WP:Synthesis. The only thing salvageable out of the whole thing seems to be that AdT was definitely a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition.