Lance on Wikipedia

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote on 17/07/2006 20:23 +0100:

Quoted message said:

A Wikipedia editor wants the Lance Armstrong article to say that he's
guilty of doping, although UCI, Vrijman, the courts and the fact that
he's never been caught suggest otherwise. Fun and games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

Not Richard Pound or the editor of L'Equipe by any chance?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Just zis Guy said:

A Wikipedia editor wants the Lance Armstrong article to say that he's
guilty of doping, although UCI, Vrijman, the courts and the fact that
he's never been caught suggest otherwise. Fun and games.

He (the Wikipedia editor) certainly does seem to have somewhat of an
obsession. I found your comments very reasonable and sensible
throughout, if it's any comfort.

--
Peter Headland

Guy said:

A Wikipedia editor wants the Lance Armstrong article to say that he's
guilty of doping, although UCI, Vrijman, the courts and the fact that
he's never been caught suggest otherwise. Fun and games.

Such scant regard for libel laws is perhaps to be expected from an
amateurish publication like wikipedia -- one among the many reasons not
to ever fully trust anything you read there.

Mind you, I did enjoy the act of wikivandalism perpetrated by some
Guardian journalists last week:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/Fiver/0,,1814191,00.html (see second
story down, "Robbing Robben"😉
http://football.guardian.co.uk/Fiver/0,,1815302,00.html (see letters)

d.

davek said:

Such scant regard for libel laws is perhaps to be expected from an
amateurish publication like wikipedia -- one among the many reasons not
to ever fully trust anything you read there.

Where, say, professional peer reviewed journals never contain anything
that could /possibly/ be wrong... ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

davek said:

Such scant regard for libel laws is perhaps to be expected from an
amateurish publication like wikipedia -- one among the many reasons not
to ever fully trust anything you read there.

Where, say, professional peer reviewed journals never contain anything
that could /possibly/ be wrong... ;-/

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjen_Robben&diff=62366129&oldid=62365990

Peter Clinch said:

davek said:

Such scant regard for libel laws is perhaps to be expected from an
amateurish publication like wikipedia -- one among the many reasons not
to ever fully trust anything you read there.

Where, say, professional peer reviewed journals never contain anything
that could /possibly/ be wrong... ;-/

No but... printed journals have been sued for a long time for false
allegations, slander, libel, etc., and its only recently that this has
been applied to on-line texts, so it seems as if many people writing
blogs & wiki texts feel that they are able to write what they like
without fear of reprisal (or burden of proof). Wikipedia is on the
whole useful, but not reliable.

Peter Clinch said:

davek said:

Such scant regard for libel laws is perhaps to be expected from an
amateurish publication like wikipedia -- one among the many reasons
not to ever fully trust anything you read there.

Where, say, professional peer reviewed journals never contain anything
that could /possibly/ be wrong... ;-/

Let alone professional editor reviewed journals like the, err, Guardian.

One day when I have some spare time, I'll enumerate all the examples of
innumeracy and below GCSE standard understandings of physics, chemistry and
biology.

It'll take a fair while.

They are good at avoiding libellous comments though, for some reason.
Perhaps they have some incentive not to be sloppy and ignorant in that case.

A

Ambrose Nankivell said:

They are good at avoiding libellous comments though, for some reason.

It's because - believe it or not - such matters are part of basic
journalism training. This is one of the reasons it is so obvious that
wikipedia is not produced by professional journalists (though
wikipedia's level of factual accuracy often reaches "professional"
standards...).

d.

I'm also a Wikipedia editor. I didn't like the combative stance
everyone adapted on the controversy, although given the lack of proof,
and that Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopaedia with a neutral
point-of-view, you would seem to be more in the right. The real
question on the discussion page (tab on top of the Lance Armstrong
page), seems to be how much of his 'controversial' status should be
included, and which allegations can be mentioned since he has never
been caught committing any doping offence.

A very interesting argument. I noticed it, but stayed clear of
contributing because I don't have the required neutral POV. I strongly
suspect that he 'was on the junk' at some stage of his career. The way
he endured brain surgery, testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy
and returned to competition far faster and stronger than before,
reminds me of Flo-jo's off-season conversion in 1987-88. Maybe without
the cancer he might have won 10 Tours, or perhaps his already elite
performance levels were boosted by some of his cancer drugs...

There's no doubt that Armstrong was an extraordinary competitor. It's
also true that he was tested repeatedly for performance-enhancing
drugs, and never really (long story) failed a test. It has been said
that he has even admitted drug use in the past e.g.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863 The question of
whether Armstrong was drug-free or not, is all the more important given
his record-breaking Tour victories and loud drug denunciations.

It is also true that:
* the top level of cycle racing is notoriously drug ridden,
* Armstrong worked for a while with the dodgy Italian sports doctor
Michele Ferrari.
* many other cycle riders known to be dirty (and even having died as a
result of EPO etc use) have never been tested positive.

Armstrong is known to be an obnoxious, arrogant and self-centred
personality, (but this is not unusual amongst elite athletes). He's an
unusually ungracious winner, reluctant even to credit team support.
What little diplomacy he learnt was forced on him by his sponsor, Nike.
He appears to enjoy humiliating his opponents. 'It's Not About the
Bike', his autobiography, is one of the most transparently self-serving
books I've ever read, even amongst sports biogs. As someone else said
'he's the toughest of a tough bunch, with little or no fellow feeling
for the rest of the human race'. Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances. He did NOT (as is often
claimed) abandon his ex, Sheryl Crow when she was diagnosed with
cancer. He is pro-Bush, and supports the Iraq invasion.

The French public as a whole like him, but their media hate him for
various reasons, including dominating Le Tour, and supposedly getting
away with doping. Armstrong himself is a stereotypical Texan, and isn't
very sensitive.

As I said, I won't be getting involved in the 'Armstrong Wars'. Editing
disputes in Wikipedia tend to be bitter and tedious.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia pages, even without registering. If anyone
has the time and interest, it needs a good cycling glossary page. Just
add what you can.

O.

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

A Wikipedia editor wants the Lance Armstrong article to say that he's
guilty of doping, although UCI, Vrijman, the courts and the fact that
he's never been caught suggest otherwise. Fun and games.

He (the Wikipedia editor) certainly does seem to have somewhat of an
obsession. I found your comments very reasonable and sensible
throughout, if it's any comfort.

--
Peter Headland

Disagree. Although journalists certainly receive training on avoiding
libel as part of their basic journalism training, I have worked in
newsrooms and can tell you that the reason why they are relatively good
at avoiding libellous comments is not because of the training, it's
definitely because of fear of the consequences.

Accuracy in use of science, statistics etc normally has no such
consequences, so although journos are trained to refer their science if
they don't fully understand it, and check statistics, the standard of
both you can come across in the media is abysmal.

O.

davek said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

They are good at avoiding libellous comments though, for some reason.

It's because - believe it or not - such matters are part of basic
journalism training. This is one of the reasons it is so obvious that
wikipedia is not produced by professional journalists (though
wikipedia's level of factual accuracy often reaches "professional"
standards...).

d.

On 18 Jul 2006 06:53:46 -0700, "grannyhalfstep"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances.

What is the source for this?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Headland

grannyhalfstep said:

I have worked in newsrooms

So have I. :-)

Quoted message said:

and can tell you that the reason why they are relatively good
at avoiding libellous comments is not because of the training, it's
definitely because of fear of the consequences.

Up to a point...

The reason I don't indulge in tightrope walking is fear of the
consequences. The reason I fear the consequences is because I have no
training as a tightrope walker. With suitable training - and a fair bit
of practise - I would no longer fear the consequences.

d.

R Brickston said:

On 18 Jul 2006 06:53:46 -0700, "grannyhalfstep"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances.

What is the source for this?

Gossip.

grannyhalfstep said:

Armstrong is known to be an obnoxious, arrogant and self-centred
personality, (but this is not unusual amongst elite athletes). He's an
unusually ungracious winner, reluctant even to credit team support.
What little diplomacy he learnt was forced on him by his sponsor, Nike.
He appears to enjoy humiliating his opponents. 'It's Not About the
Bike', his autobiography, is one of the most transparently self-serving
books I've ever read, even amongst sports biogs. As someone else said
'he's the toughest of a tough bunch, with little or no fellow feeling
for the rest of the human race'. Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances. He did NOT (as is often
claimed) abandon his ex, Sheryl Crow when she was diagnosed with
cancer. He is pro-Bush, and supports the Iraq invasion.

Apart from the fact that he can be nasty, mostly in competition, almost
every point in this little rant is contradicted by direct quotes and the
writings of people who've spent time with him. Who the hell are you?

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

grannyhalfstep said:

Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances.

I wish someone would abandon me with several million $ and a couple of
really nice houses...

--
Peter Headland

Bill Sornson said:

R Brickston said:

On 18 Jul 2006 06:53:46 -0700, "grannyhalfstep"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances.

What is the source for this?

Gossip.

Agree. If this guy is truly one of the *editors* of Wikipedia, and
actually believes in the [censored] he wrote, then its another reason why
Wikipedia should be considered a very marginal point of reference....

grannyhalfstep wrote:
He is pro-Bush, and supports the Iraq invasion.

Where do you get the information that Lance supports the Iraq invasion?
The Wiki-Pedia article states that he disagrees with Mr. Bush's decision
to invade, and enumerates a list of other issues on which Lance's views
appear to be at variance with Mr. Bush and the Republican party. At the
start of the Iraq war I recall reading news articles indicating that
Lance Armstrong liked George Bush personally (God knows why) but
disagreed with Mr. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

mark

Peter Headland said:

grannyhalfstep said:

Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances.

I wish someone would abandon me with several million $ and a couple of
really nice houses...

... after they've made you pregnant twice?

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

Jim Price said:

Peter Headland said:

grannyhalfstep wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Armstrong did abandon his wife and two
small children in shameful circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wish someone would abandon me with several million $ and a couple
of really nice houses...

Quoted message said:

.. after they've made you pregnant twice?

That's how they got the two small children (see above).

HTH.