New thread, old one’s here.
added to Resource page under Blogs, for those who are looking for it.
Thanks DemFromCT!
Monotreme, feel free to edit the descriptor (within reason) ;−0
DemFromCT – at 15:51
You mean I can’t claim to be omniscient? And that my site is the only source of valuable information on the internet? ;-)
I do think there is value in multiple flu sites.
I don’t agree with the new editorial policy at FW, but as pogge and DemFromCT have both pointed out, there was nothing to stop me from starting my own site, which I did. I do not want to damage FW. I actually built a fair amount of it on the Wiki side. I think it will remain a great site for collaborative work.
I haven’t been following this thread closely, but I have noticed that an urban legend seems to have grown over what was and what was not said in the original thread. If anyone wants to know what I actually intended, I suggest they:
1. Read the original thread carefully. 2. Ask me. There is an “Ask Monotreme” page on my site.
You mean I can’t claim to be omniscient?
LOL!! But you can claim to be an alumnus!!
BB, I knew you were going to say that. ;-P
Monotreme – at 16:01
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygk2w9
Omniscience From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Omniscient) Jump to: navigation, search
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known about a character/s including thoughts, feelings, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God.
He was jesting.
DemFromCT – at 18:55
I know. Some thing to think about. OTOH, I can’t figure those formulas.
ANON-YYZ – at 19:00
That’s because… ;-)
Dem, Bronco Bill, and Monotreme,
Each of you has a new copy of my essay. Is this something that should be available as a .pdf from FW and PFI, or should I continue to send it via e-mail to those who request it? There seems to be a lot of interest in having something like this to give to friends and neighbors.
Dr. Dave — at 19:29 --- I got your new copy, just haven’t had time to read it yet. If it’s anything like the earlier version, I don’t see how you could have improved on it. But like I said, I haven’t read it yet. Prob’ly tomorrow before I’ll get a chance.
Dem might upload it to the ftp site once he’s looked it over…
Bronco Bill,
It is very much like the earlier version, but with just a few minor changes. Thanks for the compliment and thanks for the update.
We’ll try to get it on the ftp. thanks!
(MFMP 4 thread)South Carolina pdf …”p 39. …5.”South Carolina’s health care workers, emergency response workers, medical examiners, funeral directors, and morticians will face a sudden and massive demand for services, and a possible 40% attrition of essential personnel.”…
DemFromCT, was someone looking for officals using high/40% workers-won’t-be-around rates? Rang a bell, but I can’t remember who was looking.
yes, lugon was. Someone said WHO acknowledged that 40% of the workforce was at risk for not showing up. Lugon asked where WHO said so, and i give some other official estimates (mostly from CIDRAP). if you know of any official links that say so, drop them here and I’ll get them to lugon.
When I started the Lookout Post for Southeast Asia thread yesterday I mistakenly listed Phillipines as one of the countries in the region. Phillipines was already listed under Lookout Post for Australasia.
Could one of the mods please delete Phillipines from the listed regions on the Southeast Asia thread?
Done.
Thanks pogge!
Hello Mods, I know you have your hands full, but if one of you could close the thread titled “Suspected BF Clusters in Indonesia 7″ that would be great. It has nothing but a mile of spam in it, and the title is misleading. Thanks!
Edna Mode – at 08:55 --- It’s become a SPAM magnet. Each time it gets cleaned and closed, the spam’bots just open it and fill it up again. pogge or DemFromCt usually clean that one and a couple of others out a few times a day…
Dem and everyone, FYI I still have the FTP site available for your use. Your sing mailboxes will continue to work. I will not withdraw that support from the wiki. Things will stand as they are now. Please don’t feel under any pressure in this regard. The work you do is too important, even if you can’t reason through the Freedom of Speech issues correctly in your context as a community input, moderator run site…grin…gotcha last. I really appreciate those people who have taken the time to contact me and tried to convince me to come back. Thank you. My decision stands.
Dude – at 12:25 --- I will not withdraw that support from the wiki.
That was one of my concerns. Thank you…
Beware unintended consequences
Dude – at 12:25
even if you can’t reason through the Freedom of Speech issues correctly in your context as a community input, moderator run site…grin…gotcha last. I really appreciate those people who have taken the time to contact me and tried to convince me to come back. Thank you. My decision stands.
You’re a mensch. ;-)
anonymous – at 13:25
Always good advice, even if (by definition) impossible to follow.
We have a new Indonesia thread today. Could one of the mods please change the Indonesia Outbreak link in the first post of the Southeast Asia thread so it goes to the new Indonesia thread?
Thanks in advance!
Done.
Dude,
Personally, thanks.
Im baaaack…
Seriously folks, I have been in lurker mode due to the dearth of new developments and the fact that I have been busy working on a portion of a government panflu preparedness plan. That hasn’t been easy as it involves a lot of research and not a few professionally cordial but heartfelt disagreements over some of the planning assumptions (CFR, attack rate, etc.)
I loosely followed the Monotreme ‘controversy’ and re-read the action in the Ask the Mods threads. If I may, I would like to make a couple of observations and ask a few questions. I am posting this here since the most relevant threads seem to have all been closed.
I understand what appears to be the mods’ overriding concern, that is that we want to keep the ‘wikie accessible to all nationalities. A worthy goal. I am in no position to judge the basis on which Montreme made his asserstion vis’a’vis the Chinese government. First, I didn’t read his posts on the subject that caused the controversy. Second, I am not priveleged to whatever information was used to reach those conclusions. However, the mods made a decision, and as I said in a previous controversy involving a maverick doctor from the environs of Pittsburgh, PA, the site belongs to the mods and they’re gonna do what they feel is best.
That having been said, here are the questions:
Are we sure that the ‘wiki is freely avaliable behind the Bamboo Curtain? How many hits are we getting with a .cn URL? Can we detect firewall rules against the ‘wikie or the forum?
Do we realistically think that we are reaching anyone there? Is there an empirical basis for thinking that we do, or are we proceeding on faith? Are we making a difference in China?
Have we seen, or do we realistically think that anyone one the ground in China is going to contribute anything of a breaking news nature, or that runs counter to the official line of the Chinese government?
Extending the logic applied by the mods in reaching their decision in censoring Monotreme’s statements (and I am NOT passing judgement on the validity or wisdom of that decision) - that inflammatory posts endanger both access to the ‘wikie in China and possibly persons reading and/or contributing to the ‘wikie: Where does our accomodation stop? Is there a bright line? If some brave soul in China chose to post something on the ‘wikie that casts the Chinese government in a bad light - would we cooperate with the Chinese authorities in tracking that person down? A VERY large Internet search engine apparently does, with regularity, as does a VERY large software company. They are content to actively participate in persecution in order to preserve their access to the Chinese market. What happens when subpoenas start coming from the Chinese embassy for server logs, etc?
My thought, and feel free to slap me down if you have evidence otherwise, is: Even without Monotreme’s post, the discussion and information on the ‘wikie are sufficiently provocative to the Chinese government that I would be suprised if they haven’t restricted access to it already, or are at least actively watching for outbound traffic directed to the ‘wikie. If anyone in China sought to alert the world of developments there by posting to this ‘wikie, access would be shut down pronto and every effort would be made to track down the offending party. The mere mention of such offensive (to the mind of a Chinese censor) words as “fr**d*m” and “d*m*cr*cy” seems to have been sufficiently provocative for them to foreclose access to sites in the past.
The tactics employed by a totalitarian government to repress dissent and control information ought to be repugnant to all free thinking people. We need to think very long, and very hard, about the degree to which we will accomodate those tactics and that impulse, especially in the absence of evidence that in the balance we are serving the greater good by doing so.
Best of luck and wishes to all, and to a speedy recovery by Melanie.
re-engaging lurker cloaking device…
You should really post more often, Sarge. You’ve been missed!
Bravo. Needed to be said Sarge.
The tactics employed by a totalitarian government to repress dissent and control information ought to be repugnant to all free thinking people. We need to think very long, and very hard, about the degree to which we will accomodate those tactics and that impulse, especially in the absence of evidence that in the balance we are serving the greater good by doing so.
As I said earlier.
Beware unintended consequences.
I’d venture to guess the only .CN domains accessing the wiki are from government organizations and those involved in deciding what can and cannot be accessed, not the rank and file in internet cafes looking for information on bird flu.
It’s a very slippery slope to promote censorship to promote availability, without some validation that your goals are actually being acheived.
hi sarge, a friend of mine who was there some months ago cheked it fluwiki was banned, there was no problem accesing it or finding it in the search engines on a wireless net down there..
I have on the other hand watched the monitor ocasionaly, and newer seen any visits, exept from hong Kong..
Americans or English no doubt.
urdar-Norway -
One other thing that concerns me is that there is, let’s right out say it, a climate of fear that leads to self-censorship. The purpose of a police state is to create the impression of omnipresence - that the eyes and ears of the state are everywhere. It isn’t necessary to actually BE everywhere - just make regular and very public examples of a few people and the rest will fall into line (sort of like the Internal Revenue Service in that regard..) Pretty soon, few will be willing to cross the line by accessing the sites of agents provocateur - like Fluwikie - lest Big Brother find out and send you off for reprogramming. Firewall or not, how many would be brave enough to visit sites featuring content that the state dissaproves if it means rolling the dice whether the authorities will pick you for their public example du jour?
Let’s imagine (insert your favorite US political bogeyman here) periodically arresting and imprisoning people who chose to read Effectmeasure, DailyKos, Freerepublic or Powerline? Would the appropriate response of those sites and their participants be to ‘tone down’ their content so as not to provoke unwanted scrutiny by TPTB? What’s more, what if that threat is only imagined, postulated, hypothetical? Are we basing our assessment of possible Chinese government reaction on actual past occurrences or our divination of their motives, intentions and tactics? Either way, what does this say about the folks we are trying to appease, or at least our view of them? Certainly it makes them out to be an unsavory lot. What about them then is worth accomodating?
When in doubt, always fall on the side of free speech. When totalitarian state like China in involved always take the side of free speech. As a Mod you will sleep better at night. Besides UV light is a great disinfectant!
There was some concern that one of the mods or the mods family might have some problem. As far as the Chinese, they don’t give a hoot what any of us here in the U.S. say. What possible threat are any here to them? I think this issue is going to surface, over and over again. As far as I am concerned I would pretty much try to avoid giving offense if possible in speculating on their motives, that seems rational. When it comes to anything already in print, and verified, whooo ha. Fair game. Who cares what I say or think? My husband never bowed to expediecy, but I might to protect someone. I can understand that.
Expediency. I should proof read before posting.
Panopticon, Architectures biggest shame, and a role model for those who want us ill..
diana,
I am loathe to accomodate state censorship or contribute in any small way to the repressive impulses and actions of a totalitarian state, especially as it regards free speech and the free and open marketplace and competition of political ideas (and public health policy IS political because politicians and their appointees make it). That having been said, yes, you are correct that it is just good form not to make unjustifiable accusations. It does harm to everyone, including the person making the accusation. Nothing is added to the advancement of ideas and knowledge. Also, it is not right for anyone here to expect that the mods, whose site this is after all, undertake personal risk for our right to engage in free speech. That’s outsourcing risk and no one has that right - I have no right to expect you to be a hero, nor you me. This is why I am trying to be understanding of the mods’ decision.
However, I am saying that the decision to edit ‘inflammatory’ speech needs hard-nosed and realistic assessment of the risks and benefits of self-censorship, appeasement, personal risk and the greater mission. And we who are the observers of this ethical struggle need to understand the context in which the decisions are made. My reading of the context is alarming and sad and the subscript speaks volumes.
‘nuff said.
I don’t like it now, and didn’t like it as it evolved, yet I could see the whys of it in some of the laws the government attempted to implement in Hong Kong. It isn’t my wiki. I sometimes wonder why on earth I post as I am not a prepper by nature or inclination, and this is .after all. primarily that. A writers mind, and I am that, requires a lot of feeding. It’s posts like yours which make this forum worth the time I have spent here.
Thanks!
If some brave soul in China chose to post something on the ‘wikie that casts the Chinese government in a bad light - would we cooperate with the Chinese authorities in tracking that person down?
Absolutely never.
As to the rest, some is theory and some is real. It’s easy to say “well, just never moderate, anything goes” when you are not the one responsible for moderating. I fly by the age-old “be reasonable, do it my way” standard on that. We as mods keep a light touch, but we will never satisfy the “free speech at all costs” perspective. What we will do is act in what we feel is the best interests of the wiki. That’s not up for debate. If that is too restrictive, there’s other places on the internets for you.
We do not advocate or support accusing other governments of deliberately fostering a pandemic. That’s a line we have drawn. Nor will we debate the merits of a free society vs repressive ones here. That is not the purpose of Flu Wiki and we do not feel that it fosters pandemic preparedness to debate that, anymore than it does to debate politics (if we prefer the US model, or one party over another, it’s irrelevant for here). Nor is China the only potential government that would fall under that category.
You do not get to yell fire in a crowded theatre. So it goes.
That having been said, yes, you are correct that it is just good form not to make unjustifiable accusations. It does harm to everyone, including the person making the accusation. Nothing is added to the advancement of ideas and knowledge. Also, it is not right for anyone here to expect that the mods, whose site this is after all, undertake personal risk for our right to engage in free speech. That’s outsourcing risk and no one has that right - I have no right to expect you to be a hero, nor you me. This is why I am trying to be understanding of the mods’ decision.
Unfortunately, that’s what it came down to. that’s why we reluctantly closed the thread.
side scroll alert Forum.ANovelWayOfStudyingInfluenzaVirusGenomes
fixed, thanks!
Sarge, (and diana, and others)
I appreciate your remarks. Your sincerity is heart-felt and comes across clearly. Thank you.
Dem,
We do not advocate or support accusing other governments of deliberately fostering a pandemic. That’s a line we have drawn. Nor will we debate the merits of a free society vs repressive ones here. That is not the purpose of Flu Wiki and we do not feel that it fosters pandemic preparedness to debate that, anymore than it does to debate politics (if we prefer the US model, or one party over another, it’s irrelevant for here). Nor is China the only potential government that would fall under that category.
Well, that just about summarizes the whole unfortunate episode for me, from the point of view of moderating.
From the point of view of community, it would be dishonest IMHO to say that this was a blessing in disguise or it was a necessary stage of evolution or whatever stuff that people often say about such events. No, it wasn’t. If there were lessons to be learnt, we could have learnt them in a far less painful manner. For me that’s something that struck me very powerfully, and I take that very much to heart. I’m sure there will be other times at least personally where I will encounter another steep learning curve. I just hope that if a pandemic ever happens, all the steepest learning curves or the most disastrous things that we ever said or did would have made us wiser, more tolerant, and more creative and multidimensional in our thinking.
Bless you all, good Fluwikians.
This incident was predictable based on the handling of Niman. It’s ironic that when Monotreme went on a similar rant last summer, also over China, regarding lab escapes and invariant sequences in H1N1, it was Niman himself who took Monotreme on, and told him his accusations were baseless. Niman’s reward for that was his eventual banishment. In both cases, keeping the peace won out over honest debate. I don’t see how you can have it both ways. But then, I’m not much of one for sweetness and light. I’m disgruntled, after all.
You know, I care about free speech, I really do. I exercise it on my own blog where I assert political views and sometimes ethical/religious perspectives that have no place here, though I try not to exercise freedom without responsibility in any context. (I’m saying this without having read most of the material that has lead to recent fractiousness, so I’m obviously not trying to hint that I’m on one side or the other.)
I also value the focus and purpose of Flu Wiki and the boundaries the moderators have set regarding what’s appropriate here. I need the Wiki to be what the moderators founded it to be - a place where I can learn about pandemic flu and how to prepare for it and a resource to which I can refer others. I limit what I say here because what I write can either contribute to the credibility and the reach of this Wiki to all sorts of people, such that lives are potentially saved regardless of readers’ political or religious leanings or ethnic backgrounds, or it can alienate readers who feel differently than I do about this or that tangential matter, such that they click away from the Wiki and miss all that can be gained here. Really, the pandemic message matters more to me right here right now than advancing my political leanings, my pet theories and opinions, and my faith perspective or lack thereof. People matter more.
There may be other discussions worth having in other venues, and I would not debate their value, but it is only by honoring the focus of this Wiki that we can further the mission that brought us here in the first place. I, for one, am grateful for all I’ve learned here and for this community. What unifies us is our willingness to confront and grapple with the most horrific possibility we are ever likely to face, cooperatively and bravely. Lesser differences will divide us only if we let them, and if they do, our collective chances for survival are diminished.
disgruntled – at 19:48
Your idea of honest debate might reasonably be looked at by others as resulting in a high maintenance, low credibility site, or somewhere in between. I regret that we cannot be all things to all people. Given our agenda,
and given that this has never been done before, there will be honest disagreement as to how best to proceed.
InKy, anon_22, disgruntled, The Sarge, BP, and all – thank you.
Anon_22 -
I am not being flippant when I say “I feel your pain”. Your handling of this matter and my knowledge of you from your many past contributions are evidence of the deep ethical dilemma that you faced in this matter. Your patience and understanding are very much appreciated.
Dem,
May I presume that in your post to me at 19:01 that you are using the plural form of “you”? Otherwise I might be given to the interpretation that I should direct my interests elsewhere, and that would be disappointing and uncharacteristic of you.
I for one will be the last to assert that the mods don’t have every right to moderate the site as you (pl.) seem fit. It is your property, and I defended that right in the Niman controversy. Futhermore, I do not wish to make any endorsement of any government or form of government (although as you can guess I have strong beliefs in that regard). I am concerned that the practices of a particular government have intruded into editorial decisions and that has implications for the future of FW and the free exchange of ideas in general.
If the basis for editing/deleting the controversial posts in question was simply to keep the discussion within the bounds of logic and rationality or even just the whim of the mods, then great, sufficient on its face and I wholeheartedly endorse it.
However, there were two complicating factors. One was an expressed concern for the well-being of one of our beloved mods or persons close to her should the government that was subject of the posts react badly to the opprobrium applied. Second was the expressed concern for the continuing market access of FW in the national market in question.
As to the first factor - here appears to be an example of the machinations (real or imagined) of a repressive regime into the editorial decisions of what should be a free and open exchange of (relevant, yes) ideas and information - else what is a forum for?
The second factor, while understandable, comes uncomfortably close to the rationalizations of the aforementioned search engine and software giants to justify their collaborations with totalitarian authorities and that have resulted in imprisonments and persecutions. I am glad that the administrators of FW would refuse to go further down that path.
I am simply asking that you carefully consider the weight of each of these factors. How much of the decision, the proportions in the equation, were logic/rationality, fear and ‘market concerns’? I don’t expect an answer or quantification - the question is largely rhetorical. I am only asking for introspection and careful consideration of the relative weights of these factors in future editorial decisions and that you draw a line for yourselves. You have decided in this one case what is unacceptable - and in this case I agree and support it. However, the aforementioned pressures will be present in many future editorial decisions. At some point, you will have to confront the question of where it stops and draw that line, or fold and fade into irrelevance.
Beware - truth, logic, rationality and fact will not be sufficient defense or justification for those whose primary concern is the maintenance of power, repression of dissent and control of information to serve the selfish ends of a given regime. And yes, that description may not apply only to the government in question, but presently or situationally to many if not most others. Accomodation and appeasement are stealthy threats that come creeping in until they begin to erode even the most impeccably logical, truthful, factual and rational content - jealously guard against it.
Sorry, inadvertent duplicate post - please delete one if you wish. Thanks!
And now let us go forth and bravely confront the monster in our midst - IMO it is coming and time may be short indeed.
Thanks to all!
The Sarge – at 20:27
Appreciate the comments. We have no monopoly on wisdom. And yes, it was the royal, expansive ‘you’ ;-)
How do we know they are baseless charges? We are talking about a government which who censors all media and firewalls the internet against free speech. If it were an open society with an independent media then folks there could dig up the dirt. However if they dig up the dirt over there they quickly become dirt themselves! Sometimes things can inferred by outsiders and sometimes they may be “baseless” but lets talk about them and refute them if need be. It is not our fault they are totalitarian so lets not act with such deference. Yes we get it your flu wiki and you will do what you want. Yes it is a great forum but don’t be satisfied that is perfect, as nothing ever is.
BP – at 08:04
don’t be satisfied that is perfect, as nothing ever is.
You’re right. We’re not, we don’t and we never did. And no one said you can’t do what you suggest. What we did say is that the accusations should follow the proof, not precede them, and that language matters. That’s not an endorsement of said country or practices.
DemFromCT – at 08:39
Your standard, “accusations should follow the proof, not precede them..” would be correct in an open society however, there is nothing wrong in discussing inferences from a closed totalitarian society. If someone here were to make a baseless accusation about the current or previous U.S. administration without proof then your point would be well taken as we have a very aggressive and open media. Totalitarian states like China invite such inferences by their very existence.
Everyone once in a while, I feel compelled to suggest that a certain amount of revisionism is going on. For those who want to know what I said, and did not say, please read the original China thread. Then read the Ask the Moderators threads that followed. And then if you are still not sure what I intended, feel free to come on to my site and ask me.
BP – at 10:22
I agree completely.
I will also note that when I was asked for proof of my assertion that Margaret Chan praised the Chinese government for their transparency on H5N1 samples, I provided it.
Nothing has been removed from the Forum, so everyone can go look as often as they wish. Time to move on.
Monotreme – at 10:38
I think the best thing to do is to post the original thread on your blog in its entirety with the original title (I forgot the title and don’t know where it is). After all, it was your allegation that China intentionally planned to hurt the rest of the world in the title that started this controversy. To not publish that on your blog is revisionist.
I used to respect you for your scientific knowledge. However, I started doubting your integrity when you posted the City Triage series and the ‘funny’ story (forgot the title). I personally cannot accept that. It is a moral dilemma that should not be pushed until all other possibilities have been exhausted. Unless you were an insider, and you knew something - in which case I would expect you to call the government plans irresponsible which you didn’t and indicated that’s the way it’s going to be, then I think you have no business presenting it as strongly as you had.
I know I will be flamed. There is free speech. But there is a difference between free speech and swarming.
Monotreme’s site is at the top of this page, and added to the blog roll. I am singularly uninterested in prolonging this discussion. People will look at it through their own prism.
As I noted, time to move on.
Dem at 8:39 “What we did say is that the accusations should follow the proof, not precede them, and that language matters.”
Could you please provide a link for when this was said?
Thankyou.
See the rather long discussion here. See especially Anon_22′s comments at 02:50: “For example, saying that I’m concerned that someone might have done something is fine. Saying someone did do that something is not fine, in the absense of evidence.” - DemFromCT
I’ve been a lurker for the past 6 months, so I can’t speak of anything prior to that, but since I’ve been on I’ve had nothing but respect for Monotreme.
I have no idea what you’re talking about Anon-YYZ. The city triage threads were extremely interesting and presented Monotreme’s perspective. He never made it out to be gospel. And his ‘funny’ story provided everyone with some much needed humor. I’m not sure what your issue is with Monotreme, but you come across as a shrew when you go talking like that.
Right, moving on now.
Cheers.
Well, Pogge, I’ve done it again. I’ve caused sidescroll on the News Reports for the 14th. I’ve looked at the link I put in and I can’t tell what I did wrong. Can you give me a quick clue? I do try to do it right. At first I thought I’d put the pipe symbol in the wrong place, but I looked back at the URL on the source page and it actually ends with LIFE.
Pages on the forum are loading even more slowly than ever…just thought the mods might choose to close some threads.
bluesfan – at 21:08 --- I noticed the same thing over the past couple of hours. I don’t have time tonight to close a bunch of threads (I get to get up at 3am and go to work tomorrow) :-(
But, whilst I’m there, I’m going to try to close a few threads, and then tomorrow night, do a blitz. That may help some…
We are moving ahead with plans for a new forum… slowly, but we’re getting there.
Thanks, Bronco Bill. Get some rest. :-)