Well, the tribalism is certainly on display.
Are we all wearing our correct banners?

Who'll begin the war dance? I'm afraid I left my war-paint and totem at home, but I can remember the correct steps, I've just got to stop putting my heels in the fire.

... although this makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable, I've got to agree with Graham's article, even though this would place me in Windschuttle's (and worse still, David Flint's) 'tribe.'
There are few people with whom I disagree more strongly in both stance and delivery method.

All that being said, it really isn't acceptable to submit information you believe to be incorrect. You may believe you're just attacking that publication, but in truth many publications have difficulty in fact checking. This is indeed an attack on every editor who is stressed for time and resources, which is... well, all of them.
I get that Windschuttle was a target due to his pedantry in relation to source-checking (to such an extent that this pedantry was used as a weapon to discredit) but that's no excuse to put forward misleading articles.

In summary... I don't think it's ever valid to put forward a misleading piece. That being said however, if there was ever a valid target (but, like I said, there isn't), it's Quadrant and Windschuttle.

Not because I find their ideology noxious, but because the publication is one with a political axe to grind, which can only mean selectively choosing articles based upon pre-conceived notions rather than accepting multiple viewpoints. This can only entrench this 'tribal' attitude which is what's giving us grief.

TRTL

Bravo!

GrahamY
Meanwhile, back in the real world where some of unfortunates (mere mortals) live I as part of great unwashed vaguely remember the event. What concerns me is the intellectual arrogance that has been exposed by this issue.

Of course Windshuttle is at fault if only for setting Quadrant up as reputable source by virtue of his previous nit pickings then failing to deliver. It’s up to him to ensure the article is correct. There are only so much ‘near enough is good enough’ compromises that are tolerable in the name of expedience (profit).
Notwithstanding this, mistakes happen the difference between a good and bad editor is the correctional response. Here as I recall it (I could be wrong) he initially defended the indefensible i.e. the accuracy of the article (only 10/15% wrong). Which 10/15%?
So too is the irresponsible self serving blogger who considered childish point scoring as more important that the truth be condemned.
While both these individuals are off playing their games/agendas in some intellectual Pantheon we the poor unsophisticated blonks (me included) who’s knowledge on the subject is limited and seek to improve it are being played with. If the topics aren’t hard enough for us to come to grips with we have to cope with impenetrable language, endless research, bias and now deliberate (misinformation) shenanigans! And academics and editors want respect…what for?

Any wonder why we the great unwashed give up and remain ignorant.
If not from simplified (translated from technobabble) can we hope to become informed and make better decisions.
Then again some intellectually lazy individuals will dismiss me on the grounds that advocating anything that might help the helpless is Left wing rhetoric but is it?
There is a view that permeates thinking that goes “if I can understand it then anyone can” Bollocks! People have different skills and abilities.
Both academics and good editors have a responsibility to us lessor folk. We rely on their integrity if not them… who?

TurnRightThenLeft

I would argue that Quadrant (under former editor Paddy McGuiness) did promote greater diversity.

I refer to myself on four occasions, although I am sure he would not have publiched them if I had just produced another far left perspective. I would like to think he did so because my articles were more balanced in recognising how both Labor and Coalition parties faced tough policy choices which reflect severe policy limitations in recent decades.

blairbar,

You're a bit disingenuous in your rant about aliases. Not to mention your blatant double standards.

Your complaint - "you clowns", "you gutless wonders" - was against BAYGON who, of course, is John Tons AND who signified his real name on his post on Monday, 12 January 2009 3:03:19 PM. Note that he did this before your ungracious rant (Monday, 12 January 2009 7:52:04 PM). In other words you cocked up by failing to read his post accurately.

Far from admitting your elementary error, which I pointed out to you, you then set up a phoney high dudgeon campaign to get OLO posters to reveal their real names. You scored three - well two really since Tons had already given his.

Yet your own initial posting on this thread was simply signed: blairbar, Monday, 12 January 2009 7:43:04 PM. No real name there!

Nine minutes later you're calling other posters "clowns" and "gutless wonders" for doing what you yourself did.

How cute is that?

On the actual issue of aliases, my partner - who used a shortened but easily recognisable version of his real name - has stopped posting on OLO since he got some crank calls and one threatening one. It wasn't difficult to get our phone number from the directory. He asked Graham Young to change his OLO alias but to our astonishment, Graham told him it would create technical problems.

There are sometimes good reason to use an alias. I hope our crank phone calls don't start up again.

MaryG, you are quite right that there is no exclamation mark at the end of Crikey, but there used to be. I hadn't caught up with the fact that they had changed.

As for my perception that things are more toxic than they used to be, it is only a perception - I have no metric to prove it. However, it's fitting that Tim Lambert, who is the master of ad hom and the misleading link, turned-up on this thread. He's a good example of what I am talking about.

10 years ago he would not have existed as a person of any significance in debate because he would not have been able to get widely published. A blog changes that. Two years ago we published a piece by him attacking Andrew Bolt for being 100% wrong in a column. It was a Best Blogs selection, so I had nothing to do with selecting it. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5382

Problem was that not only did it abuse Bolt, but made a number of mistakes itself, which I found embarrassing.

He's so notorious that there is a verb bearing his name. Being Lamberted is unpleasant, and is something which will no doubt happen to me as a result of this post.

So, there you have an editor/author who posts inaccuracies, mostly nit-picking, and uses them to criticise others, who is one of the first to put the boot into someone else for allegedly doing the same.

Why? I'll do the left/right response in another post.