User talk:~Bird~

Thank you all for your repeated inquiries. Our meetings individually have been productive over these past months. I want to summarize here analysis of the impact of Red Faction activities that some of us have privately reviewed in detail.

In short, our message is reaching our audience. Critical comments inserted in Wikipedia have been picked up as the theme of media reports in local, regional and national markets. K-12 teachers have been especially willing to speak out about their skepticism. In 2004 we saw numerous editorials appear in print and on-line questioning the reliability of the document. Trial errors planted in several articles (some of you know which ones) remain uncorrected. Juvenile sophistry remains a persistent tone throughout, with the exception of mundane articles about geographic places, and those stubbed from 100-year-old encyclopedias. Overall, our efforts have promoted more informed consumption of the Wikipedia product.

Cell 9 has been particularly effective at inciting among contributors selected for covert counseling a recognition of unqualified authority when their well-intentioned efforts were obviously under attack by Wikipendia's core group of sophomoric administrators. Their message that authoritarian behavior does not translate to authoritative information has been well received. Their operatives have developed systematic techniques for encouraging reaction with only a whisper of incitement.

We now have five operatives registered as administrators and two more in the nomination process. Our undercover admins have led the way in developing tactics to provoke resistance among users both new and old.

We are coaching a major media outlet in how to demonstrate the unreliability of Wikipedia. Insiders tell us that other outlets might successfully complete their own reliability tests even before our preferred outlet vets its studies and publishes the results. The theme of anticipated investigative reports is that Wiki processes are not a disease, but that faith in the process does parallel common sociopathologies. We are also reaching some key scholars with the message that faith-based consensus among amateur writers is the antithesis of empirical science.

As we all know, deconstruction of Wikipedia is not our goal, but we do seek to teach consumers to abandon blind faith in authority. For that we can thank Wikipedia and its right-wing founders. We could not have found a more unreliable authority if we had created it ourselves.

Keep up the excellent work. Thank you all for your efforts.

~Bird~ 06:12, 28 Feb 2005 (EET)