Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

For goodness sake, call yourselves a Think Tank so we can make tax deductable donations just as the big end of town can for their glorified lobby plotters. Or is there some reason not that in my naivete I knew not of?

This could be the regular publication of the thinktank, and you could have meetings and presentations live like Gerard's, although I doubt his backer would come up to the plate. I was impressed that you spoke there.

Book endorsements may be a possibility? Order through you like a publisher's shop, especially the books that are hard to find on the shelves.

T-shirts, cups, bumper stickers, offers to jump out of cakes - all aimed at democratic accountability and justice - rather than one party support might be interesting. Can see it on the Volvo now.

Artwork, remember that artist you had, ads for coming events that fit with the tradition of Webdiary. Guess you have plenty of entrepreneurs giving professional ideas, so good luck.

How about a hits ticker? Even for each topic as it does on newsiraqwar.ru
Not to cater to popular journalism but to get a feed back of what your audience reads.

Cheers.

David: we did look at the registration requirements for tax-deductible status, and decided that getting there would be too restrictive on what we could do and say.

Unpublished comment update at 7268:

Not for publication (notes to editors, duplicates, etc): 268

No, false, or obscene name: 43
Banned for previous persistent abuse: 10
Abusive: 58
Inflammatory, inciting violence: 11
Conspiracy stuff: 28
Content free: 24
Incomprehensible / jumbled: 12
Copyright violation: 1

Total intended for publication and not published: 183/7000 = 2.6%

Congratulations to Wayne, I hope you are excited by the prospect of working for and contributing to the long term success of Webdiary.

I was wondering about the number and general quality of the applicants, was there a cross section of backgrounds etc.?

David: applications were made in confidence. There were a number of good applications with differing levels of experience.

Excellent! Looking forward to testing and contributing. WD is here to stay! :) Well done Margo and Hamish and all the team who have made it happen.

Two considerations in the spirit of friendships that pay back in a multitude of ways:

• Has WD considered my suggested "tit-for-tat" supporting deal where it links to friends and allies with a "Donate here" button to them, if they are WD sponsors?

• Would it be a good idea, just for the principle of it and to take a poke at the established slander of the ABC by some Australian media outlets, for WD to become a member of "Friends of the ABC" and display this proudly on the website with a link back, with the obvious invite for others to do the same?

Sounds like a good model Margo & team.
Your retaining control is crucial. I hope you start debt free?
Wishing you great success!

It would be nice to think a site such as this would draw sufficient sponsors to pay it's way, including staff. Advertising is really the most effective way unless one large benefactor can deliver such funds.

Even the mention of charging people to read and contribute though makes me start to think about alternate sites, regardless of quality. Sad but true. I wouldn't pay for a regular service and believe that " news " is free and will always be so. Yes, I can be naive.

Of course, as the employer, Margo could negotiate an AWA and limit salary to something no one could survive on. After all, JH is behind employers on that! Sounds like the way of the future for Australia!

Seriously, best wishes on the development and move of the site.

David, thanks for the update. And all your work.

Also thanks and well done to Margo, Hamish, Kerri and all the helping hands.

Now the next exciting stage. Ever onward!

My understanding was that this site was to be a true "peoples forum" where we could promote truth and democracy. What happens when the new shareholders decide that they want a return on their investment? Will they start accepting advertising? Will the shareholders and advertisers have editorial rights over the content here? What happens if some right-wing group buy up all the shares? Isn't this just going the way of the main stream media?

I don't know that privatisation is the right way to go here. Keep it in your hands Margo.

David: the intent is that Margo will retain a majority of the shares after the issue. Full details will have to wait until we issue the prospectus.

I do wish you'd either abandon self-censorship, or fess up consistently.

It really is too bad to read:

"...is committed to free speech and diversity of opinion and links to material or view points that are otherwise censored or have limited distribution. Nothing is too sacred or too profane."

... when I know that's just not true. You don't publish straightforward, factual posts which demonstrate that.

David: up to a point, Sid is of course correct. We have stated elsewhere that we are not currently publishing comments or discussion on, inter alia,

• the existence or otherwise of the Holocaust,
• whether 9/11 was a CIA plot,
• whether some terrorist acts in Iraq were carried out by Coalition supporters under false flags

logged under the "unpublished" stats as "Conspiracy stuff". To that extent, Wayne's TDB Brief does not apply to Webdiary generally. For The Daily Briefing itself, he decides independently what he does and does not include.

Margo - I remain a trifle intrigued about blog sites which I assume WD is? You allow any contributor with obvious restrictions without regard to political leanings etc. This ends up as a lot of comment at the end of an article, some good, some bad, some trivial, some way-out. You get my drift? However, one does not know the quality of comment unless read first obviously. This is often a total waste of time. Who wants to read my comments on a topic after all even though they may be good, pertinent & to the point? I personally could not give two hoots what others think unless known as respected journalists - hopefully one can decide for one's self on merits of the case.

Blog sites appear to me to be the internet version of, heaven forbid, Talk - Back radio! Five minutes of that was enough for a life-time, even supposedly the more sophisticated as RN's effort. One cannot discuss an event, there appears to be no feedback except to vent one's spleen, get your name & voice on radio or the former on the net - possibly the only opportunity for the majority to achieve this! To be consistent, why should anyone be bothered to read this? This is actually a serious question I think, & I, possibly only me, will be very interested in your reply. Glenn

David: Welcome to Webdiary, Glenn. Googling "blog definition" gets you quite a variety of different views as to what a blog is. Webdiary isn't one person's online journal with added comments, which is the common theme, but might be seen as a collection of multiple blogs, if you stretch it a bit. While some of the comments may be seen as a waste of time by some readers, the experience of Webdiary over the last five+ years is that many comments are themselves serious and researched contributions to the debate started by the original post.

"why should anyone be bothered to read this?" - obviously each reader has to make up their own mind. On the stats, some thousands of people do keep coming back to read this. Hope we can keep you reading too, Glenn.

Just an observation, but is it the intention for WD to remain primarily a political news forum?

I'd imagine trying to attract unencumbered income based on politics alone might be restrictive.

The free loading pinko lefties want everything for bugger all and the born to rule, corrupt, righteous right would economically subvert the concept of WD.

(The previous statement is a piss weak attempt at irony and should not be taken as a dueling challenge.)

If however WD had other sections, for example science, arts etc. these topics could be informatively thrashed in the same way as the current political ones.

This might then open the way to more membership, sponsorship, sales and advertising opportunities.

Webdiary is right to have some form of censorship. Otherwise where is the line drawn?

When does a conspiracy theory begin to create links to Hamas or even more militant sites? I am not even sure if some of those sites are legal in Australia?

Webdiary I dont think needs a site made up of and appealing only to radical sometimes dangerous lunatics either left or right.

With two journalists (Wayne and Margo) and two editors (Hamish and Kerri) let’s assume four salaries at average of $50,000.

Let’s also assume John-Howard-like working conditions, e.g. all are contract workers and receive no other financial benefits (e.g. no super, penalty rates, sick-pay, annual leave) and no other costs are reimbursed – e.g. computer hardware, software, bandwidth, travel expenses, journals, books, conference fees and phone calls are all paid out of the contractor’s own pocket.

So a flat $200,000 per year covers all labour and associated content input.

Of course there are still other costs the company must bear: company administration, hosting, tech-support, bandwidth, accountant fees, legal, and government charges. Let’s assume that Margo provides the labour and expertise for legal and admin and that in total they amount to no more than another 5% on the labour.

So Webdiary needs to make around $210,000 of sales every year to keep above water… or just over $4000 per week.

The plan is to make this revenue using donations and advertising. Donations are an unknown, so let’s just look at what we can determine… what would be required to make that money using ads alone.

Web ads are usually sold using CPM. The CPM model refers to advertising bought on the basis of impression. This is in contrast to the various types of pay-for-performance advertising, whereby payment is only triggered by a mutually agreed upon activity (i.e. click-through, registration, sale). The total price paid in a CPM deal is calculated by multiplying the CPM rate by the number of CPM units. For example, one million impressions at $0.60 CPM equals $600.

So at a CPM of $0.60 and with one million impressions a day on average Webdiary would be making around $220,000 per year - about $10,000 per year profit – or more likely $10,000 for investment in extras like marketing, etc…

So far so good.

However $0.60 is at the top end of the scale, a figure like $0.25-$0.40 might be closer to the truth for many smaller sites. Figures greater than $5 CPM only really come when you are leading internet brand (such as smh.com.au) AND are selling your own ads directly without a middleman (i.e. you have an ad dept) and with appropriate ad targeting technology.

Furthermore, one million impressions a day is an enormous number. For example The Wall Street Journal only receives around 50 times that per day. On September 8th Webdiarist David Roffey wrote that the new Webdiary was receiving around 6,800 page views in its busiest 24 hours. Quite a way from a million.

With a CPM of $0.40 and daily views of 10,000 Webdiary would be making around $4 per day - or under $2000 per year. This leaves a lot of revenue left to be generated by donations or merchandising – even to support one journalist.

Webdiary has been a part of my life for years now. I hope it will remain so for many more years but I worry that the current financial plan will see this endeavor founder quickly.

Perhaps I am missing something? I hope so, because I fear that the current plan might be for Margo to sell her assets and work like a dog almost for free for months/years until she goes bankrupt. I don’t really want to be part of that plan.

David: Three specifics to uplift your analysis:
1) $0.60 is by no means the top of the scale: CPM on the Fairfax Age, SMH and AFR sites ranges from $10 to $150, depending on the section, which is a very different scale from the numbers you are talking.
2) banner plus two navigation sidebars gives us more than one ad per page
3) traffic on this site continues to build from day to day, and if we get the mix right will continue to do so. Sept 8 was the end of week two!

Congratulations and many thanks for the hard work the WD team is putting in. Keep up the good work.

I appreciate the chance to voice my opinions and to read those of others from across the country. I think you are bridge building, between city and country, left and right. It is a rare opportunity to converse with Australians with differing views. It is only through two way communication that we can work through the issues we are facing. I offer my support in what ever way possible. The advantages of living in FNQ are growing; the distance away from a capital city is shortened by your efforts.

I agree that $0.60 isn't the top of the scale for a household name like the Sydney Morning Herald - but it is typical for small sites/blogs that farm out ad sales to 3rd parties. But I wonder what Webdiary can charge? Perhaps you can charge $10... it just seems high given that is what Fairfax charges. Although they do charge for for those annoying popups. Hope you don't offer those!

Maybe you can show that your readership is particularly wealthy, high-consuming or difficult to reach by other means?

David: $10 is for a "Run of the Network" banner - ie you get slotted in whenever there isn't anyone paying more than that in whichever paper has that space. Start prices for ads in specifed slots on a specified paper run from $35 in News to $65 in Finance and $90 in Technology: note that the low readership parts charge more than the high readership. Definitely no pop-ups on Webdiary, though!

Congratulations to WD on another step forward. Does anyone remember "Going Home" when it ran on SBS? (It featured 'commuters' discussing topical issues on the train home.) Webdiary reminds me of that program. The debate is passionate and lively but at the same time there is a friendly and familiar tone that is pretty much unique online at the moment.

I’m with Sid Walker when it comes to freedom of discussion of various aspects of recent history. There is absolutely nothing about the truth of history that ever needs protecting by the use of censorship.

In recent years the term ‘revisionist history’ has taken on a derogatory feel in much the same way as the term ‘conspiracy theory’ has. In academia censorship of ‘revisionist history’ and ‘conspiracy theory’ has long been dismissed as completely unacceptable. If questions need to be asked then let them be asked and if history needs revising as a result of the answers then so it will be revised regardless of how unpalatable the questions, the answers and subsequent revision may be.

There is a massive amount of scholarly literature on the subject of both the theory of conspiracy theories and various aspects of proven history which began as so-called conspiracy theories.

Questions regarding the events of 9/11 are quite legitimate in today’s world as are questions regarding some terrorist acts in Iraq and elsewhere in the world and to exclude them from discussion in forums like this serves only to question the credibility of the forum and its participants. It serves only the purposes of the right-wing, the Howard government and those others that are afraid of confronting the reality and the truth of what is happening in our world.

Thanks a lot folks for all the good work so far. You have my admiration for the efforts you are making, and the risks you are taking - and you will have my support as well.

I don't mind the editorial function at all, and I believe WD editors do their best to keep the flavour of opinions and comments as true to the author as they can.

Facilitating civilised discourse in an uncouth and intolerant country is difficult work. In any free-for-all unmoderated forum the reader loses.

Ron Wright I confess I don't concur with that conspiracy assertion either. I'm aware of plenty of right wing inspired conspiracy theories, I think it's a bit facile to suggest they are purely the toy of the left.

Another way to look at conspiracy theories might be to take a view that Webdiary can become one means to debunk some of those theories that are clearly bogus. If even one believer in a stupid conspiracy theory can be converted by reasoned, fact supported and inclusive argument in a forum like this then I'd say that we were all better off for it.

I would propose that once such a theory is outed in the course of a discussion about something else that the editors might perhaps look at quarantining it and give it its own space, unless of course it's inherent to the topic at hand.

David: You're assuming rationality here, David. There have been a number of occasions when we've opened new threads in response to a debate within an existing thread. The three named examples, however, have been shown by experience to be populated by those unprepared to listen to the other side. To take the other example raised, people are still coming up with new interpretations of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination, despite it being already the most-analysed 40 seconds in history. Do we want to debate it here - no, there are sites devoted to it where you can go to do that.

Ron Wright, I don’t believe that conspiracy theories should be placed off limits. Conspiracies are not always a figment of people's imagination. They happen and occur regularly and are a part of life.

Pretty much life is a conspiracy. So long as the person presents the matter respectfully and in good taste I don’t see why we need to cut off anybody's voice or opinion just because others find it silly or don’t want to believe that it exists or would prefer it to remain covered up.

History will show that often conspiracy theories do turn out to be true, at least in part.

As I understand it, Webdiary is attempting to become a forum for persons with a variety of views to meet and discuss, perhaps debate, issues in a healthy manner. The hope is that persons not just from the left but also the right will come frequently to the site and help it to grow into something bigger and better.

If that is indeed the case, then it is right to place conspiracy theories as off limits for discussion. To those at the right of the spectrum, a belief in such theories is a litmus test as to the person holding such beliefs is a reasonable person. Period.

Hello David,

Well, I hope Webdiary does well. I know trying to obtain finances to maintain even the basics operations of your website can be financially and mentally demanding. Personally though, with the volume of users on Webdiary potentially running in the 10’s of thousands, and diversity of opinions displayed, it would seem logical to open up some sort of on-line business that could cater for the diverse character of the webdiary community. In my humble opinion I believe a bookstore would be a start, but based on the model of Amazon, where Webdiary does not necessarily need to purchase an inventory. It’s a sort of “buy as the consumer buy’s” concept. So, maybe seeking contracts with leading bookstores where these companies could deliver books to consumers on your behalf without purchasing an inventory.

I think a survey of Webdiarists to determine the type of books they are interested in, then subsequently advertise these style books on your webdiary store could do well to relieve finances and increase purchase. Maybe even an Ebay concept, where people could auction and trade items and pay cheaper fees than Ebay. I know I could supply you with books without webdiary purchasing any inventory from me, but I don’t know. Maybe you could come up with a better economic solution. ;)

Good luck David and I wish you the best.

Re: Engaging with conspiracy theories

It's a fine line between disallowing (the accusation will be "censoring") the propagation of conspiracy theories and wasting a lot of time engaging them. The paradox is that suppressing or editing out posts which push this stuff only gives them more power. "See? they don't want the truth to come out." I've made this point before on Webdiary in the context of another thread but I think it's worth repeating here:

Conspiracy theories are extremely attractive. They have an appeal that stems, in part, from their simplicity and symmetry. In particular, they can never be disproved. And once you buy into the initial premise, everything else follows. Any observation which appears to contradict the thesis can be dismissed as irrelevant or a distraction. Better yet, it can be incorporated into the theory as yet another manifestation of 'their' insidious and ubiquitous power. "Well of course," says the conspiracist, "that's what 'they' want you to think. 'They' run the media (or whatever levers of insidious influence you care to invoke) from the dark obscure shadows on the edges of power."

It gets even better if you can turn a "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-type forgery concept around 180 degrees, as has happened in another thread, and start talking about "hoax 'anti-Semitic' events and statements (that) would fill volumes..." or start suggesting that "Staged terror has been a typical behaviour of those seeking to increase power." As I suggested earlier (quoting myself), "following these streams of unconsciousness, you can stop thinking once you drink the intellectual Kool-Aid that is the core idea."

As ridiculous as the conspiracy theories are, it's worse to try to exclude them. How about separate threads for this type of material?

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they're made up mostly of conjecture and little hard facts. And since that's the case, they devolve into issues that becoming increasingly bizarre. How can reasonable people debate such conjured up topics in a fruitful fashion?

I do believe in freedom of discussion but I don't agree that Webdiary is the place to discuss those issues. Otherwise it will quickly become a place where only people of like minds will come. If that's what the usual commenters here want (and I admit I'm new here), well fine. But if on the other hand you are genuinely attempting to attract persons of all political bents, then leaving conspiracy theories out of the mix of discussion is a wise way to go.

I think of WebDiary like a good 'Politics in the Pub' evening, minus the beer but with interesting guest speakers and plenty of opportunity to raise questions, make comments and air views from the floor.

I understand the need for pub discussion rules, to accommodate:

(1) the laws of the land

(2) the perceived need to make occasional concessions to hostile external forces, who would like to see the pub shut down.

So, I appreciate why Web Diary limits free speech at this time. That's OK. I also want Web Diary to survive. I may have somewhat different goals and tactics, but I don't have the information base of the editorial team; I must and do accept that self-censorship and/or censorship of submitted posts is their call.

What I do object to is glib, superficial and unfair put-downs of views Web Diary will not allow to be openly debated.

David's two editorial interventions on the topic so far in this thread fall into that category, IMO.

Returning to the pub analogy... Fair enough if you can't allow talk about x, y and z topics in this space. Just let us know - as you have done.

But you don't need to crack jokes about us and shout "irrational scumbags!" while denying us any right of reply.

That's dishonourable behaviour, to be expected from the mainstream media, but not from WebDiary.

If you can't live up to Voltaire's high standards on free speech, please spare us your pale imitation of wit.

Ron Wright Indymedia is a good example of what happens when the web, conspiracy nutters and lax moderation (or no moderation) exist. A mixture of insane fascists (real ones) and left wing anti zionist nutjobs combine to make one giant cesspool of disinformation and disgusting commentary.

David R OK, well here's a plan. Let's kill two birds with one stone. Like any quality pub discussion (Thanks Sid, love the metaphor), Webdiary must operate in a climate of respect and importantly, humour. The importance of humour can't be overestimated, we are all attracted to humour, it makes us want to engage and lifts our spirits. So, let's therefore create "Konspiracy Korner" within the new Webdiary - a place where theorists can while away the hours doing what they love best, and where the rest of us can go for a laugh...

I'm not sure that a bit of censorship isn't a bad thing. Call it "directed discussion" as opposed to censorship, if you will. There are already abundant places espousing right-wing propaganda, including most of the main stream media, and I like the idea that certain views cannot be put here. Places like this need to be encouraged and if that means discouraging certain participants then I don't have a problem.

We see a similar thing with policies such as "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination". Whilst these policies are technically quite discriminatory, in practice they are used to advantage people who are deserving because of suffering past injustices, thereby overriding the status of "discrimination".

Conspiracy theories can be a dangerous topic in many ways. Some of them are plain crap and make us look silly by talking about them. Some of them are true and can be potentially quite dangerous to talk about in a public forum. We all know what happened to Joe Vialls!

Will Howard, I find the problem with conspiracy theories is that they never go anywhere. The conspiracy theorist never accepts any conflicting material because it of course all part of the conspiracy theory.

I find it similar debating religion which I attempt to avoid for the very same reasons. It all comes down to a matter of faith and which source of information one trusts for what is often personal publicly unknown reasons.

The problem is that conspiracy theories are all consuming in their refusal to not only accept but also even acknowledge accepted facts which are at odds with the theory. If a person gives a different version to that of the conspiracy theorist they automatically have become part of the conspiracy theory. A bit like a radical minister labeling a non believing scientist as being in league with the devil.

One example I recently read of conspiracy theory. A certain person has labeled the aids virus as being started in the USA. The virus was than used by Christian missionaries and homosexuals to infect Africa with the aim of killing all black people and Moslems.

The very same conspiracy theory is used by ultra right wing nationalist groups. Only it is the Jews spreading the virus through the use of black Africans to kill all Christians so that black Africans can take over the world and later be enslaved by the Jews. This is the case because Africans are of lower intelligence. Therefore it is easier for the Jews to spring the trap.

The very same conspiracy is also used by some fundamental Christian, Moslem and Jewish groups to propagate the idea that aids really is just a punishment from God. Therefore their particular religious group is immune and will survive whilst the rest of the world contracts aids and dies allowing them to follow God's wishes by inheriting the earth.

Three groups, one conspiracy and three different meanings and outcomes. Does webdiary really need to become the battle ground for these believers to thrash out their versions? Not if it wants a high volume of readers it does not.

I have wondered for some time why Webdiary has submitted to the right-wing on this site and banned all discussion on so-called ‘conspiracy theories’. The extreme right-wing Webdiarist, Stuart Lord, has in his latest post confirmed my belief that Webdiary some weeks ago, as a result of threats from Jay White to leave Webdiary and complaints from Craig Warton, effectively shut down debate of some important questions that emerged in both Iraq and from the London bombings.

What, I ask, is Webdiary afraid of? What has become of Webdiary’s notion of free speech if it kowtows to the right-wing? We are now worse off than we were when Webdiary existed over at SMH!!

ed Hamish: Webdiary has entered a secret plot with the Vatican, CIA, Knights Templar and the Wiggles.

To anyone who truly believes that some 'conspiracy' is really taking place on some front, I suggest you stick tightly to hard evidence, without innuendo, with references and links, and let the reader draw the conclusions. The British arrested in Basra is the best example I can think of right now. It didn't 'prove' anything, but yes, it was evidence that something untoward and untransparent may be occuring. For free Damian, here's a link to your own blog, where presumably people are welcome to discuss the things you wish to have discussed.

Turning to the excellent Web Diary topic, just posted, entitled Anti-terror laws: international legal concern grows

Now, that is a great Media Release!
A1 for style. A1 for content!

Inter alia, Law Council President John North says: "They are arming our police and intelligence services with powers that history shows will likely lead to abuse and misuse."
I take it Mr North’s throwaway endorsement of at least some 'conspiracy theories' falls just within Web Diary's exacting censorship guidelines? :-)

This is what I think about "conspiracy theories":

We Webdiarists must use the same imagination that politicians and corporations use, whenever they conspire to make the world a better place for themselves. If we don't fearlessly address means, motive and opportunity, then we are merely scribes illuminating a pretty, historical manuscript called Webdiary.

I haven't the faintest idea how a website like this is constructed and made to work in practice, but for what it's worth, here's my 2c:

Imagine a structure like a ladder. One rail, with a blue theme (like this site) is concerned with the discovery of DOTS. The relative merits and importance of the dots can be argued, but dots are essentially the things that people have said and done, on the record. Dots are as near as we can get to established facts.

On a separate, but parallel rail (with a pink theme, sic) is the place where we dot-joiners do our knitting. The rungs of the ladder are a very pretty piece of hyper linking. Any pink link found on the BLUE site leads across to speculations concerning those dots. Conversely, blue links on the PINK site are the dot-points in support of someone's latest insight. Stray across, or not... it's up to you.

There might be two colour-coded comment boxes, into which we post as we think most appropriate, so there is at least some rough sorting to assist the editors. The hyper linking however, could be a bloody nightmare and might require the full-time attention of some in-house "printer's devil", using his/her skill together with a little imagination.

Just a thought.... does it have merit?

The fundamental problem I have with the issue of so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ as far as them being discussed here on Webdiary is concerned is: who, in the first place, decides what are and are not conspiracy theories?

In the history of conspiracy theories we find that those who fear conspiracy theories most are those that have the most to lose by the theory turning out to be true. In the theory of conspiracy theories we find we have two kinds of conspiracy theories. One is the type where it is known that a conspiracy has occurred. (That is where two or more people have planned or plotted, usually in order to gain some kind of illegal or immoral advantage, an event that was or is meant to be covert). This type of conspiracy, however, is just within the realms of being, essentially, a consensually accepted alternative explanation of events and circumstances within a pluralistic society as outlined in Mark Fenster, ‘Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture’, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. pp. 3-8.

The other conspiracy theory type is known as the ‘Paranoid Style’ which refers generally to the more extreme nature of rejection of explanations of events and circumstances by certain groupings within a society based on fears and beliefs held by the grouping rather than individuals that have irrational or paranoid notions of a more clinical nature. The expression ‘Paranoid Style’ was coined and defined by Richard Hofstadter in ‘The Paranoid Style in American Politics and other Essays’, New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1967. pp. 3-6.

The two books mentioned are worth a look, though Hofstadter can be a bit hard going.

David: I'll answer the first question, anyway: the Webdiary editorial team decide what is a conspiracy theory for the purposes of what does and doesn't get published. And if we add another one to the magic three listed below, it will be because debate on it within a stream has become repetitive and antagonistic.

After 8 years in the Army (part and full time) and coming up for 20 years as a lawyer, I've had my fill of conspiracy theories. True, some do turn out to be true conspiracies, but the vast bulk of them are mistakes, stuff-ups or people just trying to cover up/not admit a genuine, if careless, mistake. None of us likes admitting we are wrong but it doesn't hurt in the long run. We all make mistakes - I made one in 1962.

Like any quality pub discussion, David Eastwood? Just don't bump my elbow while I've got a pool cue in me hand.

Mahmoud Tlais, what about Webdiary baseball caps?

Sid Walker,
Mr North talked about history. I don’t believe the article included references to magic bullets, radio controlled aircraft crashing into buildings nor soldiers luring children within range of car bombs with lollies.
Frankly I think that web diary will be a much better place without such fairy stories being peddled.

Malcolm B. Duncan. Even if somebody does stuff up or makes a mistake or even if people are just trying to cover up/not admit a genuine, if careless mistake. If they cover it up and everybody goes along with it, it’s still called a Conspiracy to cover up and it is no different to if the person made the error on purpose - except its actually worse because thought and planning goes into the cover up.

The culture is such that none of us likes admitting we are wrong but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t wrong.

Hi Craig
We can only speculate about which historical examples Mr North had in mind, as he doesn't say.
There's a rich field of possibilities.

Perhaps he had the Hilton bombings in mind - Australia's only 'terrorist' attack to date?

Or possibly the great rort of 1924 in the 'Mother of Parliaments', when the 'intelligence services' and media barons conspired to choose the next British Government and sell it to a scared populace using blatant fraud and anti-democratic deception, now officially exposed (75 years late!).

As for magic bullets, my friend, we're all allowed a few foibles. Arlen Specter came up with that enchanting tale, overturning Newtonian physics in a manner more damning than Einstein - and he only a lawyer!

I used to believe in Father Christmas myself, but I did grow out of it.

I'll cough up for a banner if I can run the statement "Sir John Kerr; never in the field of politics has so much been owed by so many to so few".

David: can't see anything that contravenes Webdiary ethics there, so, yes, we'd take your money and run it!

Good point, Damian. I cannot help but note, as well, that if all publications chose to censor "conspiracy theories", the work of Bernstein and Woodwood--which brought down a US Presidency--wouldn't have seen the light of day.

By ignoring or pooh-poohing what the right-wing consider to be conspiracy theories (and let’s not forget that during the cold War the right-wing were full of conspiracy theories themselves, particularly during the McCarthy witch-hunts era and reds-under-the-bed scare tactics in post-war US) we run the risking of ignoring questions that need to be asked. These aren’t questions of theory; they are question that arise from proven actual events which put into doubt the line that has been told about other events.

For example: On 4 December 2001 President was asked: “…another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?”

The President replied: “Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America.”

Now, this is just a piffling thing on the surface, but the question I have to ask is: how come the President got to see the first aircraft flying into the WTC before the second aircraft flew into the second tower? No one else did unless they happened to actually be there. Video of the first aircraft flying into the tower didn’t emerge until after the second aircraft had gone in.

It’s not rocket science; it’s just a question about something that doesn’t add up. No theory is being propagated at all. In this example I’m merely asking why the President lied. The right-wing paranoids (paranoid about ‘conspiracy theories’ upsetting their own right-wing theories and agenda) can test this question. Who knows, they may come up with an answer that suits their needs.

By the way, Moderators, I wonder if, when you're choosing to ban "conspiracy theories" on the site, you might in fact be seeking to do something else.

Repetitive, silly arguments? Ban repetitive, silly arguments. Or at least, warn people when they're carrying on like cut snakes to pull their heads in that they'll lose their posting privileges. ("Posting privileges" is a very useful term, by the way. It reminds people that they don't have "freedom of speech" in a private venue.)

Neo-nazi historical revisionism? Ban neo-nazi historical revisionism.

Tin-foil hat lunatics? Well, you have already covered that with the restriction against the incomprehensible.

To be clear: I think that as a rule for the site, "conspiracy theory" is far too broad a stricture. Dig a little deeper and I'm sure you'll work out exactly what it is you're objecting to.

As a long-term Net-Nanny, Archivist, Royal and Admin on sundry online fora, I know of what I speak.

David: silly isn't a word any of us would use in this context. If it were merely silly we probably would let it through. Repetitive and antagonistic was the phrase I used earlier, with the added note of appearing that the two sides were trading rehearsed positions without listening, or illuminating the rest of us much. Actual reasoned debate on disputed issues and facts is the core of Webdiary, and can be very illuminating when it goes well. See, for example the discussion between Will Howard, Arie Brand and others here.

Great to see the ongoing evolution of webdiary.I have been a constant reader for about 4 years, I rarely contribute but always read. Sites like this help keep me sane as I realise, I am not alone in my thoughts and feelings. Onward Democracy.

Hamish, I’m not sure that it was really necessary to take the piss by reframing my stance about the discussion of conspiracy theories from the reasonable to the ridiculous with crap like ‘secret plot with the Vatican, CIA, Knights Templar and the Wiggles’. Such garbage may give the right-wing non-thinking I’ll-believe-anything-the-government-tells-me (like WMDs and Saddam being a direct threat to us in Australia) mob here a bit of a grin at my expense but does nothing for the debate that underscores what this is really all about. I know you qualified it in the next paragraph by saying: ‘Seriously, what can I say Damian’, but too late; you’ve already said it.

First, you haven’t answered the question: what is Webdiary so afraid of – and, please, let’s not have this nonsense about ‘repetitive and antagonistic’; you and I know it’s nowhere near as simple as that. Most of the stuff on Webdiary is repetitive and antagonistic. I wouldn’t mind a dollar for every time I’ve said ‘tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed’ and, to a large extent, it is often antagonism that fuels and triggers debate – debate that often ends up just going around and around in endless circles anyway no matter what topic we’re discussing. It is sometimes infuriating and frustrating but, for some reason, we keep coming back for more – left and right. Given all that, what I’d like to know is: what’s so different about so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ that puts it off limits?

I ask again, why did Webdiary kowtow to the right-wing on this issue, and I have to say that a denial that it did does Webdiary’s credibility no good at all.

And thanks for the ‘free’ link. I’ve already reciprocated in the spirit of a truly alternative media network.

David: I'm sure we can survive your view of our credibility, Damian, not least since I doubt any view that this site is a subservient tool of the right-wing is going to get many votes. We take our own decisions on what to publish and what not, always with the Ethics in mind, and always with the views of Webdiarists in mind, but no one Webdiarist (always excepting Margo) gets to force a decision on us.

So Ron if I start talking about the conspiracy this guy is accused of or the one he accuses others of you walk away shaking your head right?

The guy by the way is Tom DeLay. Are you going to stay and defend him by agreeing with him that there is a conspiracy to take him down or does it rattle you (and make you shake) to think that the conspiracy charge may be proven true and DeLay was on the take? Well, Ron?

Whenever anyone is asked to come up with an actual conspiracy, the answer is almost always Watergate. Fine. That shows that the US government has a set of checks and balances that prevents most abuses from happening.

But when I ask if they can give me any others, I usually get Area 51, JFK, the Mossad engendered 9/11, and similar looney tune plot lines. And that's when I walk away shaking my head.

Margaret Morgan lists some of her pet hates and recommends banning them all from this site.

Have you considered a job working for Kevin Ruddock, Margaret? Or a role as advisor to the North Korean Government?

You seem to have the right attitude - ban first and abuse the offender on their way out with an offensive appraisal of their bona fides, sanity and arguments, to which they cannot, of course, reply.

In my perfect medium, the only ban would be on self-proclaimed nannies banning whomever they choose.

God preserve us all from people who boast about being 'net nannies'!

David: I assume Kevin Ruddock is the unanticipated love child of the shadow Foreign Minister and the Attorney General. Shudder to think.

What are conspiracy theories? Are they not someone's conclusions ( false or otherwise ) after putting together information ( or gossip ) gathered from various sources? Some too are simply inventions of individuals who may have reason to create a false conspiracy theory. I have a faint feeling this may apply to the invasion of Iraq but of course...

Wherever they start they are referred to as conspiracy theories until they are shown to be patently false or fact.

One example of a conspiracy theory is that Iraq had WMD ready to go in 45 minutes. That is no longer a conspiracy theory, it is disproven. Another is that the Willing invaded Iraq because there were WMD ready to go in 45 minutes. Proven or not?

In those two cases the world's media was full of both speculations for a couple of years at least.

As such it would be valid to write about, report on or otherwise attempt to prove or disprove these theories. As it happens continual examination of those cases by many resulted in the truth being revealed. In fact both theories were simply bullshit.

So there are situations where conspiracy theories are accepted by the majority and only questioned by those strong enough to persist.

Who is to decide which conspiracy theory is true or false?

From what I've seen WD doesn't censor as such. The word censor implies that someone is trying to hide something from others. Is that what WD editors do? I don't think so.

What they would do is question anything that has had no airing in the media previously until any such information can be verified. This is the key to such decisions. What may be valid and what may be pure fantasy unsupported elsewhere.

In other words what some here are calling censorship is simply application of a bullshit detector.

Elvis lives! He runs a McDonald's with Harold Holt in Moscow today.

Believe me, I would not defend Tom DeLay. And I believe most here would agree with me that they'd just as soon not give him a platform for discussing this purported conspiracy against him.

As far as I'm concerned, all conspiracy patrons, whether of the left or the right, can argue their conspiracies at some other web site.

Expanding on my model for a dichotomous Webdiary (or should that be a bipolar Webdiary). Call it Konspiracy Korner if you like. I'll describe it as the BLUE and PINK Webdiaries.

The BLUE half of the Webdiary might consist of those things we accept as the proveable truth... at least by the consensus of the Webdiary family. It would be the spiritual home to those of us who are unhappy with the use of circumstantial evidence. Here we might discuss what the Attorney General actually said and meant, without recourse to speculation about his personal motives.

The PINK half of the Webdiary might be populated by those of us who use our abilities to suggest 'means, motive and opportunity' based upon life experience. If you like - our instincts.

From time to time, some theory or other from the PINK side of the Webdiary will solidify and become a building block in the edifice of the BLUE Webdiary, recognised thereafter as a self-evident truth.

For example: the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

It is now accepted as a self-evident truth, that the excuses put forward for the smashing of Iraq were all bogus. This fact would belong to the BLUE Webdiary. From that moment on, it should become unneccessary to repeat the lies chapter and verse just to prove a trivial point. Some of us are becoming tired of this repetition game, and are thinking of cutting a stencil (nod to Damian Lataan). The truth of these deceptions should be cemented so firmly in place, that sardonic spin alone cannot dislodge it, Jay White.

On the other hand, there are some BLUE building blocks which do not stand up to proper scrutiny. For example, there is not enough solid evidence to convict a certain Mr O bin Laden of a parking ticket, much less property damage in the City of New York. BLUE webdiarists would do well not to put all their weight on this part of the structure. We might lend this block to the PINK Webdiary, where the denizens can test it for the possibility of hollowness.

The point of all this rambling is to suggest a structure for Webdiary that would make it harder for those of us who "take sides" (I include myself), to trip one another up, and allow a bypass for the free flow of ideas.