Talk:Lumber Cartel

Clarify what the article is about
1)Is this article about the Lumber Cartel? In this case usenet etc can't be used as verifiable sources and I would suggest AfD.

2)Is is about a usenet meme, i.e. the fact that loads of people talked about this on usenet? In this case usenet is acceptable as a source, because such sources can be used in a cautious way to provide information about themselves. No one is disputing that these posts took place. In this case I suggest clarifying the article's content by renaming it to something such as "Lumber cartel meme" or whatever. Then it becomes an article about an internet phenomenon, not about the subject of that phenomenon.

Tyrenius 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OR
This does seem to be a bit OR to me. Can at least some of these "points" be cited to actual anti-spammers? Also, words like "point out", "truth", "e-mail spam [is] a threat to the internet" are a bit POV. KWH 06:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Anti-spammers were quick to point out that this reasoning is far from the truth. There are many reasons why e-mail spam was, and continues to be, a threat to the Internet, and why people continue to fight spam either in their spare time or professionally. In addition, in recent decades only newsprint paper (which is used to print newspapers) is being made out of pulpwood (which is, also, very far from lumber), other fine papers (like the kind used to print glossy advertisements and brochures) are made out of cotton rags. It is thus unlikely that the any lumber or tree-harvesting industry would benefit from any change from junk mailing. Furthermore, lumber companies themselves have little to do with paper companies, and bulk mail constitutes only a small part of total paper use."

"Spam is a threat to the Internet" is POV? DS 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. certainly not the spammer's PoV.--Crossmr 00:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pushing POV beyond the point of reasonable interpretation. Fortunately however the statement can be easily given verification in an OECD document:
 * In conclusion, there is a common understanding that spam is a threat to the Internet as an effective and reliable means  of  communication,  and  for  the  overall  evolution  of  the  e-economy.  This  common understanding has led to calls for greater co-operation among all stakeholders in finding common solutions to spam.
 * Why spam? How does it work?
 * Why is spam such a threat? The fact that the cost of sending e-mail is extremely low and does not increase in proportion to the number of messages sent is an incentive for spammers to send out as many copies of their e-mail as possible, with numbers that run into billions sent per day. The cost of spam is therefore shifted away from the spammer and onto the recipient.

The text continues if anyone wants to look it up. Tyrenius 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A statement like "a sharpened pin is a threat to an inflated balloon" is reasonably self-evident and doesn't need to be verified or cited. "Spam was and continues to be a threat to the internet", especially in this context (of directly rebutting the Lumber Cartel theory) is not self-evident, nor is it verifiable. "The OECD claims 'there is a common understanding that spam is a threat to the internet'" is verifiable, but the OECD was not responding to the Lumber Cartel theory. The problem with the above paragraph is that it makes all of these statements, with regards to the fact that spam is a past and present threat, the motivations of anti-spam activists, and all the bit about lumber companies, and seems to attribute them to what nebulous anti-spammers "pointed out." Did a discussion happen on nanae where someone talked about how "lumber companies themselves have little to do with paper companies, and bulk mail constitutes only a small part of total paper use"? KWH 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lumber Cartel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.lumbercartel.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707044711/http://www.lumbercartel.cn/ to http://www.lumbercartel.cn/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823083225/http://www.ahbl.org/docs/glossary.php to http://www.ahbl.org/docs/glossary.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720194149/http://www.gamblingmagazine.com/articles/34/34-15.htm to http://gamblingmagazine.com/articles/34/34-15.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607220605/http://bobcathoh.50megs.com/tinLC/ to http://bobcathoh.50megs.com/tinLC/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)