The tone of Lee Siegel is that of an ivory tower elitist.

WSJ: Can you explain again why Wikipedia is so terrible?

Mr. Siegel: It’s full of inaccuracies and constantly changing according to the prejudices of its administrators. Mounds of facts are constantly shifting. That’s not healthy for a reference work.

He’s just upset that the uneducated plebes have easy access to information outside of the law library at Harvard. I think the internet is the greatest invention of my lifetime, as it allows quick access to truth for average joes like myself which is outside of the corporate media empire.

This fool is talking about the young, college indoctrinated, fools who will follow any shiny object. What stings his sensibilities is those of us who don’t take the ‘most popular drivel’, and research all aspects of an issue to make an informed decision. Which in all cases falls on the other side of his disturbed opinions.

It’s funny that he would complain about the internet, because, last time I checked, TNR is on-line, and even sends out mass emails. Irony is excellent!

WSJ: You complain about the use of anonymous attacks on the Web, but you used a pseudonym yourself. Any regrets?

Mr. Siegel: No, I’d do it again. I did it as a protest, to give these people a taste of their own medicine.

Mr. Siegel’s problem is that his got ID as being a sockpuppet…his book is his way of saying “I got punked out by some bullies on the ‘net”… Suck it up Lee…we don’t care what you think…

Whatever else he had to say, he’s spot on about Wikipedia. Go look up “Maafa” (it means “African Holocaust”) or the “Arab slave trade” article to see just how bad Wikipedia can get. Both are deliberately slanted in order to minimize the moral travesty of Arab slavery, mostly by stating that some professor so-and-so says so.

“So, people are not drawn to articles on the basis of what they’re interested in, they’re drawn to what OTHER PEOPLE are interested in.” (GASP!)

Liberal elite-speak translation: “The idiot masses have too much freedom to expose themselves to alternative points of view, and this insidious movement must be stopped because it is threatening the monopoly that leftist editors used to control and use to indoctrinate the public and protect them from the dangerous ideas of evil, right-wing conservatives. Also, it has had the unacceptable effect of revealing to the public that anyone is capable of being a journalist and informing the public of facts and stories that should be editorially suppressed (because, of course, we know what’s best). Finally, the phenomenon of ‘thuggish anonymity’ is harmful and unfair because if us legitimate journalists don’t know the identity of the people criticizing our agenda, it makes it all the more difficult for us to fulfill our sacred obligation as journalists to the attack them personally and discredit their alternative viewpoint, which until now had been our undisputed constitutional prerogative.”

“Finally, the phenomenon of ‘thuggish anonymity’ is harmful and unfair because if us legitimate journalists don’t know the identity of the people criticizing our agenda, it makes it all the more difficult for us to fulfill our sacred obligation as journalists to the attack them personally and discredit their alternative viewpoint, which until now had been our undisputed…prerogative.” (Sean A’s interpretation) I imagine that’s a fine interpretation of the speaker’s psyche. (One didn’t need to sully the Constitution, however, by mentioning it superfluously). Who are the thuggishly anonymous writers, I wonder? Is See-Dubya a thug? Is Allahpundit? And (mixing small things with great) am I a thug? I think our anonymity exceeds our thuggishness as 1 exceeds 0. Nor am I inclined to overlook the thuggishness, sloppiness, or stupid bias of men who are known by their names, such as the editors of The “New” “Republic”.

He is a perfect example of an egotistical, elitist, A-hole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Truth is when he dies, no one will ever remember he was here.

Siegel says he fought thuggish anonymity with thuggish anonymity. But he wrote, under a pseudonym:

“Siegel is brave, brilliant, and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.”

He actually fought thuggish anonymity with huggish anonymity — he gave himself a virtual hug.