Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Man-Boy Love Advocate Accused of Using Wikipedia to Troll for Interested Parties

by Gilbert Wesley Purdy.

In September of 2006, David.Monniaux, "a [system operator] on the English-speaking Wikipedia and a member of the board of Wikimédia France," deleted the English Wikipedia user page of User:Rookiee (a.k.a. Rookie Revolyob) and blocked it from further changes. Monniaux's reasons were amplified in a page now archived under the header User:Hermitan. The user/editor had used his page to advocate for man-boy love. That page now reads as follows:



User:Rookiee's page listed a cause ("boyloving") that he advocated; his signature contained a mirror image of "boylover". If I understand correctly, he was not advocating breaking laws, but changing them so that certain acts become legal; but regardless, this was still advocacy.

Rookiee was one of a group of Wikipedia users who openly identified themselves as "pedophiles". As many as a dozen such self-identified pedophiles have been active editors on the site for considerable lengths of time. Some remain so.

Note: The User:Hermitan entry quoted above no longer exists at Wikipedia. Nor does its archival version exist.

Rookiee's first edit would seem to have occurred on October 21st, 2005:

01:51, 21 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Child sex offender Note: the Wikipedia page "Talk:Child sex offender" has been replaced by "Talk:Child sexual abuse". The archive page for "Talk:Child sex offender" no longer exists.

It is an innocuous edit to a page which would be consistent with Rookiee's interest areas. The following are a representative sample of Rookiee's edit subjects:

16:43, 21 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pedophilia ("Cultural Norms")

18:40, 21 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sex offender

20:56, 21 October 2005 (hist) (diff) m Sexual abuse (Sexual Abuse, Minors, Consent, and Culture)

19:58, 25 October 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:ThePedanticPrick

19:39, 1 November 2005 (hist) (diff) m Child grooming ("Online sexual grooming")

01:31, 8 September 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Child sexuality (Sex vs. Sex Play)

A complete (one assumes) listing of User:Rookiee's edits (to other than his deleted User and Talk Pages) can be found on his Wikipedia User Contribution page.

Note: a number of Wikipedia archive pages relating to pedophilia have been cut-off to provide no more than the most recent 100 - 200 entries. The remainders of the archive have been removed.

While it is clear from the topics listed that Rookiee was interested in "dispelling cultural biases," and otherwise "misapprehensions," from the Wikipedia pages that hosted references, direct or indirect, to "boyloving," numerous references to his now deleted User pages make clear that Rookiee was accused of linking from his Wikipedia page to boylove advocacy pages. The following is quoted from the comments of another User who otherwise defended Rookiee's right to use his personal pages as he saw fit:

...I would strongly suggest he removes the links to the various pedophile blogs and websites.... — Matt Crypto 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

His User Talk pages, of course, also now deleted, provided a means for interested parties to make first contact with him. All of this was available to the many millions of minors who explore the pages of Wikipedia.

There remains some record of how Rookiee's various actions were perceived. During an intense online discussion, on a pedophilia-related topic, he was temporarily "blocked" (prevented from editing). In a Wikipedia discussion page preserved by the site Wikitruth, it is clear that at least one user understood that Rookiee had been blocked for "pedophile trolling":



Rookiee wanted to reply to you, but found himself blocked again, indefinitely this time, by Neutrality for "pedophile trolling". Clayboy 10:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The accusation is referred to as a matter of established fact in a September 2006 Wikipedia discussion in which User:Hermitian objected at length to Rookiee's being banned from Wikipedia:



When Rookiee was banned by an admin with the excuse of "pedophile trolling" during the controversy over the Justin Berry article, there was extensive discussion at that time, and consensus was reached that banning people from editing Wikipedia because of their sexuality was inappropriate, and his ban was revoked. Rookiee's user page wasn't even an issue during that discussion, and I don't recall anyone having problems with it.
Unwilling to be perceived as intolerant of others' "sexual preferences", the block had been lifted. Reinstated, Rookiee was informed that he had been blocked by Jimmy Wales (lifetime CEO of Wikimedia), only until he and his edits could be "sorted out":



You were blocked because jimbo decided to block you while he sorted out the complaint made about the article. It's only a short block, I realise you feel hard done by but Jimbo has to look at the whole picture.

Rookiee's boyloving propensities, it was decided, fell under the category of "sexual preference" and users were not to be discriminated against due to sexual preference. A thorough search through the pages of Wikipedia indicates that this remains the online encyclopedia's only stated policy specifically regarding pedophile trolling and advocacy.

At least one user attempted to rein-back on the final decision:

In short we dont want self identified paedophilles editing articles about people who claim to have been molested and abused as children. We will write the article ourselves thank you. Personally i don't object to paedophilles editing pages about peadophillia but writing articles about abuse victims is simply not on.Theresa Knott Taste the Korn 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
While all of this went on, Rookiee's User and Talk pages continued to be available in Wikipedia for nearly a year, and, in the words of User:Hermitian, it "wasn't even an issue".


The Wikimedia Foundation - the parent company of Wikipedia - has 501(c)(3) tax exempt status in the United States. It is a Florida-registered Not for Profit "Charitable Organization" based out of St. Petersburg. According to the Wikimedia homepage, Wikipedia is one of the 15 most visited websites in the world.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Wikipedophilia Raw Data

While Eye Online's research into "pedophile trolling" in the pages of Wikipedia grinds along, the following Google search-engine links might help you to check out a bit of raw data yourselves:

Key words:

Eye Online coverage to date:

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Eye Online Breaking Story: Wikipedophillia History Quietly Being Expunged.

On March 4, 2007, Eye Online posted the article Man-Boy Love Advocate Accused of Using Wikipedia to Troll for Interested Parties. Eye Online has just discovered that, since the article appeared, Wikipedia Administrators have bypassed the entire Wikipedia editing/discussion system and have begun deleting/removing a large number of the online encyclopedia's User and Discussion pages containing pedophilia themes.

While this is sure to be represented as a response to the public's sensitivity about such subjects, the question can not help but be asked: Is Wikipedia rapidly trying to destroy the evidence of years of "pedophile trolling" and "pedophile activism" in its pages? Much of it with the knowledge of its Administrators? With this question in mind, EO has begun downloading the Google caches for these pages. No time to waste. Even one of the cache pages has now gone blank. Stay tuned for further reports.

The following are a few example pages:



From Animal Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Squealer: "...his lies to animals of past events they cannot remember refers to the revision of history texts..."




Also See:

Recent Wikipedia / Wikitruth Coverage.

Wikipedia Mulls Proof Of Credentials
By Thomas Claburn
InformationWeek
March 8, 2007

"The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with the general public," says Wales on his Wikipedia User Talk page. "If you don't care to tell us that you are a PhD (or that you are not), then that's fine: your editing stands or falls on its own merit. But if you do care to represent yourself as something, you have to be able to prove it." [Go to complete story >>>]


Wikipedia to challenge Google, Yahoo!
Plans to build a search engine
Reuters
Financial Post
March 8, 2007

Wikia Inc., the commercial counterpart to the non-profit Wikipedia, is aiming to take as much as 5 percent of the lucrative Internet search market, Jimmy Wales said at a news conference in Tokyo. [Go to complete story >>>]


Conservapedia: The Word Says It All
By Rob Mackey
The Lede (NYT blog)
New York Times
March 8, 2007

...some conservatives have given up on Wikipedia and set about building an alternative online encyclopedia they can call their own: Conservapedia.

According to Wired, the Conservapedia project leader, Andrew Schlafly, “started the site in late November 2006 in conjunction with 58 high-school-level, home-schooled students from the New Jersey area”... [Go to the complete story >>>]


Bogus professor resigns as Wiki editor
UPI
Imedinews
March 7, 2007

Taking a paying job with Wikia Inc. apparently led to Jordan's unveiling. He has given up that post as well as his volunteer work. [Go to complete story >>>]


Man-Boy Love Advocate Accused of Using Wikipedia to Troll for Interested Parties
by Gilbert Wesley Purdy
Mar 4, 2007
Eye Online

Rookiee's boyloving propensities, it was decided, fell under the category of "sexual preference" and users were not to be discriminated against due to sexual preference. [Go to the complete story >>>]




Page:
[1] [2] [3]

Sunday, March 04, 2007

"Honor Killings", "Circumcision", "Dog Shows", "Child Soldiers", "Abortion"


Jason Scott's The Great Failure of Wikipedia (the "Transcription of a presentation/speech given at Notacon 3, April 8, 2006") has recently appeared in the web and garnered considerable attention. Jason can hardly be called anything but a disinterested witness. The quote, here, is only a portion of a piece ("Wikipedia: J. S. on Essajay") with many wide ranging and intelligent observations on the Wikipedia phenomenon:

What is going on in all this, and which I am fearful is going to be missed, is how Wikipedia's Value System functions. "Honor Killings", "Circumcision", "Dog Shows", "Child Soldiers", "Abortion" ... there are thousands of events and values that people engage in every day that are completely inscrutable to a good portion of the rest of the people on the Earth. Sometimes you can see the logic and decide it's just not your cup of joe, but other times you see things that are allowed in one jurisdiction that would have "those people" turned into organ donors anywhere else.

Finally, the massive Wiki Behavioral Problem begins (only begins) to receive its due attention. The effects are pouring out of Wikipedia's virtual anti-Oz into the real world. It isn't becoming a problem. It has long been one.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Recent Wikipedia / Wikitruth Coverage.

Bogus Wikipedia Prof. was blessed then promoted
by Andrew Orlowski
Mar 2, 2007
The Register, UK

Wikipedia's Maximum Leader Jimmy Wales, it transpires, has blessed an identity fraudster who bamboozled journalists last year, by rewarding him with a full-time job and promotion to Wikipedia's politburo. Wales said he had no qualms with the deception. His comments follow an apology issued by The New Yorker magazine this week, after a bogus Professor who claimed to have four degrees, tricked a Pulitizer Prize winning journalist commissioned by the publication. [Go to the complete story >>>]


Jimmy Wales Defends Wikipedia New Yorker Article Fabricator
by Seth Finkelstein
Mar 1, 2007
Infothought

Actually, I did six hours of interviews with the reporter, and two with a fact checker, but I was really surprised that they were willing to do an interview with someone who they couldn't confirm; I can only assume that it is proof I was doing a good job playing the part. Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [Go to the complete story >>>]


What The New Yorker Article Fraud Tells Us About Wikipedia
by Seth Finkelstein
Mar 1, 2007
Infothought

As I read further about the scandal where Wikipedia administrator and now Wikia employee "Essjay" / Ryan Jordan pretended to be a "a tenured professor of religion at a private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.", I ended up feeling more sadness for him than anger. [Go to the complete story >>>]


Wikipedia New Yorker Article Misrepresentation Exposed
by Seth Finkelstein
Feb 28, 2007
Infothought

The New Yorker Wikipedia article now has an update of how the Wikipedia site administrator "Essjay" "was described in the piece as "a tenured professor of religion at a private university" with "a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.", but in reality he "now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia - a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia - as a "community manager"; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions." [Go to the complete story >>>]


Wikipedia Biography Deletion Explodes In Internal Controversy
by Seth Finkelstein
Feb 28, 2007
Infothought

And deeper, this is why I don't like Wikipedia. If there's no mechanism other than God-King divine fiat to override the segment of any population that likes to hurt people, that's an extremely bad statement about the organization. And if the organization has to keep hurting people because doing otherwise would undermine its fundamental driving force, that's absolutely horrible. [Go to the complete story >>>]


Zoeller Sues to Find Author of Web Post
by Brett Thomas
Bit-Tech
February 23, 2007

Apparently, one article writer took a little liberty with Fuzzy's past, talking about how the golfer was deeply involved in drugs and alcohol. The paragraph, which has since been removed, also discussed him abusing his family - a claim which both he and his family deny. [Go to the complete story >>>]


[Full-disclosure] Wikipedia and Pedophilia
by V Vendetta
Neohapsis
January 19, 2007

They believe in censoring anything bad about themselves - yet will continue to spread pedophilic propaganda on #wikipedia in freenode. [Go to complete story >>>]


Five Wikipedia Predictions: A New Year
by Jason Scott
ASCII
January 1, 2007

Anonymous editors are now a sub-class on Wikipedia whose contributions are to be used but who are not to really be trusted or listened to. [Go to complete story >>>]


Toto, I Don’t Think We’re in Wikipedia Anymore
by Adam
The Substantially Similar Weblog
November 12, 2007

Within a few seconds after I created the article, however, it was “speedily” deleted. A bit surprised, I tried to start an explanation as to why the entry warranted at least consideration for inclusion, and the article was deleted again and I found this message on my “talk” page:

This is your last warning.The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diez2 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [Go to the complete story >>>]


Know It All: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?
by Stacy Schiff
The New Yorker
Sep 24, 2006
The New Yorker Online

Wikipedia, which was launched in 2001, is now the seventeenth-most-popular site on the Internet, generating more traffic daily than MSNBC.com and the online versions of the Times and the Wall Street Journal combined. The number of visitors has been doubling every four months; the site receives as many as fourteen thousand hits per second.









***

Wales recently established an “oversight” function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there. [Go to the complete story >>>]











Page:
[1] [2] [3]

Thursday, June 22, 2006

From the Mailbag: "...meat-turd god-kings..."

Well, it has certainly been a strange trip. A little over a week ago VGS's blog pages gradually started indexing again. At about the same time one of my reviews at a new venue disappeared from the search engines and subsequent reviews there have failed to appear altogether. I will provide more detail on this subject in a seperate post.

With the majority of my blog pages, and more than a few of my pages on other servers, yanked off the search engines I thought it a good time to step back and reflect upon the true nature of the Internet. Now that most of the pages have returned - albeit at a much lower ranking for having been removed for well over a month - it seems best to make at least a few more posts and to see where matters go.

I begin with a look at the mailbag. I'll also post the comments at their associated pages but will answer at greater length here. I'll take them in pretty much chronological order:


Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:20:14 -0700 (PDT)

Jaberwocky6669 has left a new comment on your post "...the politics, the lameness, the backstabbing...":

Just to be sure, I did not say that which is in quotes! That is from a wiki called Wiki Truth. So don't misquote me!


While I did not in the least misquote Ms. J. I will be glad here to verify that the text in quotes was not her own creation. That is what quotation marks indicate and I have depended upon the reader to be aware of the grammatical implications of those particular items of punctuation.

Nor did I quote her comment in its entirety. I did indicate her cooptation of the Wiki Truth quote, as did she herself. I did not, however, include such choice morsels as the following which in her original post went without quotes:


The idea of Wikipedia is absolutely wonderful and amazing, but sadly a large group of meat-turd god-kings has decided to be extremely anal and put a stop to all of that because they believek that they have the final word on everything. Wikipedia: the most anal place on Earth.
I hope these clarifications are sufficient to Ms. J's needs.



* * *

I've been quite pleased that recent comments are actually sane (if a bit edgy, at times). The following, from Anonymous, makes an excellent point:


Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT)

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?":

No browsing information is displayed, only your IP address. The information obtained and displayed on the Administrators' Noticeboard was just what could be gained from a whois, which anybody can do. The GNU Free Documentation License requires that every contributor be attributed, so Wikipedia must give out IP addresses- to everyone, not just users. Click the "history" tab to see.

First, while IP addresses are not properly brows-er information they are brows-ing information. That the information can easily be misused is clear from the chat thread (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=50171464&oldid=50170801#Legal_threat
_against_editor
) quoted in Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands? It is hardly an answer to point out (quite correctly) that the information is actually available to millions rather than thousands.

Can it possibly be a coincidence that edits by registered users are entered under noms du wiki rather than their IP addresses? If the information is so harmless or somehow required by law why aren't their IPs being listed as well, I wonder? As I have demanded, the IPs need to be available only to a small group of the most trusted administrators who can release them only to proper authorities, etc., as a lawful requirement arises. The edit histories can easily display discrete IDs of non-registered users in a fashion something like the following: "Anon 06-21-06-00012" (indicating the 12th non-registered user to edit on the 21st of June, 2006). The tag would then be corrolated to the user IP in a secure data base and the information available for offical and/or lawful uses.


* * *

And here's an edgy one:


Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:20:27 -0700 (PDT)

IT Engineer has left a new comment on your post "Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?":

Legal threats no matter the situation are heavily frowned upon by the system.
--
Your 'IP' by itself is handed out with every email you send, wikipedia records nothing more than that for 'everuser' access. It just so happens, that ~any~ internet user with annother's IP can reduce the area they are from to a general locality, that fact has absolutely ~nothing~ to do with wikipedia. It's called a 'whois' and has been around since the bit twiddling days of the net. Please do your reseach before inserting foot futher in mouth.


Well ain't that sumthin! I love these comments because they make it so clear how much Wikiaddicts live in a world of their own.

Let's take it from the top, shall we? Who or what exactly is "the system"? And just when did the legal system defer to it such that it is a law unto itself? And how is it's belief that it is a law unto itself anything less then another glaring example of why IP addresses and other information can not be entrusted to it?

I might even accept that "the system" lawfully has considerable sway within its own virtual domain. But the point here is that "the system" easily, and with a sense of empowerment, went stalking prey well beyond its borders in the real world. The minute it crossed those borders, "the system" was nothing more than a dangerous mob with a sense of empowerment to commit egregious torts and transgress the law. In short, if anyone is wilting under the "frown" of "the system" it can only be because the legitimate legal system is failing to do its job.

I would not be surprised, at that rate, to learn that the Gambino family is considering buying Encyclopedia Britannica so that it can pursue its interests with impunity before the law. I can see it now: "Legal threats no matter the situation are heavily frowned upon by The Family." They apparently would also qualify for non-profit status in the state of Florida.

Next item: Yes, our IP addresses are readily available to anyone who wishes to expend a modest amount of energy. And, of course, I am not unaware of WhoIs. I've used it myself as part of Virtual Grub Street's research into adware sites.

There is the additional "edit history" feature available to Wikipedians, it bears saying. It is how Donald Albury "coincidentally" found his way from the Seminole page at 1:14 UTS ( 01:14, 22 April 2006 Dalbury) to the Claudia Emerson page at 1:16 (01:16, 22 April 2006 Dalbury), noticing that Beth Wellington was furious that her C. E. fan page was edited by someone who didn't have her fan-club-leader authorization and giving him the perfect opportunity to game the system like an old hand. He followed my edit history waiting for his best opportunity to pounce. You guys are really something.

But then back to IPs in general. As simple as they are to get ahold of, you may notice that almost no other forum (or similar group written/edited site) gives people the information just by virtue of becoming a registered user. That is because they know that they can not vouch for how users will put the information to use and realize that they quite properly have a responsibility for might happen as a result. Only a tiny number of site admins have access to the information. And most of those sites don't systematically invite the general public, thus attracting millions from among the unwary to deposit their individually indentifiable information in a vast database where thousands of unvetted users have the option to gather time-lapse information from them for stalking, fraud, identity theft, etc. Furthermore they do not have non-profit status suggesting that they are especially responsible.



Related Stories:

Monday, May 15, 2006

Since I Began Wiki Watchdog (5/15/06)

I thought it might be interesting to review some of the events of my days since I began Wiki Watchdog, on April 22, 2006, and strongly advised readers not to donate to Wikipedia until it institutes key changes to reduce the effects of Wikibullying, Wikiwolfpacking, Wikimobbing, Wikistalking, Wikietcetera. (see: Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?):


  1. My Palm Beaches Review first lost Google search engine coverage for the pages in it linked from Wikipedia. The site has since disappeared entirely from the Google search engine. It has not had a hit from any search engine for approximately two days: see http://gilbert-wesley-purdy.blogspot.com/ (site URL) and site:http://gilbert-wesley-purdy.blogspot.com/ (Google listing of site pages being indexed);
  2. The Google coverage for my Virtual Grub Street Front Page site has been reduced to a handful of pages: see http://virtual-grub-street.blogspot.com/ (site URL) and site:http://virtual-grub-street.blogspot.com/ (Google listing of site pages being indexed);
  3. A number of the longtime first page Google listings associated with the original Virtual Grub Street blog have slipped to lower search pages. The total listing of pages has gone down from above 140 to 97. Site traffic has correspondingly gone down by over 30% as a result: see site:gilbertwesleypurdy.blogspot.com/ (Google listing of site pages being indexed);
  4. The most recent Google search engine index for the Wiki Watchdog blog has retained the main blog page and the three individual pages indexed during the previous crawling-cycle. None of the new individual pages has been indexed: see http://vgs-wiki-watchdog.blogspot.com/ (site URL) site:http://vgs-wiki-watchdog.blogspot.com/ (Google listing of site pages being indexed);
  5. The Google listings for "Gilbert Wesley Purdy" have gone down to 707 from above 980 pages;
  6. The Google cache page for QLRS - Criticism : AT'ang Canon Vol. 3 No. 4 Jul 2004 (my book review / essay "A T'ang Canon") has disappeared. Because this has not been done by Google (nor, apparently, a legitimate administrator of QLRS's server), the following default listing appears:
    Welcome to my Website!
    www.qlrs.com/critique.asp?id=367 - 1k - May 11, 2006 -
    Cached - Similar pages

    (see: page 1 of Google search)

  7. My sonnet sequence "On First Reading Lowell's Notebooks" and essay "The Enigma of W. D. Snodgrass" are no longer being indexed: see site:www.limestonemag.net "limestone magazine" "Gilbert Wesley Purdy";
  8. My poems "55 Madonna", "A Meeting of the Garden Club", and my reviews "Brisk Leaps the Heart" and "The Reconstruction of John Willis Menard" are no longer being indexed: see site:poetry.allinfo-about.com "Gilbert Wesley Purdy".
  9. The claim that I vandalized User:Prometheuspan's talk page has been removed and the message supporting him in his struggle has been returned to the page: see "...pack psychology driven anarchy...";
  10. Donald Albury "is taking a moderate wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia at the end of May": see User talk:Dalbury and Wiki Watchdog's article Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?.

Can an Al Qaida cell really have infiltrated Wikipedia? Somehow I suspect we'll all have to decide for ourselves.

"All we are saying is give jackbooted fascism a chance."



Phil Sandifer (a.k.a. Snowspinner) is a Wikipedia Administrator who has all but grown famous for this quote from his user page, listed under the heading "I'm not a goddamned inclusionist":

All we are saying is give jackbooted fascism a chance.

If this seems like an inappropriate philosophy for a Florida-registered non-profit organization it will apparently have to be lived with. According to Wikitruth's Snowspinner page:

Snowie is much loved by Jimbo, who has declared him his kind of admin...

Jimbo, of course, is Jimmy Wales the appointed-for-life CEO of Wikipedia.

Witness statements...

The following witness statements are presently posted at Wiki Watchdog:


  1. "Honor Killings", "Circumcision", "Dog Shows", "Child Soldiers", "Abortion" by Jason Scott;
  2. "...it's better to shoot first and ask questions later..." Mark Pellegrini (a.k.a. Raul654);
  3. "All we are saying is give jackbooted fascism a chance." Phil Sandifer (a.k.a. Snowspinner);
  4. '...the "democratic" people's MAFIA...' Steve Rubel & Steve Wallis;
  5. "...feel that they are immune from accountability." Daniel Brandt;
  6. "...a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits..." Warren Boroson;
  7. "...normal person, plus anonymity, plus large audience, equals flaming f**kwad." Jason Scott;
  8. "A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander." John Leyden;
  9. "...the politics, the lameness, the backstabbing..." jaberwocky6669;
  10. "...pack psychology driven anarchy..." Prometheuspan; and
  11. Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands? Gilbert Wesley Purdy.

I will soon be posting a prequel to Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?

'...the "democratic" people's MAFIA...'



Steve Rubel, at Micro Persuasion, upset more than a few Wikipedians and self-professed apathetic-types, when he wrote an article declaring Wikipedia to be King Disruptor III (after Microsoft and Google):

History is about to repeat itself. A successor to Google's throne is waiting in the wings - it's Wikipedia, King Disruptor III. Like its predecessors, Wikipedia is powerful because it provides access to largely accurate information that can be hard to find. This king, however, is unlike any other because it operates in a completely democratic way. It's run by the people, without any grand financial ambitions. This doesn't mean its rule will be perceived solely as a benevolent one, however.

Already, Wikipedia instills a deeper fear than either Google or Microsoft did when they were at such a young age. [Go to complete article >>>]

At least one reader found the piece to be prescient, however:


I AGREE WITH YOU STEVE RUBEL, COMPLETELY. My best regards and
congratulations for your admirable and CLEAR vision.WIKIPEDIA is it: a "democratic" TIRANY. Very, very, very dangerous. Even more than you described. Too much more!But I admire your courage; and I am really curious how and where did you get it to wrote such an article. Are you not afraid?!... I am very surprised!Wikipedia is a people's tyranny. Jesus Christ was also killed by a people's tyranny. It's the more dangerous type of tyranny.Well... to whom who it may concern: think about that and DEEPLY research Wikipedia structure: the Wikipedia administrators (the "democratic" people's MAFIA), the sysop powers, and so on, and so on...Maybe I am
to[o] frontal, but maybe I know what I am saying.

My best regards Steve Rub-El,Wallis.

Posted by: Sir Wallis Monday, December 12, 2005 at 09:12 PM


Saturday, May 13, 2006

Since I Began the Wiki Watchdog (Update)

I thought it might be interesting to review some of the events of my days since I posted "Since I Began the Wiki Watchdog," and strongly advised readers not to donate to Wikipedia until it institutes key changes to reduce the effects of Wikibullying, Wikiwolfpacking, Wikimobbing, Wikistalking, Wikietcetera. (see: Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?):






  1. The Google cache page for QLRS - Criticism : AT'ang Canon Vol. 3 No. 4 Jul 2004 has disappeared again. Because this has not been done by Google (nor, apparently, a legitimate administrator of QLRS's server), the following default listing again appears:
    Welcome to my Website!
    www.qlrs.com/critique.asp?id=367 - 1k - May 11, 2006 -
    Cached - Similar pages

    (see: page 1 of Google search)

  2. The StatCounter for the Wiki Watchdog counted only "Unique Visitors" (rather than "Page Loads") until late yesterday evening when it suddenly began counting page loads again. As I have been composing this page the blocking cookie spontaneously "reverted" (disappeared) for the second time this week. That makes twice this has happened in the year and a half that I have been using StatCounter and praising it for what has been excellent service until late.

Check back for further updates to "Since I Began the Wiki Watchdog". It might prove highly instructive to see where this goes.

"...feel that they are immune from accountability."



Daniel Brandt's battles with Wikipedia are well known. The end of his tenure as an editor seems to have been entirely occupied with attempting to have his Wikipedia bio page removed. The following is an excerpt from his recent letter to Wikimedia's legal counsel, Bradford A. Patrick. The letter appears on Brandt's Wikipedia Watch site:
April 23, 2006

Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
Fowler White Boggs Banker
501 E. Kennedy
Blvd., Suite 1700
Tampa, FL 33602-5239
bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com
Tel: 813-228-7411
Fax: 813-229-8313


Dear Mr. Patrick:

I am writing to you because you are the attorney for Wikimedia Foundation. This letter should be interpreted as a formal notice made to the Foundation.

For six months I have been defamed and / or had my privacy invaded by agents of the Foundation. This has occurred primarily, but not exclusively, on these pages:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Brandt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:Daniel_Brandt

* * *

I am prepared to show that certain administrators, some of whom remain anonymous despite efforts to identify them, have contributed to a situation where much of the material related to me amounts to defamation and/or invasion of privacy. I further contend that there is evidence of unchecked hostility and maliciousness on the part of some editors and administrators. An overview of this pattern of behavior is available at www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html.

* * *

I cannot answer my detractors as a Wikipedia user, because administrators have blocked me indefinitely. This was primarily due to their perception of a legal threat from me. This "no legal threats" policy is inappropriate in a civil society, one purpose of which is to provide civil remedies under the rule of law. It causes the Foundation's editors and administrators to feel that they are immune from accountability. [Go to the complete letter >>>]
Brandt has also been branded a spammer for redirecting links from Wikipedia (originally to his Wikipedia Watch page cited above: www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html) to the Wikipedia Review homepage. Again, this does not meet any known definition of spam (see: Wikipedia and the Question of LinkSpam) but an angry Wikipedia hive does not scrupple at mere facts. He pulled a fast one and that's spam enough!

"...a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits..."



According to his Wikipedia bio, "Warren Boroson (born January 22, 1935) is an American author, journalist with the Daily Record, and syndicated financial columnist. He has written over 20 books, including Keys to Investing in Mutual Funds and How to Buy a House for Nothing (or Little) Down. His most recent book is The Reverse Mortgage Advantage : The Tax-Free, House Rich Way to Retire Wealthy! . His columns are syndicated to 200 Gannett newspapers." Perhaps the distinction of having his bio appear in Wikipedia was what attracted him to give editing a try. The resulting column ("Wikipedia site filled with major mistakes"), in the Daily Record, begins as follows:

My only personal experience with Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, was decidedly unfavorable. I was left with the impression that a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits are in charge. [Go to complete column >>>]
It seems that Mr. Boroson's impressions went beyond Wikimistakes.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Since I Began the Wiki Watchdog

I thought it might be interesting to review some of the events of my days since I began Wiki Watchdog, on April 22, 2006, and strongly advised readers not to donate to Wikipedia until it institutes key changes to reduce the effects of Wikibullying, Wikiwolfpacking, Wikimobbing, Wikistalking, Wikietcetera. (see: Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?):

  1. My Palm Beaches Review first lost Google search engine coverage for the pages in it linked from Wikipedia. The site has since disappeared entirely from the Google search engine: see http://gilbert-wesley-purdy.blogspot.com/ (site URL) and site:http://gilbert-wesley-purdy.blogspot.com/ (Google listing of site pages being indexed);
  2. The Google coverage for my Virtual Grub Street Front Page site has been reduced to a handful of pages: see http://virtual-grub-street.blogspot.com/ (site URL) and site:http://virtual-grub-street.blogspot.com/ (Google listing of site pages being indexed);
  3. A number of the longtime first page Google listings associated with the original Virtual Grub Street blog have slipped to lower search pages and the traffic has correspondingly gone down by approximately 20% as a result;
  4. The most recent Google search engine index for the Wiki Watchdog blog has retained the main blog page and the three individual pages indexed during the previous crawling-cycle. None of the new individual pages has been indexed: see http://vgs-wiki-watchdog.blogspot.com/ (site URL) site:http://vgs-wiki-watchdog.blogspot.com/ (Google listing of site pages being indexed);
  5. The Google cache page for QLRS - Criticism : AT'ang Canon Vol. 3 No. 4 Jul 2004 disappeared for 2 days but is now back up;
  6. The claim that I vandalized User:Prometheuspan's talk page has been removed and the message supporting him in his struggle has been returned to the page: see "...pack psychology driven anarchy...";
  7. Donald Albury "is taking a moderate wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia at the end of May": see User talk:Dalbury and Wiki Watchdog's article Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?.

Can an Al Qaida cell really have infiltrated Wikipedia? Somehow I suspect we'll all have to decide for ourselves.

"...normal person, plus anonymity, plus large audience, equals flaming f**kwad."



Jason Scott's The Great Failure of Wikipedia (the "Transcription of a presentation/speech given at Notacon 3, April 8, 2006") has recently appeared in the web and garnered considerable attention. Jason can hardly be called anything but a disinterested witness. The quote, here, is only a tiny portion of a long piece with many wide ranging and intelligent observations on the Wikipedia phenomenon:

I'd buy entirely that the Penny Arcade theory, which was normal person, plus anonymity, plus large audience, equals flaming f**kwad. That's the mirror that Wikipedia is presenting to us, and I think that we can learn quite a bit from it. [Go to the complete speech >>>]

This, of course, is precisely the point that underlies the first demand listed at the end of Wiki Watchdog's article Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?

Jason Scott's speech can also be downloaded in various audio formats from http://www.archive.org/details/20060408-jscott-wikipedia.

"A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander."



Joel Leyden, owner and editor of the Israel News Agency, and once a registered Wikipedia User, who went by the handle Israelbeach, hasn't much positive to say about the behavior at Wikipedia:
One realizes after being inside Wikipedia, behind the many so-called facts and figures, that there are networks within a network. Some good, some bad. A few respond with vicious relentless assaults that would make the Mafia proud. [Go to the article >>>]

Leyden is not exactly a disinterested reporter. He is a father's rights advocate who set out to assure that Wikipedia also presented that perspective in its coverage of related issues. The details are a bit fuzzy but many of his observations go beyond his own personal situation and are confirmed by countless others.



Saturday, May 06, 2006

"...the politics, the lameness, the backstabbing..."



Wiki Watchdog has been getting out a bit lately, learning how to get around within Wikipedia and where to go for insight into how others view the behavior of (rogue?) Wikipedians. There is a lot being said out there. The following excerpted from the chat-page Stumble Upon is among the many amusing comments:

by jaberwocky6669, Apr 25, [2006], 8:17am

What it truly means to be a wikipedian... "You can set up a user account, start editing everything you can find, enmesh yourself into the politics, the lameness, the backstabbing and moronity, and fight an ever-present desperate whirlpooling battle of contract law, miserable personalities and microscopic anal details. You can run out of additional information to add to subjects you know, and instead tunnel deep into shit you don't have the slightest notion about, using your intense knowledge of Wiki-jargon and gaming the system to fight every bastard who tries to change an article in a way you don't agree with, or which might have any information you're unable to garner in the first 5 matches of a Google search. After a while at this, you will look up from your screen, realize you have achieved an expansive case of Secretarial Spread, your computer surrounded with soda, chips and candy, and your hands twitching, wanting to reload the page to see if that meat-turd from Whocaresia dared question your changes to that article on that dead king that someone else is trying to have deleted... ...and congratulations, you are now a Wikipedian."... During my time at Wikipedia I never became embroiledin batttles or edit wars or any conflict. So don't assume that I am disappointed with Wikipedia because something happened to me that I didin't like. [Go to complete thread >>>]


The Watchdog will be mainly about the behavior of Wikipedians. There is clearly a serious problem in that regard, beginning with the idea that what occurs in the anti-Oz called Wikiworld is not to be properly scrutinized by those who the tornado left back in Kansas. At the same time, Wikiworld freely spills over its borders in its wolf-pack attacks on insufficiently wary real-world-ers. [see Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands? for just one instance.]


Also See:



Recent Wikipedia / Wikitruth Coverage.

Wikipedia Ripe for Political Dirty Tricks
By Shannon McCaffrey
Associated Press Writer
Apr 28, 2006
Montgomery Advertiser

Political operatives are covertly rewriting - or defacing - candidates' biographical entries to make the boss look good or the opponent look ridiculous.

As a result, political campaigns are monitoring the Web site more closely than ever this election year.

Revisions made by Capitol Hill staffers became so frequent and disruptive earlier this year that Wikipedia temporarily blocked access to the site from some congressional Internet addresses. The pranks included bumping up the age of the Senate's oldest member, West Virginia's Robert Byrd, from 88 to 180, and giving crude names to other lawmakers. [Go to the complete story >>>]



Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?
By Gilbert Wesley Purdy.
April 22, 2006
Wiki Watchdog

Any user, it would appear, is provided access to the browser information of anyone who checks onto any editing platform throughout all public Wikipedia pages! That is, anyone who becomes a registered user can view the browser information by virtue of the mere fact of having registered. Adminstrator status is not required. Thus the following "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" chat thread in which I am freely and publically defamed, my personal information is posted and a plan is discussed about attacking me via that information:... [Go to the complete story >>>]



Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia
by Mark Glaser
April 21, 2006
Media Shift

I have had my own direct experience with editors of the Keith Olbermann page which suggests this is the case. I edit a blog called Olbermann Watch . Not that it was ever my goal in life but I am now the leading blog critic of Keith Olbermann and a recognized authority on Keith Olbermann (citation: quoted in Washington Post, New York Observer, Hartford Courant, Online Journalism Review, etc.).

Not only do I know a great deal about Keith Olbermann, I also have a good deal of familiarity with some of the Wikipedia editors who have watch-listed his entry — liberal fans of Keith Olbermann. Some of these fan/editors have declared online that the Keith Olbermann page is their “pet project” and, not surprisingly, the entry reads more like a “fan site” than an encyclopedia entry. Some of these editors have openly sought to use that page to market their own fan sites and forums. Not surprisingly, the Keith Olbermann entry is massively non-NPOV. [Go to the complete interview >>>]



Wikipedia Founder Calls Protest Site Wikitruth 'A Hoax'
by Antone Gonsalves
April 17, 2006
TechWeb News

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on Monday claimed that a protest Web site reportedly launched by contributors to the online encyclopedia is a "hoax."

According to the British newspaper The Guardian, the site called Wikitruth was launched by a dozen Wikipedia administrators who were unhappy with what they believed to be the gradual deterioration of the site. [Go to complete story >>>]



A thirst for knowledge
Andrew Orlowski
Thursday April 13, 2006
The Guardian


...Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica, has described Wikipedia as "a game without consequences". BBC Radio 1's afternoon DJs recently took turns to deface each other's entries live on air. MPs have joined in, too. But as Skip begins to guide me through the arcane and often Kafkaesque bureaucracy of Wikipedia, vandalism starts to look like the least of its problems.

Skip isn't his real name or his Wikipedia identity. It's a pseudonym the 30-year-old Silicon Valley IT professional uses as he documents the inner machinations of the project, along with a dozen other Wikipedia administrators, on a site called WikiTruth (www.wikitruth.info).... [Go to complete story >>>]



Wikipedia - separating fact from fiction
By Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts
February 13, 2006
New Zealand Herald

...Wikipedia (wiki wiki means 'quick' in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopaedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis, whose main interest was internet pornography.

In 2003, Bomis handed the burgeoning encyclopaedia to a not-for-profit organisation headed by one of its executives, the Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.

The Wikipedia Foundation is funded by public donations and has just three employees, a lead software developer, Wales's assistant and an intern.

But there is an army of between 600 and 1,000 unpaid administrators, developers, stewards and bureaucrats, who maintain the site.

A bigger pool of 13,000 regular contributors edits at least five entries a month each.... [Go to complete story >>>]


Online Encyclopedia Is A Gathering For Internet Predators
by POSC
December 14, 2005
POE News

It has come to the attention of the Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) that there is a underground cabal of pedophiles who edit WikiPedia, trying to make WikiPedia a distribution center for pedophile propaganda. [Go to complete story >>>]



Page:
[1] [2] [3]