Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Sunday, May 31, 2009
“Ruhama Canellis” Says Secretly Married.
by Gilbert Wesley Purdy
A post dated May 28, 2009, on the site called “Ruhama Canellis” begins as follows:
It then goes on to say that the person writing the post will be married to Cutie in a small private service that afternoon. It, too, is unsigned. No marriage ceremony is known to have taken place during the day of Alberto Cutie’s reception into the Episcopalian Church, at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, on the 28th.
The site “Ruhama Canellis” is found at www.ruhamacanellis.com. The domain was registered and immediately offered for sale on May 8, 2009 ― the date the first major media outlet claimed that Ms. Canellis was the woman seen in the tabloid photos with then Father Alberto Cutie. The contact email address it provides for those interested in advertising on the site belongs to high ranking a member of a Miami-based religious cult that has been going after Alberto Cutie and the Roman Catholic Church for years.
At about the time that Alberto Cutie and Ruhama Canellis first entered the physically intimate stage of their relationship, some two years ago, the leader of the cult announced on his television station that then Father Alberto Cutie would be the subject of a major scandal. [Read More>>>]
Other Aberto Cutie, Ruhama Canellis stories at Virtual Grub Street:
A post dated May 28, 2009, on the site called “Ruhama Canellis” begins as follows:
Today I will marry Alberto Cutié The small and private ceremony will happen early Thursday afternoon at Trinity Cathedral,…The post is unsigned. No mention of the wedding ceremony is posted at any later date. Another longer version of the post, in Spanish, with the headline “Esta tarde anunciamos que me caso con el Padre Alberto” [“This afternoon we are announcing that Father Alberto and I are being married”], begins with a paragraph of background information:
El padre Alberto Cutié, el sacerdote que perdió su iglesia en Miami Beach después que una revista de farándula publicó a principios de este mes fotos de él con una mujer besándose y abrazándose, abandonará la Arquidiócesis de Miami para unirse a la iglesia episcopal.
[Father Alberto Cutie, the priest who lost his church in Miami Beach after a tabloid magazine published photos of him kissing and embracing a woman at the beginning of this month, will leave the Archdiocese of Miami to join the Episcopal Church.]
It then goes on to say that the person writing the post will be married to Cutie in a small private service that afternoon. It, too, is unsigned. No marriage ceremony is known to have taken place during the day of Alberto Cutie’s reception into the Episcopalian Church, at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, on the 28th.
The site “Ruhama Canellis” is found at www.ruhamacanellis.com. The domain was registered and immediately offered for sale on May 8, 2009 ― the date the first major media outlet claimed that Ms. Canellis was the woman seen in the tabloid photos with then Father Alberto Cutie. The contact email address it provides for those interested in advertising on the site belongs to high ranking a member of a Miami-based religious cult that has been going after Alberto Cutie and the Roman Catholic Church for years.
At about the time that Alberto Cutie and Ruhama Canellis first entered the physically intimate stage of their relationship, some two years ago, the leader of the cult announced on his television station that then Father Alberto Cutie would be the subject of a major scandal. [Read More>>>]
Other Aberto Cutie, Ruhama Canellis stories at Virtual Grub Street:
- The Alberto Cutie Story that the Media is Not Reporting
- La Historia Sobre Alberto Cutie Que No Reportan la Media (En Español)
- Miami Cult Member Selling Ruhama Canellis Dot Com
- Miami Culto miembro Venta Ruhama Canellis dot com (traducido en Español por Google)
- Alberto Cutie Enters the Episcopal Church with Ruhama Canellis by his Side
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:
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'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:
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.
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:
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.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)
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:
Key words:
- site:en.wikipedia.org/ pedophile (1050 listings at present);
- site:en.wikipedia.org/ pedophilia (1310 listings at present);
- site:en.wikipedia.org/ pedophile activism (133 listings at present);
- site:en.wikipedia.org/ Nambla (284 listings at present)
NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association).
Eye Online coverage to date:
- Man-Boy Love Advocate Accused of Using Wikipedia to Troll for Interested Parties (Mar 4, 2007). (March 4, 2007). Rookie Revolyob, Clayboy, Zanthalon, et al: Why is Wikpedia a Pedophile Haven?; and,
- Eye Online Breaking Story: Wikipedophillia History Quietly Being Expunged. (Mar 8, 2007).
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:
Also See:
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:
- User:Clayboy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >>> Cached (removed March 7, 2007: "Protected User:Clayboy: Activity detrimental to the reputation of Wikipedia [edit=sysop:move=sysop]")
- User talk:Clayboy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >>> Cached (removed March 7, 2007: "Protected User:Clayboy: Activity detrimental to the reputation of Wikipedia [edit=sysop:move=sysop]")
- User:Zanthalon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >>> Cached (removed March 7, 2007: "Protected User talk:Zanthalon: Prevent recreation of user talk page damaging to Wikipedia's reputation [edit=sysop:move=sysop]")
- User talk:Zanthalon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >>> Cached (removed March 7, 2007: "Protected User talk:Zanthalon: Prevent recreation of user talk page damaging to Wikipedia's reputation [edit=sysop:move=sysop]")
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:
- Man-Boy Love Advocate Accused of Using Wikipedia to Troll for Interested Parties (March 4, 2007). Rookie Revolyob, Clayboy, Zanthalon, et al: Why is Wikpedia a Pedophile Haven?
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 >>>]
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:
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 >>>]
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 >>>]
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Fighting Malware with Standard Windows Tools
While you are looking around for a solution to your computer's malware problem it is important to remember that Windows and Internet Explorer have their own standard management tools that can help you get your situation under control. They may even be able to help you remove your computer's infection.
Windows comes with a System Configuration Utility installed. This utility can be used to disable malware items from starting up. Generally, if malware does not launch at start up it does not run at all. While disabling the infection removes none of it, your job will be easier without the malware being in control of your computer while your effort at removal is underway. To use the System Configuration Utility to this end:
Windows comes with a System Configuration Utility installed. This utility can be used to disable malware items from starting up. Generally, if malware does not launch at start up it does not run at all. While disabling the infection removes none of it, your job will be easier without the malware being in control of your computer while your effort at removal is underway. To use the System Configuration Utility to this end:
- Go to your start page
- Click Start. Your Start Up Menu will deploy.
- Click Run. A pop-up window wil appear.
- Type "msconfig" in pop-up window.
- Click OK. The System Configuration Utility window will appear.
- Click Start Up tab.
- Scroll to find offending program.
- Click on program name to remove check-mark from box.
- Click Apply.
- When you exit the System Configuration Utility you will be prompted to restart your system.
- Click Restart.
- Your system will be in "Selective Restart mode" so long as a start up item is disabled.
Many malware products are designed to be hidden, from or to disable, the System Configuration Utility, it is true, but it is certainly worth checking to see if your computer's infection is listed or not. If your System Configuration Utility will not deploy it is a good bet that your malware infection has disabled it in order to prevent being removed.
If your infection has registered on your machine as a Browser Helper Object (BHO), and you have a recent version of the Internet Explorer Browser, it should appear as an entry in Explorer's Manage Add Ons utility. Your Explorer toolbar may be hidden in the most recent versions. If so, press the Alt button on your keyboard and it will appear. When the toolbar is displayed, in order to Manage Add Ons:
- Click Tools.
- Roll your mouse-pointer down to the "Manage Add Ons" entry.
- Click Enable or Disable Add Ons
- Click on name of add on to be disabled. The item will be highlighted, as a result.
- Click Disable
- Click OK.
By no means are all malware infections registered as BHOs. Nor is it clear how many may be programmed to interfer with the operation of the Manage Add Ons utility. Again, it is certainly worth checking to see if your computer's infection is listed or not. While disabling the infection removes none of it, your job will be easier without the malware being in control of your computer while your effort at removal is underway.
What may be able to remove at least most of your infection is Window's Add or Remove Program utility. To remove a program by the Add or Remove Programs:
- Click Start
- Click Control Panel
- Click Add or Remove Programs. Wait for the list of programs to load.
- Click name of program to be removed.
- Click Change Remove (You may be offered the opportunity to click on Support Information if available to learn more about the program you are removing).
Most malware will not appear in your Add or Remove Programs utility but some adware companies do include an uninstall feature for their software in this area. It is important to remember that the uninstall may still leave tracking and other passive files in your computer. After removal you should check your start up listing with the System Configuration Utility. If you do not find it listed, you should check your start up listing using HijackThis and/or scan your system with your preferred anti-virus scanner(s).
Thursday, February 22, 2007
"...it's better to shoot first and ask questions later..."
According to User:Kosebamse the following is from a Wikipedian IRC thread:
Raul654: oh, and snowspinner, I've come to a conclusion
Raul654: making policy on wikipedia is hard
Raul654: because there are people who oppose any common sense measures
JamesF: Raul> Indeed.
Snowspinner: Yes. I came to that conclusion as well.
Raul654: I have decided that it's better to shoot first and ask questions later ;)
Snowspinner: Cool.
Snowspinner: I'm in that camp too now.
Raul654: seriously
Raul654: don't worry about making common sense policy
Raul654: just do things with common sense
Raul654: and wait for policy to catch up
This exchange has been widely quoted throughout the web at least since 2005.
Raul654 (Mark Pellegrini) is a senior member of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee. According to WikiTruth, "Philip "Snowspinner" Sandifer is a Ph.D. student in English, specializing in comics studies, at the University of Florida, and a managing editor of ImageTexT, a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the study of comic strips and animated cartoons."
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
SpyWall Information Page
The information in Virtual Grub Street's computer postings is the result of thousands of web searches. It can not, however, possibly be complete. The subject is vast and constantly changing. Moreover, vendor uninstall tools and other freeware removal tools do not necessarily remove all of an infection from your computer. Vendor uninstall tools, for instance, may silently leave cookies or other tracking software installed. It is suggestible to follow up a removal with one or more adware scans and/or to do an inspection using a HijackThis log. The information on the page is not guaranteed correct and any use you may choose to make of it is entirely at your own risk.
*
Intro. According to its creator, Trlokom:
SpyWall can:
According to a September 2005 review at IT Observer:
*
Intro. According to its creator, Trlokom:
SpyWall is the first true browser firewall and most powerful anti-spyware solution in the market. It sandboxes Internet Explorer to block spyware/rootkits/keyloggers from infecting and damaging your computer.
SpyWall can:
- Scan and clean spyware and rootkits;
- Monitor employee Web usage;
- Block Web based attacks;
- Block spyware sites;
- Block download of executable content without user permission; and,
- Prevent modification of key registry items.
Remote management features are included for administrators of area networks. Trlokom's SpyWall is available free on a 15-day trial basis.
According to a September 2005 review at IT Observer:
More sophisticated features are DLL usage monitor that examines which DLLs are loaded by the web browser, and a file system access monitor that can limit access to file systems that the web browser is allowed.
Versions: 1.4.1.3
Latest Version Covered: 1.4.1.3
File Size: 3.86 MB.
File Name: spywall_installer.exe.
Most recent update: approx. 02/16/07
Compatible Operating Systems: -- SpyWall is an Internet Explorer add-on.
Compatible Browsers: -- SpyWall is an Internet Explorer add-on.
Notes:
- "Trlokom, Inc.'s SpyWall took top honors in the Enterprise Security category of Datamation's Product of the Year 2006 awards."
- Advanced features may require a higher level of knowledge than the average user possesses.
- To remove Aurora or Cool Web Search: "Run the regular scan and enable the "System Freeze" option after the scan. Delete all malicious entries found by SpyWall. Audit the BHOs and "Startup" area. Delete the entries you find suspicious. Click on the "Reboot now" button."
- The following is SpyWalls key file and its location: C:\Program Files\SpyWall\ TrlIETool.dll.
- Example Spywall logs are available at Trlokom's SpyWall forum. The logs clearly require a level of familiarity with the files resident in the user's system.
- This software should not be confused with ContraVirus's Spywall software.
Latest Version. SpyWall can be downloaded from the following locations:
Version 4.5.2:
- C/Net download @ http://dw.com.com/redir? etc.
Previous Versions. Previous versions of SpyWall can be downloaded from the following locations:
- Pending.
Other VGS Freeware/Trialware Information Pages:
Friday, February 16, 2007
Mirar Toolbar's New Uninstall Pages
I have not been to the Mirar Toolbar Uninstall Pages for quite some time and cannot say when exactly its purveyor, NetNucleus, changed its uninstallation format. If the pages are not a direct reply to Sunbelt Software's letter of January 31, 2007, they certainy address most of the uninstall issues cited in the letter.
As of February 16, 2007, there are two uninstall pages for Mirar Toolbar (a.k.a. Related Page). The traditional uninstall page (http://remove.getmirar.com/ uninstall.html) provides a step-by-step removal that one apparently can no longer follow without the site detecting that Mirar Toolbar is installed in one's computer. For this reason, I can not presently describe the uninstall further from direct experience. A check-off box is provided for the user to declare: "I know Mirar Toolbar doesn't launch popups or any other advertising, or modify search settings, but I would still like to uninstall it."
There is also now a "Mirar Support" page (http://www.mirarsearch.com/
support/uninstall.html) that describes uninstalling the toolbar from the Windows "Add or Remove Programs" utility. The "remove" command does not actually remove the software but instead it establishes a link with the Mirar Uninstall page(s). Removal must therefore be accomplished while connected to the Internet.
The uninstall procedure by all appearances still includes a series of advertisements as described in the Sunbelt letter:
What is not clear is whether the uninstall still does not remove all of the toolbar-related files. According to Sunbelt:
It has also added an actual online survey/complaint page at http://mirarsearch.com/support/contact.html. The survey is cognizant of the complaints that have been made against Mirar Toolbar and invites user feedback.
Also See:
As of February 16, 2007, there are two uninstall pages for Mirar Toolbar (a.k.a. Related Page). The traditional uninstall page (http://remove.getmirar.com/ uninstall.html) provides a step-by-step removal that one apparently can no longer follow without the site detecting that Mirar Toolbar is installed in one's computer. For this reason, I can not presently describe the uninstall further from direct experience. A check-off box is provided for the user to declare: "I know Mirar Toolbar doesn't launch popups or any other advertising, or modify search settings, but I would still like to uninstall it."
There is also now a "Mirar Support" page (http://www.mirarsearch.com/
support/uninstall.html) that describes uninstalling the toolbar from the Windows "Add or Remove Programs" utility. The "remove" command does not actually remove the software but instead it establishes a link with the Mirar Uninstall page(s). Removal must therefore be accomplished while connected to the Internet.
The uninstall procedure by all appearances still includes a series of advertisements as described in the Sunbelt letter:
...even when the Mirar uninstall entry does successfully open the Mirar web site to download the uninstaller, users are not immediately given the uninstaller. Rather, users are confronted with a long web page imploring them to click through still more advertising for "online offers" (see Figure 4 above). At the bottom of the page is a prominent graphic button to "Submit" the form containing the offers, which users might mistake for a button to continue with the uninstallation. Only users who notice the comparatively small "No Thanks" link at the very bottom of the page will be able to continue the uninstall.This would seem to be the "survey" described in the text for Step 6 of the support page's step-by-step instructions:
The uninstaller will ask you to complete a survey, if you wish to skip thisThe support page now clearly brings the users attention to the "No Thanks" link but does not describe the nature of the "survey" (a series of product offerings).
step you may do so by clicking "no thanks" at the bottom of the page.
What is not clear is whether the uninstall still does not remove all of the toolbar-related files. According to Sunbelt:
...the uninstaller provided to users does not even perform a completeNetNucleus has clearly tried to upgrade the public face of its Mirar Toolbar uninstallation process while retaining the advertising advantages it has built into the process. The extent of legitimate improvement remains to be seen. The complete removal of all Mirar-related files would seem to be a key indicator.
uninstallation, as it fails to remove the NetNucleus domain additions to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone.
It has also added an actual online survey/complaint page at http://mirarsearch.com/support/contact.html. The survey is cognizant of the complaints that have been made against Mirar Toolbar and invites user feedback.
Also See:
- Sunbelt Tangles with NetNucleus. (February 7, 2007) NetNucleus, purveyor of the Mirar Toolbar, threatens to sue Sunbelt Software for labeling it's product "Adware". Sunbelt replies with a devastating overview of Mirar's stealth installation methods (and more).
- Is Google Associated with a SearchMiracle Knock-Off? (April 27, 2005). "A question begs the asking: How does NetNucleus generate revenue from its Mirar Toolbar search directory if it enters search terms in the Google Search Engine?"
- How to Remove Mirar Toolbar. Don't want to uninstall? Then remove it yourself!
Friday, January 12, 2007
Windows How-To's: Safe Mode
Safe Mode uses a minimal set of system files and device drivers to start Windows. Corrupt or missing program files which may prevent a proper Normal Mode start-up may not be called upon to deploy during a Safe Mode start-up thereby allowing repairs to damaged computer software. Most adware/malware files will not automatically deploy during a Safe Mode start-up. Thus, a file (or toggling file pair), which will reinstall itself if removed while in Normal Mode, will not likely be able to reinstall in Safe Mode.
How to Start up in Safe Mode:
For Windows 2000/XP:
How to Start up in Safe Mode:
For Windows 2000/XP:
- Boot/reboot/restart computer
- Tap F8 key continuously while boot is in-process
- A Menu will appear. Use up-arrow/down-arrow to highlight "Safe Mode" and press "Enter". If user desires to use his or her internet connection during "Safe Mode" operation, highlight "Safe Mode with Networking" instead.
For Windows 98/ME:
- Boot/reboot/restart computer
- Tap F8 key continuously while boot is in-process
- A menu will appear. Use up-arrow/down-arrow to highlight "Safe Mode" and press "Enter" or type "3" for "Safe Mode" and press "Enter".
How to Return to Normal Mode:
For all Windows systems:
- Shutdown computer
- Restart and allow computer to execute a normal start up.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
How to Remove Trojan.winreg.LowZones.f
The following is a detail page of Virtual Grub Street's Adware & Malware Indentifier Index:
The information in the Adware & Malware Indentifier Index is the result of thousands of web searches. It can not, however, possibly be complete. The subject is vast and constantly changing. Moreover, vendor uninstall tools and other removal tools do not necessarily remove all of an infection from your computer. Vendor uninstall tools, for instance, may silently leave cookies or other tracking software installed. It is suggestible to follow up a removal with one or more adware scans and/or to do an inspection using a HijackThis log. The information on the page is not guaranteed correct and any use you may choose to make of it is entirely at your own risk.
Trojan.LowZones.f
- Associated Worms/Trojans: Trojan.WinREG.LowZones.f is a.k.a. Downloader-QG; QLowZones-26; Trojan.WinREG.LowZones.f; Troj/LowZone-AL .
- Executable Files: Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\[Random Alpha-Numeric]\lg[1].exekansup.reg; Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\[Random Alpha-Numeric]\lg[1].exe/kans.reg; [Random Alpha-Numeric].exe/kansup.reg; \[Random Alpha-Numeric].exe/kans.reg; temp\kansup.reg.
- Dynamic Link Libraries: N/A.
- Directory/Search Page: N/A.
- Uninstall page URL: N/A.
- Related Articles: Fighting Malware with Standard Windows Tools (February 25, 2007). You may have more in your bag of tricks than you realize. Important Removal Tool Note.
- Notes: This trojan has also been used to download registry permissions and files for ISearchTech adware and Mirar Toolbar.
- This infection can be removed by using Ewido Security Suite trialware.
VGS encourages you to post comments about the service it offers, and, in particular, about your experiences with the removal tools suggested in its pages. Removal tool comments will be most effective in helping those who come after you if you post them to the individual detail page for the malware item you used the tool to remove. Please be as clear and as detailed as possible. The most effective comments might include such information as: 1) What browser and operating system you are are running on your computer (i.e. Windows 98, NT, XP, Linux, Internet Explorer 6.0, Firefox); 2) What updates are installed (i.e. SP1, SP2); 3) What anti-virus/malware package(s) are resident in your computer
Sunday, August 06, 2006
A Word to the Wise.
I've been the target of a number of direct attacks against my computer over the last several months. I'm providing the relevant Norton logs below, including the "remote address" (the IP of the attacker). My own IP is x'd out for obvious reasons.
8/6/2006 @ 6:13:42 PM: Rule "Default Block NetBus Trojan horse" blocked (207.12.157.2, NetBus(12345)).
Inbound TCP connection.
Local address, service is (XXX.XXX.XX.XX), NetBus(12345).
Remote address, service is (207.12.157.2, 3018).
Process name is "N/A".
See: Wikipedia page User talk:207.12.157.2; DNS Stuff/WhoIs page.
8/4/2006 @ 9:42:57 PM: Rule "Default Block Backdoor/SubSeven Trojan horse" blocked (209.159.206.135, 27374).
Inbound TCP connection.
Local address, service is (XXX.XXX.XX.XX, 27374).
Remote address, service is (209.159.206.135, 2783).
Process name is "N/A".
7/11/2006 @ 8:07:05 PM: Rule "Default Block Senna Spy Trojan horse" blocked (206.165.215.13, 13000).
Inbound TCP connection.
Local address, service is (XXX.XXX.XX.XX, 13000).
Remote address, service is (206.165.215.13, 13000).
Process name is "N/A".
5/10/2006 @ 10:53:19 PM: Rule "Default Block NetBus Trojan horse" blocked (209.214.148.159, NetBus(12345)).
Inbound TCP connection.
Local address, service is (XXX.XXX.XX.X, NetBus(12345)).
Remote address, service is (209.214.148.159, 1123).
Process name is "N/A".
Although not many Wiki Watchdog pages are getting indexed by the search engines these days, I hope that the IPs will be of help to you should you Google one or more of them in relation to an attack on your own computer.
Related posts:
8/6/2006 @ 6:13:42 PM: Rule "Default Block NetBus Trojan horse" blocked (207.12.157.2, NetBus(12345)).
Inbound TCP connection.
Local address, service is (XXX.XXX.XX.XX), NetBus(12345).
Remote address, service is (207.12.157.2, 3018).
Process name is "N/A".
See: Wikipedia page User talk:207.12.157.2; DNS Stuff/WhoIs page.
8/4/2006 @ 9:42:57 PM: Rule "Default Block Backdoor/SubSeven Trojan horse" blocked (209.159.206.135, 27374).
Inbound TCP connection.
Local address, service is (XXX.XXX.XX.XX, 27374).
Remote address, service is (209.159.206.135, 2783).
Process name is "N/A".
7/11/2006 @ 8:07:05 PM: Rule "Default Block Senna Spy Trojan horse" blocked (206.165.215.13, 13000).
Inbound TCP connection.
Local address, service is (XXX.XXX.XX.XX, 13000).
Remote address, service is (206.165.215.13, 13000).
Process name is "N/A".
5/10/2006 @ 10:53:19 PM: Rule "Default Block NetBus Trojan horse" blocked (209.214.148.159, NetBus(12345)).
Inbound TCP connection.
Local address, service is (XXX.XXX.XX.X, NetBus(12345)).
Remote address, service is (209.214.148.159, 1123).
Process name is "N/A".
Although not many Wiki Watchdog pages are getting indexed by the search engines these days, I hope that the IPs will be of help to you should you Google one or more of them in relation to an attack on your own computer.
Related posts:
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:
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:
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:
_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:
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.
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:
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_threatWed, 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.
_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:
- Man-Boy Love Advocate Accused of Using Wikipedia to Troll for Interested Parties (March 4, 2007). Rookie Revolyob, Clayboy, Zanthalon, et al: Why is Wikpedia a Pedophile Haven?
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?):- 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);
- 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);
- 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);
- 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);
- The Google listings for "Gilbert Wesley Purdy" have gone down to 707 from above 980 pages;
- 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)
- 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";
- 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".
- 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...";
- 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:
- "Honor Killings", "Circumcision", "Dog Shows", "Child Soldiers", "Abortion" by Jason Scott;
- "...it's better to shoot first and ask questions later..." Mark Pellegrini (a.k.a. Raul654);
- "All we are saying is give jackbooted fascism a chance." Phil Sandifer (a.k.a. Snowspinner);
- '...the "democratic" people's MAFIA...' Steve Rubel & Steve Wallis;
- "...feel that they are immune from accountability." Daniel Brandt;
- "...a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits..." Warren Boroson;
- "...normal person, plus anonymity, plus large audience, equals flaming f**kwad." Jason Scott;
- "A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander." John Leyden;
- "...the politics, the lameness, the backstabbing..." jaberwocky6669;
- "...pack psychology driven anarchy..." Prometheuspan; and
- 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)