?

Log in

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous
The Register follows up - Parker Peters
parkerpeters
The Register follows up

I get the feeling I should contact them: the Register has done a fantastic followup on a particularly egregious case that looks even worse than the Durova scandal.

Look below - what have I been talking about in my previous posts? The automatic assumption that anyone who disagrees with certain administrators is a "sockpuppet" of someone they hate. The automatic bannings and threats when anyone tries to correct what's on wikipedia.

And of even worse import, this story isn't just in a vacuum - like the Siegenthaler story a long while back, like the Essjay scandal, this one turns out to have real-world implications in the stock market.

David Gerard, of course, is his usual congenial self. First he accuses anyone who doesn't agree with him and his friends of "abuse of the wiki", then a few more items:

Meanwhile, posts to Wikipedia show that David Gerard has a personal beef with Bagley. "Bagley's case is that he's been stalking people with quite some viciousness for commercial gain. He even got writeups in the NYT and NY Post, so I can state he's an odious stalking arsehole with Reliable Sources!" Gerard writes. "I urge you to start reading up - he's really at a new and exciting level of odiousness." Elsewhere he adds: "ps: Fuck off, Bagley."

Of course, there's also Jimbo doing his thing:
Without a doubt, Judd Bagley has seriously angered the powers that be at Wikipedia. He's even received an email from Jimbo Wales saying: "Your feigned innocence is not very endearing" and "It would be helpful if you could come to terms with the fact that you have behaved very very badly over a long period of time."
Jimbo and his cronies always behave like this - it's never abuse on the part of them or their friends(even when, like the Durova affair or Essjay affair, it actually is); it's never they that need to step back and calm down; it's always the person they're attacking that needs to somehow subsume themselves to the glorious wikipedian masters, admit they're wrong... and then go away. And they hate anyone who won't just vanish into the ether, but at the same time, they need them. After all, if their antagonists went away, what would be left to them with nobody to fight? Why, they'd have to pick someone new and accuse them of being a returning sockpuppet in order to have someone to rail against.

Hmm... Nobody new ever comes to wikipedia perhaps?
1 comment or Leave a comment
Comments
bethneee From: bethneee Date: December 20th, 2007 01:23 am (UTC) (Link)

so frustrated

I'm not sure if you would know if there is any hope for me.

Under the article "orphan" I tried to add an organization to the list of "significant charities that help orphans." It continues to get deleted and by this guy who on his page says he works for SOS children's village (aka one of the organizations listed)! He is also an admin! This is nuts! I am being censored for NO good reason other than he is abusing his power and does not want "competition." Ugh! Do you think there is anything I can do or is wiki too corrupt?
1 comment or Leave a comment