I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Crusades against the Great Satan, Wickedpedia

I have to trade off every so often between "jihad" and "crusade" to avoid charges of religious discrimination.

My own battles against Wikipedia made me aware of Wikipedia's large number of enemies and I wondered how much success others have had in fighting Wikipedia, so I decided to find out and here is what I found.

What is perhaps the best-known example of libel in Wikipedia, the Seigenthaler affair, was described in an article in USA Today:

By John Seigenthaler

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
— Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable.

Seigenthaler's bio had other false information, but the claim that he was suspected of involvement in the Kennedy assassinations was the most damaging.

The USA article also said,
.
Federal law also protects online corporations — BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. — from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others . . .

. . . .Wikipedia's website acknowledges that it is not responsible for inaccurate information, but Wales, in a recent C-Span interview with Brian Lamb, insisted that his website is accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors (he said he has only one paid employee) corrects mistakes within minutes.

My experience refutes that. My "biography" was posted May 26. On May 29, one of Wales' volunteers "edited" it only by correcting the misspelling of the word "early." For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin before Wales erased it from his website's history Oct. 5. The falsehoods remained on Answers.com and Reference.com for three more weeks.

However, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not protect Wikipedia against libel charges by Cheri Yecke because the attacks on her were posted by Wikipedia staffers, including "King Jimbo" Wales himself!

According to Wikipedia's account of the Seigenthaler incident, some reforms were instituted as a result, including a new Wikipedia guideline called "Biographies of living persons," but these reforms are not doing any good. For example, the "Biographies of Living persons" guideline says that "blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article," but not only was this rule ignored in Cheri Yecke's bio but it was ignored in an arbitrary, discriminatory manner, two blogs but not mine being accepted as sources.

Also, a January 2006 news article reported that a German court shut down the German-language branch of Wikipedia for two days:

A fierce debate continued to rage in Germany's online community on Friday over a court ruling that forced the closure of Wikipedia's German language Web site for nearly two days this week. In a country where the most-publicized free speech cases surround right-wing or Nazi speech, it was an entry about an obscure German hacker that took the world's biggest encyclopedia offline.

The legal challenge, which began in December, peaked on Jan. 17 when a Berlin administrative court ordered the shutdown of Wikipedia.de and any redirects that took users to Wikipedia's mother site in the United States. The court had threatened Wikipedia's German parent organization with a €250,000 fine and executives with up to six months in prison if it didn't abide by the court order.

Germans could still surf the content on the US parent site, but they couldn't get to it through the Wikipedia.de address that Internet history buffs here have hardwired into their memory. With over 343,000 articles, the public domain encyclopedia's German-language community is its second largest after English and has surpassed popular commercial publisher Brockhaus as the source most Germans go to when they need to freshen up on the invention of the wheel, the Neanderthal man or Ghandi.

Following a brief court-ordered hiatus, Wikipedia.de began serving its eager readers again on Friday after attorneys petitioned the court on behalf of the organization to have the injunction lifted and paid a small fine to temporarily circumvent it . . .

The temporary injunction came after the parents of a German hacker sued the site for naming their son in an online encyclopedia entry. The hacker, who goes by the name of "Tron," was famous in the German hacker scene for his hacks, which included decrypting Pay TV and telephone cards and for developing plans for an encrypted telephone. After his death in 1999, articles and books were written about the man, whose real name is Boris F., and conspiracy theories began to brew that the hacker was murdered.
Six years after his mysterious death -- which was officially ruled as suicide -- a major debate has broken out over "Tron's" privacy rights . . .

. . . the Berlin court has conceded that it may not have the legal authority to force the American site to remove the reference to Boris F.'s real name, which can be found on the US site. US privacy laws are far looser than those in Germany and would not allow restrictions to be placed on the publication of a deceased person's full name.

A webpage has a long list of fights against Wikipedia.

There have been some modest successes in fighting Wickedpedia, but not many. I hope that my charge that Wickedpedia is violating the IRS rules for 501(c)(3) nonprofits turns out to be a chink in Wickedpedia's armor.
.

Labels:

10 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. <

"Character assassination"? They merely stated a fact.

> I hope that my charge that Wickedpedia is violating the IRS rules for 501(c)(3) nonprofits <

That is stating a falsehood.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

It occurred to me that with Larry's known reading comprehension problems and mental incapacity, I should further explain and simplify the situation.

Saying that Siegenthaler was at one time thought to have been involved in the Kennedy assassinations is not libel. It is a fact. They did not claim that he was involved in the assassinations. They claimed that he was thought to have been involved. This is quite different. They had no obligation to support a claim of involvement.

If I were to say that you once (and perhaps still) believe that the Los Angeles Times were published and distributed with supernatural aid, that would be a fact. I would not have to produce proof that the Times had supernatural aid as I would not have been the one who was claiming it.

Incidentally Larry, do you still believe this?

When you claim that Wickedpedia is violating the IRS rules for 501(c)(3) nonprofits (a false charge based on your inability to understand basic legal concepts), you need to be able to support it with more than your personal opinions and misinterpretations.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:20:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> Saying that Siegenthaler was at one time thought to have been involved in the Kennedy assassinations is not libel. It is a fact. <<<<<<

Wrong, dunghill. The author of the entry later admitted that it was a hoax.

The culprit was traced through his IP address. That does seem strange, though -- it seems that the only Internet users who have their own unique static IP addresses are those who rent them. Anyway, he should have known how to cover his tracks. Back then, anonymous proxies -- e.g., hidemyass.com -- still worked for Wikipedia editing.

>>>>>>They claimed that he was thought to have been involved. This is quite different. <<<<<

"They" (the perpetrator of the hoax) had an obligation to support the claim that he was thought to be involved.

>>>>> They had no obligation to support a claim of involvement. <<<<<<

WHAT? There was no claim that he was actually involved.

>>>>>> When you claim that Wickedpedia is violating the IRS rules for 501(c)(3) nonprofits (a false charge based on your inability to understand basic legal concepts), you need to be able to support it with more than your personal opinions and misinterpretations. <<<<<<

My rebuttals of the criticisms of Yecke, a candidate in a public election, were censored. That is all the proof I need -- the rest is irrelevant.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> "They" (the perpetrator of the hoax) had an obligation to support the claim that he was thought to be involved.<

"They" (Wikipedia) did not.

> There was no claim that he was actually involved. <

Exactly. There was a claim that someone had suspected such. This is quite different.

>>>>>> When you claim that Wickedpedia is violating the IRS rules for 501(c)(3) nonprofits (a false charge based on your inability to understand basic legal concepts), you need to be able to support it with more than your personal opinions and misinterpretations. <<<<<<

> My rebuttals of the criticisms of Yecke, a candidate in a public election, were censored. That is all the proof I need -- the rest is irrelevant. <

It is quite relevant. You are misinterpreting the IRS rules. Your braying about Yecke being limited does not violate their rules.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Great Shithead - Larry Farfromsane.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bringing up this point only puts you in the same group as the people who perpetrated the Kennedy assassination reference hoax.

I mean, you did try to insert fraudulent information refuting Yecke's association with Intelligent Design and creationism on her wiki page. Numerous articles and even recovered audio recordings have proved Yecke's support of ID, yet you chose to insert your "rebuttal" based on your own biased and very source-less opinions.

Wiki has a very strong defense in claiming that you attempted to have it violate section 501(c)(3) though the insertion of biased partisan information that would favor her as a candidate in the election. The removal of your comments would be seen as compliance to section 501(c)(3) and believe you me, they can even press charges if they are so inclined. The fact that you yourself filed the IRS report would only add to evidence of criminal intent.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:36:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> I mean, you did try to insert fraudulent information refuting Yecke's association with Intelligent Design and creationism on her wiki page. Numerous articles and even recovered audio recordings have proved Yecke's support of ID, yet you chose to insert your "rebuttal" based on your own biased and very source-less opinions. <<<<<<

As I said, dunghill, truth is a defense against a charge of libel but is not a defense against a charge of censorship of a rebuttal.

>>>>>> The removal of your comments would be seen as compliance to section 501(c)(3) and believe you me, they can even press charges if they are so inclined <<<<<<

I would very much like to see that Wickedpedia cult leader "King Jimbo" Wales and those other jerks on Wickedpedia "press charges." That would really make my day.

You Darwinist dirtbags are angry because I found a chink in Wickedpedia's armor.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>
As I said, dunghill, truth is a defense against a charge of libel but is not a defense against a charge of censorship of a rebuttal.
<

So you admit that what you said was not truthful at all? They censored your lies, is that it? Hmmm... given wikipedia is, oh I don't know, an encyclopedia of sorts with facts and truths, your little lies don't really belong there in the first place right?

>
You Darwinist dirtbags are angry because I found a chink in Wickedpedia's armor.
<

The quality of your responses seem to be riddled with childish insults these days. I've come to expect better from you Larry (not really, but more insults + less outlandish claims = less funny) By all means, keep pecking at this chink in the armor, but at least try to act surprised when you get bitch-slapped.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> So you admit that what you said was not truthful at all? <<<<<<

No -- I am saying that truth is not an issue here. If I tried to defend the truth of what I said, such a defense might be misinterpreted as implying that I thought that truth is an issue here.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> No -- I am saying that truth is not an issue here. <

The truth has never been much of an issue for you.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:07:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home