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.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

New comments about Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia biography

When I was pursuing my complaint that Wikipedia was violating its 501(C)(3) nonprofit organization tax status by blocking rebuttals to criticisms of a candidate in an upcoming public election, I did not make comments about Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia bio because I was afraid that such comments would be misinterpreted as conceding the false claim that truth is a defense against charges of censorship of rebuttals (that claim is a false extension of the correct claim that truth is a defense against charges of libel). However, I learned that Yecke is actually not a candidate in a public election and hence I now feel free to comment about her bio again. Yecke is now one of seven finalists for appointment to the position of Florida Commissioner of Education.

The most important thing is that Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia bio has no credibility because rebuttals of criticisms of her are banned there (the absence of an "edit this page" tab at the top shows that there is no open editing). Just in case, though, I will counter some of the things that the bio says:
.
The versions of the Minnesota Science Standards circulated by Yecke contained language used by intelligent design advocates in the Teach The Controversy campaign which casts doubt on evolution while offering intelligent design as a competing theory. The version that was circulated among the public did not include these revisions. PZ Myers and other critics of intelligent design deemed the move an attempt to misinform the public in order to sway the committee decision in favor of intelligent design using public opinion.

For starters, the "Teach the Controversy" campaign does not specifically offer intelligent design as a competing theory -- the "Teach the Controversy" campaign just promotes teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution theory, and many of those weaknesses do not concern ID.

Also, the above statement gives the false impression that two different versions of the Minnesota Science Standards were being simultaneously circulated for the purpose of deceiving the public. This is quite a bit different from Yecke's following explanation in a TV interview at the time:

Host: What happened with the evolution versus creationism there were a couple of copies floating around, there was, was it confusion, or was there, go ahead…

CPY: We, we had a major screwup, and I, I apologize. Uh, there were several versions going around, we had some, some versions on a hard, on a hard drive, some on a floppy disk and we ended up putting the wrong one on our website. As soon as the, uh, it was brought to our attention we fixed it and so the ones that are up there now are correct. It’s the, it’s the consensus document and that’s the one that we’ll be talk talking about at the public hearings.


Also, Wikipedia said,

She cited the pro-intelligent design Santorum Amendment as supporting her effort.

The Santorum Amendment is not "pro-intelligent design" -- it does not mention intelligent design at all. This is evident from Wikipedia's own webpage on the amendment.

I mean no offense against Cheri Yecke, but I am surprised that she has a Wikipedia biography -- she just does not seem notable enough. There are thousands of public officials just like her across the USA.

I hope she gets the job.
.

Labels:

7 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Bottom Line. The IRS got a good laugh over your objections to Wikipedia's non-profit status.

Sunday, September 02, 2007 9:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The crux of your complaint is that your blog where these "rebuttals of criticisms" of Yecke did not make qualify as a 'reliable source' under Wikipedia policy. Not surprising.

One then has to wonder why no reliable source has published rebuttals of the criticisms of Yecke.

Furthermore, reading the Wikipedia article and its talk page, it clear that the "criticisms of Yecke" are less criticism but more recitation of published facts.

I think you're way off base, and likely running your own Yecke support campaign here.

Sunday, September 02, 2007 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU said,
>>>>> The IRS got a good laugh over your objections to Wikipedia's non-profit status. <<<<<

If they got a good laugh, it was over Wikipedia's mistake of posting the notice that she was a candidate in a public election. The IRS should revoke Wikipedia's nonprofit status anyway, for blocking rebuttals of those attack ads while believing that she was a candidate in a public election. And this wasn't just a rogue operation by some Wikipedia mavericks -- head honcho "King Jimbo" Wales himself participated in attacking her.

Anonymous said,
>>>>> The crux of your complaint is that your blog where these "rebuttals of criticisms" of Yecke did not make qualify as a 'reliable source' under Wikipedia policy. <<<<<

No, that is not the crux of my complaint. Go back and read my post again. I am quite clear that the crux of my complaint is the blockage of rebuttals of the attacks on Yecke.

>>>>> One then has to wonder why no reliable source has published rebuttals of the criticisms of Yecke. <<<<<

Reliability is not an issue.

>>>>>> Furthermore, reading the Wikipedia article and its talk page, it clear that the "criticisms of Yecke" are less criticism but more recitation of published facts. <<<<<

As I said, truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against charges of censorship of rebuttals. Also, there is no reliable source of a radio statement that was attributed to her. Furthermore, there are not just recitations of established facts but there are also interpretations of those facts.

You are just making excuses for the inexcusable.

>>>>>> I think you're way off base, and likely running your own Yecke support campaign here. <<<<<<

I am running my own anti-Wikipedia campaign here.

Sunday, September 02, 2007 1:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> I am running my own anti-Wikipedia campaign here. <

And making a fool of yourself, as usual.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, so now what are you left with now, Larry? Your case with the IRS is in shambles due to that public candidate for election non-issue, and the article is continuously monitored by myself and others against any new attempts at vandalism by yourself and your equally ill-informed recruits. In addition to this, any more attention you bring to this case will always drag along Yecke's connection with creationism and intelligent design, which is something that she has been trying to bury since her candidacy for Florida state education commissioner, in case you haven't noticed.

Got any more brilliant moves, Larry?

Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Well, so now what are you left with now, Larry? Your case with the IRS is in shambles due to that public candidate for election non-issue, and the article is continuously monitored by myself and others against any new attempts at vandalism by yourself and your equally ill-informed recruits. <<<<<<<

What in the hell are you bragging about, dunghill? You Wickedpedia slimebags have no credibility. You even posted the false information about Yecke being a candidate in an upcoming public election.

You apparently don't realize it, but Wickedpedia is in deep-shit trouble.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> You Wickedpedia slimebags have no credibility. <

Wikipedia seems to have a great deal of credibility. They maintain that credibility by deleting your spam.

> You apparently don't realize it, but Wickedpedia is in deep-shit trouble. <

What color is the sky on your planet?

Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:52:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home