Cheri Yecke update

Just for the record, I am reporting that Cheri Yecke was not selected to be the next Florida Commissioner of Education; she was not the favorite among the three finalists for the position and hence her non-selection was not unexpected. The Darwinists' campaign to falsely portray her as a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy crackpot creationist activist had already fallen flat on its face, because she was one of three finalists chosen from seven semi-finalists out of 24 candidates who were originally considered for the position.

BTW, SiteMeter statistics show that the anti-Yecke Florida Citizens for Science blog, which was cited in Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia biography, has been averaging far fewer hits than this blog, which was excluded from the biography on the grounds of being "non-notable" and "crappy."

READ MORE

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.
.

READ MORE

Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia bio is now "protected"

A while ago I posted some articles about the Wikipedia bio of Cheri Yecke, a candidate for the office of state commissioner of education in Florida. Wikipedia is blocking rebuttals of political attack ads in the bio. This is engaging in political activity in violation of Wikipedia's IRS status as a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization.

I sent in formal complaints to the IRS but still have not heard back from them. I guess that was wishful thinking on my part.

Unfortunately, Cheri Yecke was unable to give me much help because she was very ill -- still, though, she should have found others who could help, like an attorney.

Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia bio is now "protected," meaning that only Wikipedia administrators can edit it. If you go to her Wikipedia bio, you will see that the "edit this page" tab is not there.

Wikipedia's blockage of my IP address is no longer effective because my ISP proxy's IP address has changed. I will never, ever use my real name on Wikipedia ever again.

I hope that Cheri Yecke has recovered and I will try to contact her again.

For more background info, click on the labels below.

READ MORE

Wickedpedia reported to IRS for violating non-profit status

I have mailed in fraud reports on Wikipedia to two locations -- in Fresno, CA and Dallas, TX. I used IRS Form 3949A (euphemistically titled "Information Referral"). I got the Fresno address from the back of the form and the Dallas address by calling the IRS. The IRS may or may not do something -- I don't know. My experience with government bureaucrats is that they won't do anything unless they get a lot of bad publicity. Of course, the more help I get from others, the greater the chance that the IRS will do something.

I reported that Wikipedia is violating its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status by not allowing rebuttals to attack ads posted on the biography of a candidate in a public election, Cheri Yecke. This is prohibited partisan political campaigning.

Please, nobody else send in another fraud report -- it is not necessary and may cause the IRS to duplicate its efforts (if you insist on sending one in, please note that it duplicates my report).

Wickedpedia has a rule against using personal blogs as sources, but on Yecke's bio Wicked is breaking this rule for some blogs but not for mine. Wicked's excuse for this discrimination is that my blog is "crappy" whereas the other blogs are "reputable" and "very notable." They are welcome to call my blog "crappy" all they want but they are not welcome to use that designation to discriminate against my blog or as a basis for violating their IRS status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

Truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against arbitrary censorship of rebuttals.

Unfortunately, Cheri Yecke tells me she is very sick -- she has been off from work for some time -- and hence it is very difficult for her to help herself. However, I don't see why she can't get others to help her, e.g., ReputationDefender.com or an attorney.

I am also contacting ReputationDefender to see if they are willing to help me -- I feel that my reputation is at stake here too. The problem is that they do not yet officially offer their $29.95 clean-up service to those who don't subscribe to their monthly Internet search report service.

I may very well win this one. Remember -- every dog has his day.

READ MORE

Wickedpedian thugs fine-tune attacks on Yecke

One Wickedpedian thug appropriately named "Odd nature" wrote on the discussion page of the Wickedpedia bio of Cheri Yecke,

The article is looking better. My only concern is that in the recent change to "hired the Internet accuracy-watchdog service ReputationDefender to help clarify the record" implies that the record was indeed inaccurate, something that has subsequently been shown not to be the case. I think "hired the Internet accuracy-watchdog service ReputationDefender to change the record to reflect her views" or simply "hired the Internet accuracy-watchdog service ReputationDefender" are more accurate. Odd nature 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't suggest that maybe the record could use some clarification, now can we? And how could ReputationDefender possibly "change the record" to reflect Cheri Yecke's views?

Another Wickedpedian thug inserted the following in the section titled "Allegations of Nepotism":
.

. . . Yecke's husband was hired as the deputy secretary of professional regulations by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation amid allegations that his qualifications do not significantly distinguish him from the rest of the qualified candidate pool available in Florida.

No one claimed -- or could claim -- that "his qualifications . . . significantly distinguish him from the rest of the qualified candidate pool available in Florida." He is not a rocket scientist. His Florida state position is just one of general administration and requires no specialized knowledge. According to a news report, his background is undistinguished --

While she [Cheri Yecke] was education commissioner in Minnesota, her husband was appointed to an $84,000-a-year position as a deputy commissioner with the state's economic development agency.

Dennis Yecke held a number of executive positions with the U.S. Marine Corps. He has a bachelor's degree in business administration from University of Wisconsin-River Falls, according to his resume.

In addition to his two-year stint in Minnesota, he was also a budget analyst for the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget for 10 years.

Anyway, how did the hiring of Dennis Yecke for his positions in Florida and Minnesota suggest "nepotism"? What authority or influence might Cheri Yecke have had in selecting him for those positions?

Anyway, I am digressing. It is not my purpose here to just defend Cheri Yecke -- my purpose here is to stop Wickedpedia censorship. Truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against charges of arbitrary censorship. And Wikipedia is run by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit outfit and Cheri Yecke is a candidate in a public election and the IRS says that her Wikipedia bio must therefore be presented as a "public forum" that is "conducted in a non-partisan manner."
.

READ MORE

Amendments and reports of Congressional bills

As we all know, a particular bill's Senate and House versions that are initially passed by the two chambers are not always the same. A conference committee consisting of members are both chambers then irons out the differences between the two versions to prepare a final joint version.

The Senate passed the "teach the controversy" Santorum Amendment by an overwhelming majority of 91-8, but the House version of the bill that eventually was named the "No Child Left Behind Act" did not have any counterpart. Despite the Senate's overwhelming approval of the amendment, the conferees amazingly decided to relegate the amendment by just putting a modified version of it in the House-Senate conference report accompanying the bill. So a handful of arrogant conferees sabotaged an overwhelming Senate majority's wishes to have the amendment in the final bill. The House members were also disfranchised because they were denied an opportunity to vote on the amendment. IMO an amendment that was passed by one Congressional chamber but not voted on by the other should be put to a vote in the other chamber when reconciling different House and Senate versions of a bill. Also, IMO any distinct difference between the two bills that is not an amendment should also be voted on by both chambers of Congress.

As I previously indicated, court decisions -- e.g., Blum v. Stenson -- are often wholly or partly based on the Congressional reports that accompany laws. IMO, Congressional reports accompanying laws should never be considered legally binding but should be considered to be only explanatory and -- at most -- advisory. In Blum v. Stenson, court opinions cited by a Senate report -- and not even the report itself -- were the sole basis of a Supreme Court ruling that plaintiffs' attorney fee awards in civil rights cases should not be reduced on the grounds that the legal representation is from a non-profit organization (this ruling probably also applies to legal representation that is initially pro bono). These Congressional reports can be abused by members of Congress to insert potentially legally binding "jokers" into legislation without the approval of the full Senate and the full House. Justice Scalia in particular is opposed to relying on legislative histories -- including Congressional reports -- of laws. I used to think of that as a crackpot position but I now agree with him.

An example of reports that are just explanatory are the reports accompanying federal auto-emissions control laws. These reports said,

(1) Because of the high mobility of motor vehicles (and also the high mobility of air pollution, I might add), national auto-emissions standards are needed.

(2) Having federal pre-emption of emissions standards relieves automakers of the burden of having to satisfy many different state standards and also prevents states from imposing unreasonably stringent auto-emissions standards.

(3) EPA has power to grant waivers of federal pre-emption to California in order to help give that state faster relief from horrendous air pollution while at the same time using that state as a testing area for new emissions-control technologies.
.

READ MORE

Alice in Wickedpedialand

I am appreciating Alice in Wonderland more and more. The Wickedpedian control freaks who have been claiming that violating the Wikipedia rule against using personal blogs as sources is OK so long as the personal blogs are "notable" remind me of the March Hare who put the "best" butter in the Mad Hatter's watch. Here is my retelling of that scene in the Mad Hatter's Tea Party:

"I told you personal blogs wouldn't suit a biography!" the Mad Hatter said, looking angrily at the March Hare.

"They were the most notable personal blogs," the March Hare meekly replied.

"Yes, but some crumbs -- BVD-clad bloggers Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers -- got in as well," the Hatter grumbled'

The March Hare took the biography and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, "They were the most notable personal blogs, you know."

READ MORE

Wikipedia's political attacks violate nonprofit 501(c)(3) status

The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates the Wikipedia online encyclopedia, is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization. Wikipedia's extremely biased biography of Cheri Yecke, a political candidate for the office of Florida commission of education, is a flagrant violation of an IRS rule prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from campaigning for or against a candidate for elective public office. The IRS says,

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

. . . .voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Not only is the Wikipedia bio of Cheri Yecke extremely biased, but my attempt to add a rebuttal was censored. When I attempted to add my rebuttal, I had the courtesy to not disturb any existing material, even though I saw clear bias in that material. Of course, the satanic Wickedpedian control freaks who censored my rebuttal don't know what "courtesy" means. Truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against charges of censorship of rebuttals.

Here are some examples of extreme bias in Yecke's Wikipedia biography. Her bio begins,
.

Cheri Pierson Yecke, Ph.D. is a conservative politician who has been involved in attempts to teach creationism in science classes

Mentioning a bio subject's alleged pro-creationism activities in the first sentence of a bio might be appropriate in, say, a bio of Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis; it is hardly appropriate in the case of Cheri Yecke. Calling her "a conservative politician who has been involved in attempts to teach creationism in science classes" is based solely on a biased interpretation of a single minor event that happened in Minnesota in 2003. Yet about one-half of her bio is taken up with discussing that event.

There is no evidence that she ever made the following statement that was cited in support of the preceding claim:

1. Yecke: "every local district should have the freedom to teach creationism if that is what they choose" Minnesota Public Radio, June 9, 2003.

Her bio says,

In July of 2003 during her term as education commissioner, Yecke proposed that the Minnesota Science Standards included (sic) the technique favored by intelligent design proponents to Teach The Controversy in science curriculum.

Wrong -- she said that decisions about "teaching the controversy" should be made by the local school districts. A newspaper article cited by the bio said,

. . . she said she will instruct the science committee to avoid any clashes over the teaching of evolution. She will cite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits the teaching of strict creationism in the classroom and a section of the new federal No Child Left Behind Act that strongly advises school districts to teach evolution in a way that "helps the student to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

"My purpose is that we don't need to enter that debate," Yecke said. "And that these decisions lay with the local school boards."

"Teach the controversy" was also the technique favored by the 91 Senators who voted for the Santorum Amendment. And there is much more to the controversy than just evolution and ID -- there are many scientific and pseudoscientific non-ID criticisms of evolution.

The bio says,

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

The Santorum Amendment is not "pro-intelligent design" -- this amendment does not even mention intelligent design. If this amendment is pro-ID, then so were the 91 Senators who voted in favor of it.

The versions of the Minnesota Science Standards circulated by Yecke contained language used by the pro-intelligent design 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.

It is claimed that the original newspaper article containing this story is no longer available online, so here is the Pharyngula blog's quotation of the article --

Two drafts of Minnesota’s science standards circulated this week. The only difference? How they described the teaching of evolution.

The version the public didn’t see included words like “might” and “possible” at strategic points that clearly cast doubt on the certainty of biological evolution.

When members of the citizens’ panel that wrote the standards saw what was to be the final document, several saw the “mights” and “possibles” and protested that they didn’t write the document that way and that the department made critical changes without telling the panel.

In the end, the committee got the language it wanted, giving evolution the full stamp of approval of the state as the way to teach science to all students in Minnesota’s public schools.

The department said the confusion was a simple mistake caused by several versions floating around the agency, said spokesman Bill Walsh. He said it wasn’t that Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke — who has acknowledged her belief in creationism — tried quietly to place her own personal misgivings about evolution into the standards.

There is no proof that Yecke deliberately tried to sneak those words into the final version of the standards. The words were removed before the final version was released to the public.

The bio says,

Wesley R. Elsberry, marine biologist and critic of intelligent design whose blog The Austringer had referenced the article linking Yecke to the Teach The Controversy method of promoting intelligent design was contacted by ReputationDefender in June 2007.

Again, "teach the controversy" is not just specifically a method of promoting intelligent design.

The bio says,

Readers of blog then provided links to archived recordings of Twin Cities Public Television broadcasts from 2003 showing Yecke saying that teaching intelligent design was a decision local school districts could undertake and teaching intelligent design is supported by the Santorum Amendment.

Well, Yecke was correct -- teaching intelligent design is supported by the Santorum Amendment. The only thing is that the Santorum Amendment is not in the No Child Left Behind Law itself but is in a modified form in the House-Senate conference report accompanying the Act.

BTW, the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida, the home state of Cheri Yecke. How convenient.
.

READ MORE

Update on holy war against Wickedpedians

.

"I don't make the rules." Famous restaurant scene in "Five Easy Pieces"

====================================================

I just found the following additional Wikipedia rule:

Self-published sources (e.g., blogs) should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.

So much for the phony claim that the blogs of BVD-clad bloggers Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers are entitled to a special exception because these bloggers are "nationally syndicated columnists." What a farce.

It's past time to bring in ReputationDefender.com. If ReputationDefender does not help now, then Cheri Yecke should cancel her membership.

Also, the Wikipedia rules for the biographies of living persons say (here and here):
.

Reliable sources

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and 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 (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Editors should corroborate contentious material about living persons with proper sources, and add them if they are not present. An editor who cannot find a source should remove the material promptly — simply tagging it as questionable is insufficient. Where the material is derogatory and unsourced, relies on improper sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), it does not belong in Wikipedia.

Contentious material about living persons on user and talk pages also must follow the above rules. Negative biographical material needs to be placed in proper context. If this is done, contentious material from questionable sources may be discussed on talk pages, but problems with the material and the sources must be clearly identified, and it may be removed if the discussion has ended or is not contributing to the development of the article. When in doubt, contentious material that is not properly sourced should be removed.

Removal of material under these principles is not subject to normal restrictions, and the three-revert rule does not apply. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked (see the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel). Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said it is better to have no information at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Those Wickedpedian control freaks have broken every rule in the book, which ought to be thrown at them -- hard.

Also, the following is an excerpt from an email that I sent to a ReputationDefender customer service representative:
.

. . . I might add that I am defamed in the Wikipedia discussion page on Cheri Yecke's bio, so my reputation needs defending too. Wikipedia administrators on this page are trying to justify their discrimination against my blog -- other blogs are used as references in the bio -- by calling my blog "crappy" while calling the other blogs "reputable." I know that you don't offer your $29.95 clean-up service to non-members, but let me ask you this -- if I were a dues-paying member, would you refuse my request for help in my fight against Wikipedia? Also, a lot of people do not want or need your monthly search report service but just want help with specific problems. I could understand you charging non-members more than your $29.95 fee but I cannot fathom your policy of not offering your clean-up service to non-members. Remember that famous scene in the movie "Five Easy Pieces" where a waitress tells a customer that giving him a side-order of toast is against the rules, so he tells her, "OK, I want a chicken-salad sandwich on toast, hold the chicken-salad and the mayonnaise and just bring me the toast, then give me a check for the sandwich and you haven't broken any rules"? OK, here is what I propose: sign me up as a member, then help me fight Wikipedia for $29.95, and then I will cancel my membership, and you would not be breaking any rules.

LOL
.

READ MORE

Simplified instructions for holy war against Wickedpedians

Update: Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia bio has been "semi-protected," which means that only those with Wikipedia user registrations four days old or older can edit the bio.

The crusade against the Great Satan, the evil Wickedpedian control freaks, is in full swing. There were about 20 reverts yesterday on Cheri Yecke's bio.

This article contains instructions on how you can very easily help even if you know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia editing.

I have been unexpectedly joined by three allies on the Wikipedia bio of Cheri Yecke. Their editing has been far less restrained than mine -- they are wiping out everything that has anything to do with the evolution controversy. In contrast, in my first edit, I did not delete or change anything already there but only added a short rebuttal along with links to this blog. When they censored that rebuttal, I retaliated only by censoring their material that referenced blogs, saying that if my blog goes, then the other blogs go too. There is a Wikipedia rule -- with some narrow exceptions that do not apply here -- that blogs may not be used as sources. So if an exception to the rule is made for some blogs pursuant to Wikipedia's "Ignore the Rules" rule, then the exceptions must be made for all blogs. On the discussion page, the Wickedpedians had the gall to try to justify their discrimination by calling this blog "crappy" while calling the blogs of Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers "reputable." The Wickedpedians even made some frivolous claims about these two BVD-clad bloggers being "nationally syndicated columnists." If you don't find all of this to be an outrage, then I beg you to read some other blog (like the Glenlivet whiskey ad where the brewmaster says, "if you can't drink Glenlivet in the proper way, then I beg you to drink some other Scotch").

Reinforcements are badly needed in the holy war against these satanic Wickedpedian control freaks. The scumbags have now blocked me so I cannot wage jihad myself. I find that anonymous proxies no longer work in hacking Wikipedia. A lot of readers here might not be familiar with Wikipedia editing, so below are some simplified instructions in what to do. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but it is so simple that a trained monkey could do it in a few seconds:
.
You can edit Wikipedia without registering. Go to this webpage. This is my initial edit, with just my rebuttal added and no other changes. Also, this version has my name and the name of this blog -- I was too generous before in removing these when the names of the other bloggers and their blogs are included. This is the way the bio is supposed to be.

Click on "Edit this page" tab on the top (I could have eliminated this step if I weren't blocked), above and to the right of the name "Cheri Yecke."

Then, without making any changes, go to around the middle of the webpage and click on "save" or "save page" or something like that (I don't remember exactly). You may want to add some remarks in the box just above the save button, like "restoring Larry Fafarman's initial edit, with just his rebuttal added and no other changes. This is the way the bio is supposed to be."

That's it!

BTW, this bio is a smear campaign against Cheri Yecke. Here are the facts: Back in 2003, Yecke, as Minnesota's commissioner of education, said that teaching creationism was "off the table" as a result of a 1987 Supreme Court decision but that a Congressional report accompanying the No Child Left Behind Act recommended "teaching the controversy" and she said that decisions about "teaching the controversy" should be left up to local school districts. For this she is being vilified today. There is nothing wrong with citing a Congressional report for support -- the courts do it all the time.
.

READ MORE

Seeking tag-team members for edit jihad against Wickedpedians

So far, no less than four different tag-teaming Wikipedia control freaks have canceled my edits on the bio of Florida K-12 education chancellor Cheri Yecke. Two can play this game. I invite my supporters to help me wage jihad against these control freaks. With your help, we can break the power of the Great Satan, these Wickedpedian tyrants. Anyone can edit Wikipedia -- you don't even have to register. If you don't use a registered name for editing, you will be identified by your IP number. I have no idea why they post the IP numbers -- they are pretty useless pieces of information. When these IP numbers are dynamic, they can't even identify a particular Internet user from one Internet session to the next. Anyway, Wikipedia is fairly easy to edit and if you don't know how to edit Wikipedia, IMO this is a good time to learn.

The biggest issue now (there are other issues) is that the Wickedpedians are violating the Wikipedia rule against using personal blogs as sources. There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) when a blogger is writing about him/herself and (2) when a blogger is a news media professional who is writing on a blog that is under the "full editorial control" of a news media outlet (called a "newspaper" in the rules but presumably also including other kinds of media outlets). Neither of these exceptions applies to the personal blogs cited in the bio, i.e., the personal blogs of Wesley "Ding" Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers. The Wickedpedians went so far as to claim that these two BVD-clad bloggers are "syndicated columnists" or "nationally syndicated op-ed columnists"!

It could be argued that the Wikipedia rule called "Ignore All Rules" allows exceptions to be made to the Wikipedia rules. The "Ignore All Rules" webpage says, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." However, this rule is ambiguous, because the Wikipedia webpage titled Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means implies that the "Ignore All Rules" rule was only intended to encourage readers to edit Wikipedia without first bothering to learn the Wikipedia rules. Also, it is not clear whether a consensus of a Wikipedia article's editors is needed for making an exception to a rule. But if the "Ignore All Rules" rule is applied to create an exception to a Wikipedia rule, in this case the rule against using blogs as sources, then I assert that the exception must be available to all editors of the Wikipedia article. Otherwise the "Ignore All Rules" rule would just be a tool for a clique of Wickedpedian control freaks to create exceptions to the rules just for themselves whenever they please. The Wickedpedians censored references to this blog while citing the blogs of Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ.

Personally, I think that the rule against using personal blogs as sources is stupid. A citation of a personal blog does not imply Wikipedia endorsement of the citation. And the blogs themselves often contain citations of reliable sources. What is the difference between direct citation of a reliable source and giving a link to a blog that contains a citation of that source? The linked blog article might contain the blogger's own personal opinion in addition to the citation of the reliable source, but IMO there is nothing wrong about Wikipedia linking to a personal opinion in a blog so long as it is clear that the opinion is not endorsed by Wikipedia. Links are a convenient way of avoiding cluttering up text with material that is contained in the linked sources. That is the way that the Internet is supposed to operate. Welcome to the 21st century. But as I said, if an exception to the rule against citing blogs is made for some blogs, then I assert that the exception must be made for all blogs.

I think that the Wickpedians are becoming nervous about canceling my edits. My edits now often last for several hours -- they used to be deleted within minutes, even when made in the wee hours of the morning. I think that the Wickedpedians use audible automatic alarms to inform them when particular articles are being tampered with.
.

READ MORE

Edit War at Wickedpedia!

I am engaged in another edit war at Wikipedia, on Cheri Yecke's bio -- and this one is a dilly! Those Wikipedia control freaks have really painted themselves into a corner! Here is the exchange of editing messages (the maximum allowable length of the message is short -- otherwise I would have said more) --

IMO Wikipedia is not the place for political campaigning, but if you can't beat 'em, join 'em (I added my entry)

non-notable self-promotion by long-known internet crank (my entry censored)

Larry Fafarman's name and the name of his blog have been removed from this entry because of complaints of "self-promotion" (I restored my entry, less my name and blog name)

Advocacy for intelligent design and Teach The Controversy - removing unreliable sourcing, non notable self-promotion from Larry again (my entry censored again)

Removed references to personal blogs -- Wikipedia verifiability rule against using personal blogs as sources makes no exception for personal blogs of "notable" people (I censored references to blogs of BVD-clad bloggers Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers -- two can play this game).

no Larry, read the sourcing policy (references to blogs of Ding and Sleazy PZ are restored)

The sourcing rules say that the only exceptions to the "no blogs" rule are for bloggers who are (1) professional journalists or (2) writing about themselves. Stop playing games, dunghill (I censor Ding's and Sleazy PZ's blogs again)

Reverting POV edits (Ding and Sleazy PZ restored again)

Now they have plumb run out of excuses -- they can't even dream up any more phony reasons for canceling my edits. Right now I am planning a late-night editing raid.

I am really giving those control freaks hell on the discussion page! On the discussion page, one of them went so far as to call BVD-clad blogger Sleazy PZ Myers a "syndicated op-ed columnist"! LOL. I wish I could bring in ReputationDefender to really give 'em hell. I would gladly pay their $29.95 fee but there are two problems: (1) their $29.95 jawboning/blackmailing service is available only to members who pay a $10-16 monthly fee, and (2) it's not my bio. I hope that Cheri Yecke will take action -- after all, she has the most to lose. I invite others to join the fray -- this is great fun!
.

READ MORE

Something must be done about Wickedpedia censorship NOW

.

The clowns who run Wickedpedia. Picture is courtesy of the Wikitruth website. "NPOV" stands for "Neutral Point of View," the name of one of the Wickedpedia content policies and a policy that Wickedpedia frequently ignores.

===================================================================

I feel that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia for political campaigning, but since the Wikipedia bio of Cheri Yecke already contained political attack ads, I decided to respond with a rebuttal. Incredibly, my rebuttal was brazenly censored by a Wikipedia control freak named "FeloniousMonk" who gave the following incredible reason -- "non-notable self-promotion by long-known internet crank" -- see here.

Talk about arbitrary!

Unless we do something about Wikipedia censorship NOW, we might as well just throw in the towel now and forget about having a big democratic online encyclopedia open to reasonable editing by all.

Wikipedia should not be considered to be "private" -- it should be considered to be in the public domain. A lot of people supported Wikipedia in the belief that we should have a big public online encyclopedia and not just a lot of little private online encyclopedias. That is why so many people volunteered their time to work on Wikipedia. That is how Wikipedia got so big.

Darwinism must really be on its last legs if the Darwinists have to resort to that kind of censorship.

Cheri Yecke's current Wikipedia bio is here.

The last version before my entry was censored is on the bottom of the page here (my entry is just above the title "Allegations of Nepotism" near the bottom and the links are at the very bottom).

Also, I made some recent additions to the discussion page. I added comments to the "Deletion?" and "Advocacy for intelligent design" sections.

I will not stop until FeloniousSkunk is removed as a Wikipedia administrator. One would think that with all the credibility problems Wikipedia has been having lately, they would not have a jerk like that on their staff.

READ MORE

Best "reputation defender" is a "fairness doctrine" for blogs

Articles have reported that Florida K-12 education chancellor Cheri Yecke hired an outfit called "reputationdefender" to try to help persuade Ding Elsberry to remove or modify a statement about her on one of his blogs. One of these articles says,

About reputationdefender

-The company works by contacting the offending Web sites to request that they remove the material.

-Cost: For $10 to $16 per month, you'll get a monthly report that lists what's out there about you.

-It costs $29.95 for each item you want the company to eliminate. For information, go to www.reputationdefender.com

What can $29.95 buy today? In pre-inflationary days, Earl Scheib would paint your car for just $29.95 ("Riiight, I'll paint any car, any color for twenty-nine ninety-five! Riiiiiiight!"), but those days are long gone -- now prices at Earl Scheib shops start at $259.95.

A Wall Street Journal article says,
.

ReputationDefender begins by sending emails on behalf of its clients to Web-site owners. The letters typically introduce the company, identify the client and the offending content, and ask the recipient to remove it. The letters don't make threats -- Mr. Fertik, despite his training, and others at ReputationDefender aren't lawyers -- but instead try to appeal to recipients' sense of fairness: "Like our clients, and perhaps like you, we think the Internet is sometimes unnecessarily hurtful to the privacy and reputations of everyday people," one such letter reads.

"The first thing we do is we just ask, very politely," said Mr. Fertik. "Thereafter, we can get less polite," including contacting a site's Internet service provider to complain about the site. When Web site owners don't respond to its letters, ReputationDefender sometimes suggests that clients hire a lawyer, though Mr. Fertik said that happens infrequently.

The WSJ article gave an example of where jawboning a blogger failed to result in removal of the material.

However, the reputationdefender.com website claims that they have the ability to "destroy" targeted material, but I don't see how they could do that without illegal hacking. There is something else I want to say about this WSJ article but I will save it for a later post.

Fertik said, "Thereafter, we can get less polite," but it would be hard to get less polite than the "reputation defender" in the following story. A report about a particularly enterprising reputation defender said,

Arizona resident Ed Magedson is the manager of Xcentric Ventures, which operates RipOffReport.com, a clearinghouse where disgruntled customers can post freely about how much they hate a company, its products, or the people who work for it.

As you might imagine, RipOffReport has become something of a magnet not only for frustrated consumers, but also the reputation-defending services that can charge up to a few hundred dollars a year to try to clean up someone's name (or business name) online.

Magedson said, and a judge eventually agreed, that William Stanley (behind DefamationAction.com and ComplaintRemover.com) sent him a series of threats demanding that uncomplimentary information be deleted from RipOffReport.

Below are excerpts from one of those threats that Stanley sent to Magedson:

This letter is being sent to you in the name of more than 500 businesses. No matter where you go, we will cause you a problem. Your life is in danger until you comply with our demands. This is your last warning.

Your neighbors already know about your criminal dealings and how you are making many people loose (sic) their business. You will soon be beaten to a pulp and pounced into the ground six feet under with a baseball bat and sleg (sic) hammer. You will soon be sorry not just from what I am capable of doing to you, but what other members will do as soon as they know exactly where you are. Its (sic) just a matter of time until I get to you.

Here is what you can do to save your life. But you must act imidiatly (sic). Make what ever deal it takes, you must comply.

You have the previous list of companies that you need to remove from Rip-off Report. We know you hold the power. We know you have that list.

That kind of cease-and-desist letter is what lawyers call "zealous advocacy."

I assert that the best "reputation defender" for blogging would be a "fairness doctrine" law that would prohibit arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments so that defamed people or others would be able to respond directly. Also, I propose that bloggers insisting on the right to arbitrarily censor comments be required to prominently post a notice such as the following:

The blogger on this blog arbitrarily censors comments for any of the following reasons:

(1) The blogger disagrees with the comment.

(2) The blogger wholly or partially agrees with the comment but the comment is contrary to a point that the blogger is trying to make.

(3) The blogger dislikes a commenter or a suspected commenter.

(4) No reason at all.

Also, I propose that all bloggers be required to fill out and prominently post a standard comment policy form.
.

READ MORE

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

I don't think that Wikipedia bios are appropriate places for political campaigning, but since political attack ads have been posted on Cheri Yecke's Wikipedia bio, I figured, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," so I decided to post the following response (the numbers in brackets represent links to this blog):
.

Larry Fafarman disputes most of these claims of Elsberry and Myers. Fafarman makes the following claims on his "I'm from Missouri" blog: (1) an article by the National Center for Science Education, Elsberry's former employer, misinterpreted the No Child Left Behind Act and the Santorum Amendment [11]; (2) an "incriminating" ( Fafarman's sarcastic description ) Yecke letter posted by Elsberry did not misrepresent or misuse either the Act or the Amendment [12]; (3) Elsberry censored blog comments that disputed his interpretation of the Act and the Amendment [13]; and (4) Yecke's Wikipedia bio is being misused for posting political attack ads against her [14].

Now we'll see how long it stays up there before the Wickedpedia control freaks censor it.
.

READ MORE