Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:54 pm
It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:54 pm
All times are UTC

WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ]
Author Message

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:46 am   Post subject: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

Source:

WIKI - Article Development
by Sarah » Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:51 pm

If anyone wants to help develop Wiki articles on the case sign up to for Wikipedia and become an editor.
There is a lot to be added.

Start by reading the articles and the discussions on the talk pages.

Murder of Meredith Kercher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murde ... th_Kercher

Amanda Knox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_Knox

Giuliano Mignini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giuliano_Mignini


* Note
If you are a NEW Editor it would be best to use a different User Name then the one you comment on this case with.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:58 am   Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT
by tabjustice » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:34 pm

The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article is a disgrace. I'm very tempted to propose deletion.

I cannot believe the level of lunacy in the discussions surrounding it. Seriously? Amanda Knox should not have a Wiki article because she is only 'notable' for having been associated with this murder??? Folks, it works the other way around: Meredith Kercher's murder is 'notable' solely because of the bizarre handling of the case and the fact that Amanda Knox, an American, became a magnet for press coverage.

Why is this still going on??
tabjustice

Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT
by Sarah » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:36 am

Here is the outcome of the Amanda Knox redirect discussion. "I do not see here a draft of the article that I consider satisfactory. As an editorial comment, preparing a better draft before removing the redirect would be an incredibly wise move. However, in actual action, I will merely lower the protection on this redirect from full to semi"

We need people to write the draft article - Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

-------------------------------------
Amanda Knox –
This is, perhaps the messiest DRV I've seen in my nearly 18 months as an administrator active around deletion on this project. We have so many concerns, arguments and counter arguments going on here, that to try to analyse them in a few closing paragraphs would be a futile endeavour. I'll point out a few things I've considered especially relevant, though. The AFD that is technically being "appealed" here is around 16 months old, and given the immense amount of coverage pointed at by the participants in this debate, and proceedings since then in the Italian legal system, this DRV focuses on the original AFD it is "reviewing" not at all. This is not normally the nature of DRV, but little about either this discussion or this case is normal; so this is almost, to me, a question of "unprotect, or leave fully protected as a redirect" more than a review of the original close. As it regards WP:CRIME, it is rightly pointed out that many things about this particular case are not normal, a word that the CRIME guideline uses to describe it's own applicability.
BLP1E is another significant point of contention. BLP1E, per its wording, applies to people who, outside of that event "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual,". Consensus here is that Knox is not a low-profile individual. A final point, and one that weighs in my mind, is whether it is proper to redirect a person's name to a crime they were found not guilty of in a court of law. Under BLP principles, it does not sit well in my mind. There is also some debate here about restructuring or renaming the MoMK article. While I have read and considered those viewpoints, I have to consider such an action as some suggested as ultra vires of the closing admin in a DRV, and such issues would be more suited to a well advertised RFC.

Accordingly, I see a consensus here to vacate the 2010 AFD. As I said at the beginning, the discussion here was limited about the actual merits of that close at the time it was made, and I do not find anything here that supports a straight close of this DRV as overturn.

Now, for the mechanics. I do not see here a draft of the article that I consider satisfactory. As an editorial comment, preparing a better draft before removing the redirect would be an incredibly wise move. However, in actual action, I will merely lower the protection on this redirect from full to semi. It is my opinion, that, given the BLP issues, and the history of vandalism on Murder of Meredith Kercher, that this ongoing semi is a reasonable precaution. Another AFD, or further merge discussion, is of course at editorial discretion, but it is my opinion that those discussions should give time for a quality article to develop at this title before another deletion discussion is held. – Courcelles 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
-----------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox

Sarah
Site Admin
Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT
by Sarah » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:52 pm

NEW GIULIANO MIGNINI ARTICLE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giuliano_Mignini

Sarah
Site Admin

Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT
by Sarah » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:03 pm

AMANDA KNOX - New Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_Knox

If anyone wants to help build the article hop in. Start at the talk page.
Sarah

Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT
by geebee2 » Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:07 am

This seems like excellent news

http://www.groundreport.com/Opinion/The ... ia/2942227

Over the last two weeks the article has been completely rewritten by a “Super Administrator” called Slimvirgin who is thought to be the second most powerful figure at the online encyclopedia behind Mr. Wales. Slimvirgin has done a stellar job. The article now, for the most part, accurately represents the facts of the case.
But it hasn’t always been that way. For the last two years the article represented little more than a soapbox where those with an agenda of hate could use the good name of Wikipedia to promote their warped opinions about the sensational trial.
geebee2

Re: WIKI - Article Development
by Sarah » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:10 pm
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox (2nd nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nomination)

There is a vote going on about whether to delete the Amanda Knox article.
Sarah
Site Admin

Re: WIKI - Article Development
by geebee2 » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:37 am

There is a point in the Wiki that I'm not too sure about. It says ( about Raffaele )

At some point he signed a statement saying that he and Knox had been out on the evening of the murder and had parted company at 9 pm, and that she had not shown up at his apartment until 1 am. This left both of them without an alibi for the evening. That Sollecito had changed his story was conveyed to Knox, who by then was being interviewed in another room.

but then further down it says

Knox maintained she was with Sollecito at the time, but during police questioning after 10 pm on 5 November 2007, Sollecito said that he could not be certain she was with him when he was asleep.

which seems inconsistent ( unless I'm missing something ).

I'm not too familiar with Wiki editing, maybe someone could get this sorted out.
geebee2

Re: WIKI - Article Development
by MustBeQuantum » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:23 pm

For those who are interested, there is a notorious prosecutorial misconduct, false confessions, real killer DNA and all the bells and whistles. Main article is about Rolando Cruz, one of the people convicted and the secondary article is about the murder of Jeanine Nicarico. This happened in Illinois in the 1980s-1990s (when I lived there), so I remember a lot about using false confessions and how many people were fired in the State's crime labs for speaking out about the nonsense prosecution of three men against all evidence. Hope this is long ago enough to see the structure of witchhunts.
MustBeQuantum

Re: WIKI - Article Development
by Sarah » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:45 pm

Candace Dempsey Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Dempsey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Candace_Dempsey
Sarah
Site Admin



Posts: 2317
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 12:23 am
Top
Re: WIKI - Article Development
by Sarah » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:28 am
Wikimania 2012
by Joseph Bishop
July 18, 2012

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Wi ... 12/2947112

MustBeQuantum wrote:
Joseph Bishop is an excellent writer (with awesome credentials).

A few months ago (don't remember exactly), I did an analysis of how long articles were compared to the MoMK article. The MoMK was longer (and by implication) more important than presidents, monarchs, prime ministers, and anyone else who has even passively appeared on the world stage.

IMHO the overly long article (with outrageous insinuations against the former defendants) is still a trainwreck. The arguments and bannings of any independent professional opinions makes it clear that the article itself is dreck.

I hope that someone who is familiar with the standards and culture [of Wikipedia] can monitor the article about MoMK. I was laughing because the Follain quotes in the section regarding the student house have become uncomfortably skewed. But Follain is considered "authoritative" -- right?
MustBeQuantum

Re: WIKI - Article Development
by Bill Williams » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:51 pm

I am an amateur editor (ie. not a paid editor or on staff, just a schmuck with a keyboard and an opinion) on Wikipedia. I've been involved in dustups on Wikipedia around appropriate editing, however, nothing nearly on the scale of the MoMK page.

But one thing that everyone has to get their head around is something that surprised me when a senior editor intervened on one of the dustups....

"Truth" itself is not a criteria that intersts Wikipedia.

Read that again. It is veritablility and, "did an authoritative source say that," which is at issue.

More an this later. But that's the sum total of it, and all Wiki-philes need to get their head around it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

Some good links about Wikipedia:
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ (not available)
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/russmag.html (not available)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01 ... _shorting/

Emails show journalist rigged Wikipedia's naked shorts
Overstock's Byrne vindicated amidst economic meltdown
1 Oct 2008 at 19:41, Cade Metz
Quote:
Two and a half years ago, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne penned an editorial for The Wall Street Journal, warning that widespread stock manipulation schemes - including abusive naked short selling - were threatening the health of America's financial markets. But it wasn't published.

"At some level, you can control the public discourse from Wikipedia," Byrne says. "No matter what journalists say about the reliability of Wikipedia, they still use it as a resource. I have no doubt that journalists who I discussed [naked shorting] with decided not to do stories after reading Wikipedia - whose treatment [of naked short selling] was completely divorced from reality."

As recently as last week, Weiss told us he's never even edited Wikipedia. But emails shared with Byrne and The Register show that Weiss has in fact edited the encyclopedia's article on naked shorting. And they indicate he's behind an infamous Wikipedia account known as "Mantanmoreland," an account that - with the backing of the site's brain trust - ruled the articles on naked shorting, Patrick Byrne, and Overstock from January 2006 to March 2008.


So in other words, Wikipedia allowed a Wall Street insider to edit articles blocking someone who was warning people about naked short selling. Hmm.

ETA: Wikipedia Watch was blocked by Google and no longer seems to be up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:17 am   Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

"Slim Virgin" seems to be taking an active interest in edits of the Candace Dempsey article. From the talk pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris_the_Paleontologist
User talk:Chris the Paleontologist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is my user talk page. For archives, see my talk subpages.
Contents [hide]
1 Holiday cheer
2 Nyang Gwardlidac
3 A request
4 Traffic
[edit]Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
[edit]Nyang Gwardlidac

I am in no way criticising, and very clearly this article was not encyclopaedic; I have deleted it. You nominated it at AfD, but in reality it clearly qualified for {{speedy}} deletion, and nomination at CSD would have been better. No harm done.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit]A request

Hi Chris, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Dempsey. Would you be willing to courtesy-blank the page, per BLP and WP:CBLANK? The subject has been the subject of harassment in real life as a result of her work, and the account that was repeatedly posting negative material about her on that page was using some of the same phrases. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:37 am   Post subject: MORE CANDACE DEMPSEY ARTICLE SHENANIGANS   

If I'm reading this correctly, 'Slim Virgin' CREATED the Candace Dempsey page? And I see that Candace made some edits too? Cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

(cur | prev) 05:15, 26 October 2011‎ SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,860 bytes) (+1,860)‎ . . (created page) ???


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:10 pm   Post subject: SLIM VIRGIN STRIKES AGAIN   

From Underhill's link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... #A_request
A request

Hi Deskana, I'm writing to ask if you would consider unblocking CandaceDempsey (talk · contribs). She was blocked by you in June after posting on Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, and a checkuser found she was linked to GeniusApprentice (talk · contribs), who was also posting on that page. Both were indefblocked.
I don't know anything about the multiple-account issue, but if you look at Dempsey's edits (she made just eight edits to the talk page), she arrived here to defend herself (e.g. here) after another editor insulted her work as a journalist, dismissing her as a food blogger. In fact, she's a respected journalist who has written an excellent book about the murder. Perhaps she felt she had to sign in under her own name to defend herself; that would account for the use of a second account, if indeed GeniusApprentice was also hers.

The indefblock and the block notice on her user page may be damaging to her, particularly now that her book is being more widely read, so I was wondering whether the best thing would be to unblock and let the issue rest there.
SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I spent a little while thinking about this, and have come to the following conclusion.
If she believes she is being damaged in real life by what's happened to her on Wikipedia, I would suggest she ask for a rename of her account. She may ask me directly if she wishes, and I will carry it out for her. I have also deleted her userpage which contained the block message. I should note though that I have very little patience for running around after sockpuppeteers trying to clear up after them when it was their behaviour that caused the issue in the first place, and if she refuses the rename and complains about being damaged in real life then those complaints will fall on deaf ears.
There is no doubt in my mind that the block was appropriate, and it continues to be so. However, if she promises to stick strictly to one account, I am willing to reduce her block to time served and unblock her account (per standard offer, I suppose). Note that if she agrees to this and then uses multiple accounts anyway, I would block all her accounts indefinitely for violating the unblock agreement, irrespective of the usage of the accounts.
I hope this is satisfactory to you? Let me know if you'd like to discuss it further. Thanks! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Deskana, that sounds good. In fact, it may be enough that you deleted the user pages and block notices. Whether she would actually want to edit, I have no idea, but I can look for an e-mail address and put forward your offer. I haven't actually been in touch with her about this. Many thanks for your help, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I got the impression that you were in contact with her. If you're not, then what I've done is probably sufficient, although I will extend the offer of unblocking to her via her talk page. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving that note for her. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
------

rul-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

name count on the Wikipedia article "murder of Meredith Kercher"

Candace Dempsey 51
Barbara Nadeau 1

The 51 is multiple lengthy, cited references to Dempseys book throughout the article, bibliography. The 1 Reference to the Barbara Nadeau book is in "books about the case".

I complained about this to Wikipedia. My complaint about it was struck down and also the history of my complaint was struck down.

Who is Candace Dempsey? A minor journalist, writing part-time for minor publications on food, travel. Trying to make a name for herself around this case and her ridiculous book (which last time I checked was 49c on Amazon). A member of the FOA (friends of Amanda campaign group). She is photographed here, recently, giving the finger with Knox Family/campaigners; Frank Sforza is kneeling, center front. They won.



Who is Barbie Nadeau. A multi-lingual, respected foreign correspondent, a full time columnist for major publications. She was present every day at the trial; covering it weekly for the Daily Beast and Newsweek. Barbie Nadeau entered 200 pages of bibliography confirming the research for her book.

Of course Dempsey has her own Wikipedia article, self-written, which is a brochure for her and her book. Barbie Nadeau does not (like many other journalists of far, far greater stature than Candace Dempsey).

But of course it's MSM, where the BBC has Frank Sforza, the violent criminal conman, currently on the run from the police, as a journalist (under his pseudonym).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7828140.stm



Sforza is the main source for Dempseys marginal, factually incorrect, sensationalist, pulp book.

Dempseys autohagiography/book promotion on Wikipedia, which is protected by Jimmy Wales "second in command" 'slimvirgin', who has written and controls the Wikipedia article "murder of Meredith Kercher"

What exactly is going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Dempsey

Image

In 2011 Wikipedia was accused of so much bias that Jimmy Wales got involved; it hit the press, Wales was on the talk page arguing under his username (that was unprecedented), Dempsey was in there arguing (and promoting her book) .. Now there's nothing about that on google news, all those articles, major press coverage at the time are gone. The only thing I could find (from the main google search), relating to that is here:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/03/amanda-knox-supporters-vs-jimmy-wales/36045/

Image

Currently on Google News there's a single article relating to the case and Wikipedia. Incredibly, a Bruce Fischer "Ground Report" protest about what they call "guilter bias" of the article.

http://www.groundreport.com/Media_and_Tech/Wikipedia-s-Governance-Structure-A-Call-for-Change/2951482



We lost that one - The 'innocenti' control Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia ... BUT WHY? Late in 2011 Wales said he'd bought 5 books to read about the case, saying he'd review and get back to it. Now this. Is he stupid? Or is it POLITICAL.


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Edited at Member's request.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:46 am, edited 58 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:24 am   Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

after in-fighting on wikipedia about perceived bias of their article "murder of Meredith Kercher" hit the press in 2011, Jimmy Wales called in Wikipedia user "slimvirgin" to do a complete re-write.

"slimvirgin" is no lightweight

may be jimmy wales political wing -- many sources have her as jimmy wales "second in command".
"slimvirgin" may not be 1 individual - may be a press office. Sources have "slimvirgin" making 100 edits an hour in a 27 hour period

source http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=11180 just one article; multiple people are complaining about 'slimvirgin'

Let me summarize what I think we know.

1. SlimVirgin is Linda Mack who studied philosophy at King's College, lost a close friend on PanAm 103, and worked for Pierre Salinger at ABC News, London from about 1989-1991 on the PanAm 103 investigation.

2. She pursued various PanAm 103 conspiracy theories, but once the two Libyans were indicted, she seemed to steer the investigation in the direction of the government's case against Libya, according to John K. Cooley, who along with Pierre Salinger, was responsible for hiring her at ABC.

3. Pierre Salinger interviewed the two Libyans in Tripoli, and believed, along with quite a few independent investigators, that they were either completely innocent, or only peripherally involved, perhaps unwittingly.

4. Syria's support in the Gulf War was important to the West. The leading theory until such time that the finger was pointed at Libya, was that Syria was involved, perhaps with Iran bankrolling them, in retaliation for the Iranian airliner that the U.S. shot down.

5. Scotland Yard raided ABC and made off with videotapes and documents. ABC fought in court, and after an expensive battle, lost the case.

6. Salinger came to believe that Linda Mack was working for MI5, and had been all along. He locked her out of her office.

7. Michael S. Morris, a former BOSS (South Africa) agent who investigated PanAm 103, has named Linda Mack as an "agent."

8. For at least two or three years after this, Linda Mack worked on the case as a freelancer. She started a petition drive against Allan Francovich's film, The Maltese Double-Cross: Lockerbie. This film promoted a conspiracy theory that was at odds with the government's case against Libya.

9. Linda Mack next shows up in Canada in 2002, registering the domain slimvirgin.com, using the name S. McEwan and a PO box in Swalwell, Alberta, Canada. Patrick Byrne, who knew Linda Mack at Cambridge, says she was half Canadian, and she switched on an English accent suddenly one day at Cambridge, and continued to use it from that point forward.

10. The email address on the slimvirgin.com domain registration was slimvirgin1@yahoo.com. The email address for Linda Mack on the alumni list at King's College, Cambridge was also slimvirgin1@yahoo.com. This mailing list was purged of Linda Mack's name several months ago. Similarly, the domain registration became a private registration within the last year.

11. One "Sarah McEwan, Canada" wrote comments or sent a letter to telegraph.co.uk in Britain in support of animal rights in 2004.

12. SlimVirgin signs her name as "Sarah" on the Wikipedia mailing list.

13. Daniel Brandt emailed slimvirgin AT gmail.com in late October, 2005, using a pseudonym, and asked if she would be interested in selling the slimvirgin.com domain. Twice she denied that she was the owner of that domain.

14. SlimVirgin's IP address geolocates to Shaw Communications in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, but the accuracy of this is disputed and she could be living in either Alberta or Saskatchewan.

15. SlimVirgin indicated a very early interest in the PanAm 103 article when she started editing Wikipedia sometime on or before November 5, 2004. At least one edit that was oversighted suggests inside knowledge of the Pierre Salinger investigation.

16. Jimmy Wales has admitted that articles have been oversighted to protect the identity of SlimVirgin and others.

17. Today almost no one with knowledge about the investigation, including Robert Baer, the CIA official who was close to the CIA's investigation at the time, pretends that the Libyans were guilty.

18. SlimVirgin has made a comment on a Talk page suggesting that the Libyan in prison is not guilty.

19. After Daniel Brandt emailed John K. Cooley in Athens, Greece to ask about Linda Mack, she called Cooley to ask him not to talk to Brandt. She had read on Wikipedia Review that Brandt had located Cooley, and was hoping to hear from him. But Brandt had already received Cooley's response shortly before Linda Mack made this call.

20. Various articles that are politically significant, in addition to the PanAm 103 articles, suffer from excessive ownership by SlimVirgin in that they are seriously skewed in directions that she has promoted and protected. These include articles about Lyndon LaRouche. Moreover, several months before SlimVirgin started the stub on Daniel Brandt, she declared that Brandt was an unreliable source on the topic of one Chip Berlet.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

Wikipedia admits to sock puppetry Wikipedia bans 250 sock accounts says "250 sock puppets have been "blocked or banned" after being found to have carried out "non-neutral editing" of Wikipedia pages."

Ya think?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:15 pm   Post subject: WIKIPEDIA FOLLIES   

Original post here: Wikipedia Follies
Ergon Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:03 pm
There's a new tool (Beta) called WikiWash which tracks Wikipedia edits in more readable form at http://wikiwash.metronews.ca/ so I checked the "Amanda Knox" entry and came up with http://wikiwash.metronews.ca/Amanda_Kno ... -657305407 and "Meredith Kercher" is at http://wikiwash.metronews.ca/Murder_of_ ... -657425788 with the usual suspects hard at work. Why, prolific editor Joe 1948 has even deleted her UW entry under Famous People-Crime :)

Quote:
Source: Introducing WikiWash
http://metronews.ca/introducing-wikiwash/
In March 2014, Metro’s digital team headed to Toronto’s inaugural edition of Techraking, a data journalism crash course sponsored by Google, The Center for Investigative Reporting and The Working Group. The prize at the end was a sizeable chunk of TWG’s time to develop a data journalism tool pitched by an attending team. Metro’s team won over the judges, and WikiWash is the result.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:47 pm   Post subject: WIKIPEDIOCRACY   

How Jimmy Wales rode Tony Blair’s coattails

(Review of how Wikipedia started and how Jimmy Wales enables paid commenters from various agencies.)

June 01, 2015

Why this Site?

Our Mission:
We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:55 pm   Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

Original Post FOA Industries and Wikipedia
ttrroonniicc Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:54 am

couple of things

"Ground report" today has

Wikipedia’s Governance Structure: A Call for Change

Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, has probably done more to further the education of those in the world who want to learn than any innovation in our lifetime, and it has never cost the taxpayers a cent. That is an impressive accomplishment. Their first decade featured rapid growth which took on a life of its own and a unique subculture. But going forward they face an entirely different set of challenges. In a small but significant number of areas their articles are not as accurate as they need to be. Sometimes these deficiencies result in deeply unfair treatment of living human beings, or worse. Sometimes their good name is hijacked by those with an agenda. Usually the problem occurs when those in positions of influence take on strong opinions. The underlying problem is a team of “administrators” and “arbitrators” who are not getting the job done.

......

The main problem is that the article totally ignored the vast criticism of the numerous important experts who had called into question the fairness of the trial of Knox and Sollecito. Their ranks included two former FBI agents, an American Judge, a Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist and a CBS news correspondent, all of whom have literally compared the case to the medieval witch trials that have cropped up in this part of Italy for thousands of years. Here is all that Wikipedia could say about the controversy.

GROUND REPORT


Re: incredibly, the pro-knox - sollecito - advocate infested / taken over wikipedia article "murder of meredith kercher", which became so contentious the talk page @ one point got up to 75,000 words of argument and Jimmy Wales got involved --- because it's THEM spamming shit - it's what they do

Look for instance @ this (Amazon "angel face") Serious journalist Barbara Nadeaus credible, researched book on the case

Image

^ that's FOA 7 1 stars = FOA ~ It's just disproportionate - it's obvious what happens, they are all over the place they've even pulled the same sort of shit on John Kerchers book "Meredith"

I posted this onto Talk: Wikipedia: Candace Dempsey @ 7pm last night

Why is this a Wikipedia Article? Article inserted for book promotion. This article must be deleted.

Candace Dempsey is not a significant journalist, other than on this case. Other, serious journalists, who work full-time for major publications, who have covered this case and written books; for example Barbara Nadeau, do not have a Wikipedia article. This article has been set up by Dempsey or promoters of Dempsey. As a long term reader of Wikipedia I am sad to see the site being used for book promotion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.149.50 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


BTW. Unsigned (but IP stamped) comments are allowed. There is no requirement for an account. It was up for a few hours, at the end of another load of protest of the same thing (I'd started a new subject heading, same issue).

The lot was taken down; objection, archival. They're monitoring it for criticism. Went to the place for dispute. Put my comment up there with a protest "wikipedia customer (I am), don't take this down" .. that lasted about 20 minutes.

They're professionals. I give up. They work in shifts clicking on thumbs up, thumbs downs. They have multiple accounts amazon or wherever for positive/negative comments. The sick little army of xenophobes/family/mentally ill groupies never sleeps.

It's true - Wikipedia has been hijacked for Dempseys book promotion. The article even has a picture of Dempsey.

"(Removing criticism of subject by anon IP per WP:BLP. The talk page is for discussion of article content. If you want to discuss the subject's notability, start an WP:AfD discussion.)"

"(Protected Talk:Candace Dempsey: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy (Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users) (expires 00:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)) (Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users) (expires 00:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC))))"

^ STATUS. Its easy to hijack wikipedia - because it's so open

Here's all the stuff that was taken down today, re: the fact that Dempsey is using wikipedia for promotion:

Not Notable

This writer has, to my knowledge, published just ONE book.

The handful of interviews mentioned in this article were all done in an effort to market that ONE book.

Apart from this lone book, the writer seems to have little more to show than an amateur blog (on the same subject as her one book) and a scant smattering of freelance work (a few articles on travel, cooking, etc.) despite the passage of 2 or 3 decades.

It is clear that this is not a case where a writer has completed many notable works, each of which has attracted media attention.

The designation, "notable" becomes meaningless if this article is allowed to stand. MalibuSurfKing (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Malibu, Dempsey is a journalist who became known for her work in the Meredith Kercher murder. Her "Let's Talk About True Crime" column was hosted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer; it wasn't a personal blog. Jim1138 and I explained to you last year how to nominate the article for deletion if you want to, though it would almost certainly be kept. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I do not appreciate the fact that you are continuing to undo my edits without explaining, in detail, your reasons for doing so.

Irrespective of the issue about "notability", I removed several sentences that were not supported by secondary sources - why have you restored material citing primary sources (the author's personal webpage)?

Furthermore, as I have stated repeatedly, this writer has published only ONE book and it was just one of many written about the Kercher murder. Contrary to your assertion, she does NOT have a "column" at the Seattle PI, she has an amateur "readers blog" in which readers of the Seattle PI write for other readers (the Seattle PI expressly disavows responsibility for the content for this reason).

If I recall correctly, Jim1138 was of the opinion that I was correct to assert that Dempsey is not "notable".

If you undo my edits again without providing a suitable explanation - including an explanation as to why you are allowing material that cites primary sources to stand - then I will have no choice but to report your actions.MalibuSurfKing (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Malibu, as you may know, Dempsey has been the subject of harassment because of her book, and I'm concerned that your sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to have her removed from it. I'm therefore going to ask an admin to consider blocking your account if you remove material again. As I've said before, if you believe she's not notable enough, you're free to nominate the article for deletion. You may also want to read our policy on biographies of living persons at WP:BLP. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Harassment? I don't understand. I have made changes elsewhere and plan to make many more contributions in many other areas in the future as time permits.

Why are you not addressing the details? I'm eager to learn the ropes.

I have explained my reasons for each change and you have repeatedly undone them with either no explanation or a poor one based on factually incorrect information.

Please address each one of the edits you chose to undo and provide your reasons.

I am new to the game and am willing to learn but what you're doing seems irrational. PS I like your idea about contacting an "admin" because I do not understand why you are refusing to explain, in detail, your resistance to my edits. Can you please advise this newcomer as to how I can approach the admin as well? MalibuSurfKing (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Slimvirgin seemed to explain it pretty well above, you are clearly not listening. You need to read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Heiro 02:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am listening. All I got was a vague reference to harassment and a factually incorrect statement that Dempsey had a "column" at the Seattle P.I.. (according to the P.I. she is an amateur blogger - just a reader writing for other readers - and they expressly disavow responsibility for the content of said blog).

Per the information you posted: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if...it is not unduly self-serving... [and]the article is not based primarily on such sources."

It is my submission that this case meets the test for "unduly self-serving" and the test for "based primarily on...press releases [in connection with the one book this person has published] or personal websites."

Do you disagree? If so, why? MalibuSurfKing (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The background for any editor looking at this: in September 2012 MalibuSurfKing tagged the article once for notability, [1] tagged and blanked it once, [2] and prodded it once. [3] He has now returned to remove some of the biographical material, and is reverting when it's restored.

Malibu, the article complies with our BLP sourcing policies, and it's in a standard format for bios of this kind. In your latest series of edits, [4] you removed a link to her 2012 New York Times article and her 2011 Slate article, but we often link to people's works. You removed that she's been interviewed by CNN, BBC etc, but it's standard to include this in bios. You removed part of the background section, listing where she has worked; this is sourced to her, but again this is standard in biographies. We don't send out teams of Wikipedians to check that someone really did go to a certain school or work in a certain place. You removed the "Selected works" section, which again is standard.

If you feel there's a notability issue that can't be resolved, please initiate the deletion process, which is explained at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Slim: You make it sound as if I'd come here to vandalize a single article on a single subject rather than make contributions to the quality of this encyclopedia on a variety of subjects.

I simply spotted what I see as a problem (this journalist is not "notable" by any objective measure) and, being new to the game, I attempted to solicit opinions/ advice on the "talk" page. No one replied, so I turned to the "Tea House" and received what I took to be support for my assertion that this journalist does not meet the test for "notable" and proceeded to take steps to have the article removed. I readily admit to being uncertain of the steps entailed and have no doubt made some mistakes but I do not understand you unwillingness to 'shepherd the weak/new to wiki' through the process.

Is this a 'personal' matter for you? You certainly seem to be taking the matter personally, often removing all of my efforts without so much as a word of explanation and, now, you seem to be accusing me of being part of some effort to "harass" the writer. FYI I am not part of any such effort, nor am I aware of any such effort. Many books have been published on the Knox case and this is but one - a modest seller at that and the obscure award that is mentioned appears to come from a cheesy website that, if I'm not mistaken, can be influenced by votes from the friends and family of authors.

IMHO, none of the writers/ journalists behind the many books and blogs on the Knox case come remotely close to being "notable" in their field. Nevertheless, at least 2 of these journalists (John Follain of the TImes and Barbie Nadeau of Newsweek) are far, far more accomplished than Dempsey yet they do not appear in the pages of this encyclopedia. Why is an exception being made for an amateur blogger with just a smattering of freelance pieces and only one book with modest sales to her credit? MalibuSurfKing (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Article stands:

Image
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

Original Post: Wikipedia and Slim Virgin
Since the original Wikipedia Watch articles have been deleted:
Ergon Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:32 am
@ttrroonniicc, Wikipedia is not only easily hijacked by special interest groups, the people behind it are truly unsavory. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ and if you want an idea of how much, here's 'slimvirgin' http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/russmag.html
Quote:
"Many Wikipedia editors and administrators prefer to hide behind screen names, and sometimes it is not difficult to discover their real names. But this was not the case with SlimVirgin. This woman (her gender has not been questioned) first appeared in Wikipedia in the Fall of 2004, and since then has skillfully concealed her identity and whereabouts. But she is not famous for that. She quickly understood the methods of successful Wikipedia combat (learn the formal rules, and loudly accuse opponents of violating the rules, so that an administrator can ban the opponent from the debate). SlimVirgin began vigorously editing articles within the scope of her interests. Among the first, it must be emphasized, were articles about Pan Am 103 and ABC News journalist Pierre Salinger, who had investigated the case. SlimVirgin's editorial work progressed so well, and she observed the rules so perfectly, that she gained the rank of administrator. This gave her the right to remove users from the debate and from editing.

Of course, this created enemies and detractors for SlimVirgin, including those who had been banned by her from participating in the establishment of a "People's Encyclopedia." For example, a poll in the famous forum Wikipedia Review awarded SlimVirgin the dubious title of "most abusive administrator."


Wikipedia is NOT alternative, nor is it a 'people's encyclopedia. And don't get me started on how it treats homoeopathy, astrology, or Immanuel Velikovsky :) But in the case of Amanda Knox and the Meredith Kercher murder, then yes, there is a supertanker behind the manipulation of the respective Wikipedia articles.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ]


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


28,905,350 Views