Yesterday Wikipedia Review’s RSS feeds picked up on an interesting news article titled Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services: Is the Net’s popular encyclopedia marred by disinformation? written by Ludwig De Braeckeleer for OhMy News International. This article was picked up by no less than 3 of our RSS feeds    and seemed to be relevant. This was a news story that seemed to be of a similar stature to the Seigenthaler Sr. vandalism controversy, the Essjay lying about his credentials controversy, the creation of Wikitruth (administrators disastisfied with Wikipedia), and of course the Wikipedia administrator suspected by school campus police of being a murderer (later changed in to “police harassment”). All of these cases had Wikipedia articles created about them, and all of these cases had first been uncovered on Wikipedia Review. Yet on none of these occasions would Wikipedia admit that Wikipedia Review uncovered them. In this case, however, the main set of information was posted on Wikipedia Review, and used as the basis for this case, so surely this time they will admit it?
Wikipedia had an article on John Seigenthaler Sr. that was vandalised, and they soon added information about the “hoax” and then created a separate article specifically about the “hoax” (at one point they also had an article on Brian Chase, the person responsible for the hoax, but eventually they took this article down, leaving it as a redirect). Given that Daniel Brandt had first posted the information on Wikipedia Review on 29 November 2005 (using our old ProBoards site, which is no longer accessible), you would have thought that Wikipedia Review would be mentioned somewhere in the article. After all, that was where it was broken. It was on Wikipedia Review first, then in major news articles. But no, Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge it.
The next major incident that affected Wikipedia Review was the creation of Wikitruth, which became hugely popular after prominent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski had written a piece about them. Yet Andrew Orlowski was previously planning to create the article about Wikipedia Review, but changed his mind for some reason. Wikipedia, however, has never mentioned this fact in their article on Wikitruth. Whilst they mention Andrew Orlowski’s article, they don’t mention us. Andrew Orlowski actually joined Wikipedia Review (on the old forum, posts now deleted), in preparation for this. If only he’d written about us instead!
The next major incident was when Wikipedia administrator Snowspinner (now called Phil Sandifer, his real name) was visited by campus police at the school he attends following his creation of a LiveJournal entry where he said that he was going to be a murderer. In this incident, it was first brought to public attention in a Wikipedia Review post. This soon led to a Wikipedia article. It has now been deleted, but Wikitruth have restored the deleted text. And even in this, most obvious of cases, still Wikipedia refused to mention Wikipedia Review. Instead, they said “to a message board devoted to criticism of Wikipedia and its administrators”. It didn’t say it was Wikipedia Review! Why not?
Then the next major incident was when Wikipedia administrator Essjay was found to have lied about his credentials. In this case, Daniel Brandt (again) contacted the New Yorker to state that what his real name was - a real name that he had already posted on a Wikipedia Review post, which he linked to when showing it to the New Yorker newspaper! Yet Wikipedia’s article on the Essjay controversy doesn’t make a single mention of it. Daniel Brandt had written in Wikipedia Review on 27th July 2006, well before the New Yorker had run the article on Essjay on 1st March 2007, and on that basis he wrote to the New Yorker to make a correction, which was published on 8th March 2007. Yet Wikipedia makes no mention of it. Again, they are happy to mention Daniel Brandt, but even though in this case a whole thread and a bunch of people on the site discovered his identity and helped to make the correction, Wikipedia Review wasn’t mentioned at all. Indeed, Wikipedia Review was accused of being an “outing” site for daring to find out the identity of Essjay.
So now Wikipedia Review is mentioned in the news in a major way. In this article, in the breaking article itself, it mentions Wikipedia Review. However, it doesn’t say “Blissyu2, Selina and Daniel Brandt”, nor does it link to the correct post that discusses it. On 12th May 2006, Daniel Brandt (again) began what ended up being Wikipedia Review’s longest ever thread, in which we all went to lengths to uncover not only SlimVirgin’s real name (which was Daniel Brandt’s aim), but also her agenda (which myself and Selina discovered). Indeed, there are many other threads, by many other Wikipedia Review members, such as this beauty posted on 26th September 2006. Indeed, SlimVirgin got so upset that she even wrote an e-mail to Wikipedia Review, claiming it was an invasion of privacy, and defamatory. Of course, we ignored her, and lo and behold they were empty legal threats. And of course there is the web page created about Chip Berlet and SlimVirgin, which also refers to yet another Wikipedia Review post.
So Wikipedia, will this be a scandal? We have already discovered through discussion on our forum that Ohmy News International has their own Wikipedia article, and that the creator of the article, Ludwig De Braeckeleer, has written approx 100 articles for Ohmy News International, none of the others about Wikipedia. Indeed, he is primarily concerned with the intelligence community, more recently with the Lockerbie Bombing, something which was SlimVirgin’s first ever edit (now deleted), and was manipulated by SlimVirgin to alter truth, and to get all other editors of the Lockerbie Bombing article to leave Wikipedia. It was also one of the first ever (ab)uses of the Oversight command, to make sure that nobody could see who she really was. Luckily, Wikipedia Review kept copies before they were destroyed.
Surely this time people will sit up and take notice. And hopefully now SlimVirgin will leave Wikipedia, and Wikipedia’s truth-changing will come under some serious scrutiny.