the wikipedia review

It’s only a website… it’s only a website…

“A starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character”

with 17 comments

Last month, The Review reported from the vaults of Wikipedia’s Museum of Defamation, otherwise known as the Biographies of Living Persons Archives. We examined the ease by which character assassinations and misinformation against individuals can be propagated via the power of Wikipedia.

Most of our sample findings from the archives detailed obvious problems eventually resolved after repeated demands for attention from administrators; but many other complaints concern more subtle forms of defamation, not easily identifiable to the average Wikipedian.

In January 2008, the Australian journalist Ed O’Loughlin wrote a long response that appeared in the deletion debate of his Wikipedia biography. In the correspondence, O’Loughlin stated why he was requesting deletion, and why he, like many others, would rather not have his reputation tested by a project as volatile and prone to abuse as Wikipedia.

Ed O’Loughlin is not a notable subject by traditional encyclopedia standards. Information on the journalist is scarce, but his role as a Middle East Correspondent naturally places him under scrutiny from right wing pro-Israeli groups. This meant that Wikipedians with agendas were able to create an article on the writer which included little else but a series of loose criticisms sourced to a partisan pro-Israel website.

During the “deletion debate” over the article’s future, O’Loughlin’s found himself doing battle with a host of anonymous critics demanding that the biography remain against his wishes. This led O’Loughlin to bring up the issue of Wikipedia’s peculiar culture of anonymity:

My point about anonymous contributions is that, in terms of justice, people have the right to know who is making accusations against them. Otherwise we are back to the Star Chamber, Spanish Inquisition etc model of anonymous denunciation. Anonymity is only a good thing if it protects free voices or whistle-blowers from oppression, which is clearly not the case here.

Despite the biography finally being deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that it was little more than “a coat rack about various criticisms that have been made of him“, it remains easily discoverable on various external sites that mirror Wikipedia’s content — yet another disturbing consequence of Wikipedia’s lax attitude to controversial content.

Below is Ed O’Loughlin’s posting to the deletion debate, where he accurately describes many of Wikipedia’s core flaws.

__________________

Dear whoever you all are

My name is Ed O’Loughlin - this is my real name, I stress - and I am the subject of this article.

The article as it has appeared in its various manifestations in recent months is a starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character which is based entirely on highly partisan sources and falsehoods. The moving forces behind it are anonymous people who do not have the integrity to reveal their identities or interests, and whose malicious intent is quite clear from their contributions to the discussion pages and their vandalisation of posts expressing differing views.

I note that the article has already been deleted once on precisely these grounds, and I am puzzled as to why it has now been re-instated. If it were published in the “old media” - which is to say, by people who have to publicly stand over and justify what they say and suffer the potentially severe personal consequences, such as loss of livelihood - it would clearly be actionable.

Please note that my work has been repeatedly critiqued in the public domain in Australia for the past five years and in that time not one factual error or instance of bias has been substantiated. Please also note that every newspaper reporter covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to stand up to a level of vexatious attack from interest groups and ethnic partisans unknown in any other posting. Nevertheless, all the complaints against me to our internal ombudsmen and to the Australian Press Council have been dismissed as entirely without merit, including one (Press Council number 1305, December 2005) which went to full arbitration. My employers, whose commitment to truth in journalism comes second to no media organisation in Australia or indeed the world, has seen fit to extend my contract here from the original two years to five years and counting.

I am, overall, an admirer of the Wikipedia project but I am disturbed to see how easily it can be manipulated by those hell-bent on imposing their personal beliefs, without regard to balance or empirical truth. I recently watched an episode of the Colbert Report in which the presenter demonstrated the pitfalls of what he terms “wikiality” by editing the page on African elephants to assert that their numbers are exploding. I now understand what he meant.

I am requesting that this article be deleted. If anybody wants to write about me in future I would expect them to at least have the courtesy and guts to put their real name to their writing, as do I. If the article is not deleted I expect this letter be prominently displayed both on the front page and on the discussion page, and that the letter be protected from the vandalism which has been such a marked feature of this supposed debate.

Yours, Ed O’Loughlin, Middle East Correspondent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age

Share/Save/Bookmark

Written by The Review

February 6th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Posted in BLP Issues

17 Responses to '“A starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character”'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to '“A starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character”'.

  1. Holy cow, how did I miss that O’Loughlin had gotten personally involved in the debate? I was one of the main editors behind the effort to get that piece of junk article fixed, and ultimately deleted because “Adon Emmett” was determined to make it an attack page.

    eleland

    10 Feb 08 at 7:01 pm

  2. The above article is inaccurate. Criticisms of O’Loughlin were from multiple independent sources including: The Australian Newspaper, the Jerusalem Post, the Australian Jewish News, sections of the Lebanese community, international media commentators, and scholarly commentary. There was no collusion, no “right-wing” conspiracy.

    The evidence pointed to the clear conclusion that O’Loughlin’s reportage was biased in favour of a pro-Palestinian perspective.

    Therefore, as an exemplar of “Advocacy journalism” O’Loughlin was notable.

    Obviously the man himself would object to an encyclopaedia entry to this effect. And he did, but it is illogical to accept his protestation as proof.

    The article was not a “coatrack” - it was an article about a journalist whose work is a case-study of demonstrably and systematically mixing opinion into news reporting

    Kevin Anderson

    1 Apr 08 at 8:04 pm

  3. If there is to be any criticism of Wikipedia it should include the following:

    (1) Ignorant editors can impose their view on articles written by experts

    (2) There is an absurd set of “rules” at Wikipedia that gets administered arbitrarily by inexpert “admin editors”. An example of this is how deletion is decided on the basis of a “consensus” where “numbers of votes” is not the sole arbiter, except when they favour the opinion of the “admin” editor running the debate.

    (3) Much of the legitimate debate gets mired in “wiki” technicalities. Endless accusations about “sock-puppets” and “meat-puppets” where there can never be a determination due to the nature of ip addresses

    Kevin Anderson

    1 Apr 08 at 8:23 pm

  4. Finally,

    Of course Eleland above would try to construe a biography legitimately critical of O’loughlin as being “junk”.

    This is a person who put a Hezbollah flag on his Wikipedia user page. Although he was forced to remove it he retains a yellow and green semblance of the Hezbollah flag with some cryptic rubbish alongside to remind us just how much credence we should be placing on his posts.

    Kevin Anderson

    1 Apr 08 at 8:33 pm

  5. “Criticisms of O’Loughlin were from multiple independent sources including: The Australian Newspaper, the Jerusalem Post, the Australian Jewish News, sections of the Lebanese community, international media commentators, and scholarly commentary.”

    That’s wholly misleading. The “citations” came almost entirely from non-notable partisan sources and there wasn’t anything resembling genuine “scholarly sources” in the article. Unless you call articles like this: acceptable sources to create a biography?

    The biography contained seven paragraphs. Five of which contained criticisms from such sources as the above and this. Another totally unacceptable “reference” used in the article was this blog post. It was a shameful hit piece, and the complaint by the subject was legitimate, correct and upheld by most if not all neutral observers.

    The biography in question was a case study in how Wikipedia conveys propaganda against living subjects. Which is the forum’s most dangerous feature.

    Kato

    2 Apr 08 at 4:17 am

  6. Kato’s wisdom has superficial appeal though it is illogical.

    If a journalist’s claim to fame, is let’s say, poor journalistic ability, then one would expect to find a preponderence of criticism.

    The Media Study Group paper http://www.honestreporting.com/a/specialReports.asp?p=5

    and work from the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs; http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=254&PID=0&IID=1034

    reveals systematic bias on the part of Ed O’Loughlin

    The blog posts quoted above are not part of the references and are being used to discredit the argument.

    Moreover the so-called neutral observers in Wikipedia were characterised chiefly by their ignorance of the topic discussed.

    The postings by Admin Editor Avraham clearly explained the issues, and why O’Loughlin’s biography was a valid entry.

    Kevin Anderson

    28 Apr 08 at 7:35 am

  7. The three references I mentioned were very much included in the version of the article to pursue the hitjob against O’Loughlin. You can check yourself in the records. But this is all moot. In late April, it was discovered that the “Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America” has apparently organized more than fifty editors via a mailing list to influence content in a pro-Israel manner. And key editors responsible were banned from the site.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign

    Kato

    9 May 08 at 2:20 am

  8. The criticisms of O’Loughlin in Australia were almost entirely from pro-Israel partisans, and “The Australian” which is a rival newspaper.

    The “Jerusalem Centre of Public Affairs” for example is a right wing Israeli think tank whose president, Dr Dore Gold, is a former top advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Hardly a disinterested voice on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    And the “Media Study Group” describes itself as
    “an organization dedicated to defending Israel against prejudice in the Media”

    The irony is that O’Loughlin’s reporting would, in Israel, be considered utterly mainstream and banal. As someone who has travelled there many times I can attest that you need to read Amira Haaas and Gideon Levy to find out what is actually going on.

    I have given up trying find honest reporting on Israel in the West - just log on to http://www.haaretz.com and go to the source.

    Simon David

    1 Sep 08 at 9:20 am

  9. The above quote from Simon David is untrue. I know, I am a member of Media Study Group. The group applied equal treatment to all news stories on Israel Arab conflict in The Age over an eight week period.

    Violations of a pre-agreed journalistic code were tabulated, then a secondary survey was performed to see whether the violations were random.

    There was a strong bias shown against Israel in the violations. Ed O’Loughlin with 30% of the violations had fully 50% of the violations and ALL were against Israel. This could not be a chance phenomenon.

    Moreover, comparisons made above of news reporting of Arab Israel conflict in Israel and Australia is spurious.

    In Israel there is an entire spectrum of opinion and of Papers. In Australia there are only a couple papers. If their reporting would be from a narrow viewpoint it would be a misrepresentation. Ed O’Loughlin’s “peace now” advocacy is tantamount to Israeli papers using the Greens as its source for events in Australia. Highly unprofessional.
    It seems even the Age had enough and showed him the door.

    Paul Rozental

    1 Apr 09 at 11:16 am

  10. I think everything published was very logical. However, think on this, suppose you were to write a awesome headline? I ain’t saying your information is not solid, but suppose you added a headline to possibly get folk’s attention? I mean “A starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character” at Wikipedia Review: Opinions and Editorials is kinda vanilla. You could look at Yahoo’s home page and note how they create post headlines to grab viewers interested. You might try adding a video or a picture or two to grab people interested about what you’ve got to say. In my opinion, it could make your posts a little livelier.

    Laquita Handelman

    19 Mar 12 at 2:20 pm

  11. Salut ! C’est vraiment un étonnant écrit, je te remercie de l’avoir partagé. Pour te remercier, voilà une ligne pour pouvoir effectuer du card sharing : F: ram1270f ram1270kjhu 2 0 0 0:0:1,100:3317 #15/01/2011. C’est sans frais, alors n’hésites pas à l’utiliser et la partager. Bonne journée

    Janell Virgil

    6 Sep 12 at 10:14 am

  12. As was mentioned at the start of this article, due to today’s bleak economic times, everyone is looking for ways to save money. Taking advantage of coupons is one of the best ways to save. By applying the advice and info you’ve gleaned from this article, you will be able to save big bucks.

    Richard Olsen

    10 Apr 13 at 8:03 pm

  13. Excellent beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your web site, how can i subscribe for a blog website? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea

  14. whoah this blog is magnificent i really like reading your articles.
    Keep up the great work! You already know, a lot of individuals are
    searching round for this info, you can aid them
    greatly.

    Hermine

    11 Apr 14 at 12:01 pm

  15. Lovely just what I was searching for.

  16. Get Hostings Coupons…

    It…

    Anonymous

    9 May 22 at 12:39 pm

  17. Very good information. Lucky me I ran across your blog by accident (stumbleupon). I have book-marked it for later!

    Kai Comella

    14 Sep 22 at 9:01 pm

Leave a Reply