Wikipedia Review in the news Options

[blissyu2]

I refer to this article:

Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services by Ludwig De Braeckeleer (ludwig) writing for Ohmy News International.

It was picked up by our RSS feeds 3 times: [1] [2] [3]

In this article, he refers to information found in Wikipedia Review, some by myself, some by Selina, and some by Daniel Brandt (although he only mentioned Daniel Brandt). We here at Wikipedia Review in fact have kept archives of some of the oversighted evidence that relates to this case, that could add even more to what he is saying.

This is perhaps the single most significant thing that Wikipedia Review has ever achieved. Well done everyone!

Except...

First and foremost, how reliable is Ohmy News International? This is something that people will be asking before they decide to take this seriously. I personally have never heard of them before, but their name itself makes them sound like a tabloid newspaper.

Secondly, how much integrity does the writer, journalist Ludwig De Braeckeleer have? I have never heard of him either.

Thirdly, how reliable are the facts? He doesn't directly refer to posts in this web forum (which of course would be unreliable for a news service), but he does refer to a lot of other things that seem to be very reliable.

This could be the end of SlimVirgin from Wikipedia. I think that there will be dancing on the streets if this happens. It could also mean the end of the ban of listing to Wikipedia Review, and indeed Wikipedia Review could now surely justify having its own Wikipedia article. Daniel Brandt certainly wasn't single handedly responsible for this one. He helped, for sure, but the forum as a whole is responsible for this one, plus this reporter. There's no way that Wikipedia or any news service could write about this and not include our involvement. Surely not. They managed to keep us out of Seigenthaler, Wikitruth, Essjay and even the Snowspinner scandal, but surely not this time.

How will Wikipedia react to this? Will they then say "Oh dear perhaps outing does have a point?" or will they still find some way to say that this is okay?

If Wikipedia can manage to avoid this bullet, then well done to them. It'd be amazing if they could.

I think that we should endeavour to get this reporter to post on here if we can. There is a lot more information that we have in relation to this issue that is in locked forums now because of the new "outing" rule that we have.

[the fieryangel]

It's based in Korea and has a "citizen journalist" philosophy. I think that this is important, but it ain't gonna get us established as a reliable source on WP...not that this is the problem to begin with, IMO....

[BobbyBombastic]

It's based in Korea and has a "citizen journalist" philosophy.

Oh and...

IT'S AN ATTACK SITE WITH A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE

I remember a report on sites like this on CBS news or something, it is similar to Wiki News, I think, except not collaborative in the sense that anyone can edit it.

There is no doubt that there is an interesting story here and it seems like it will be only a matter of time until more 'mainstream' organizations look into stuff like this.

Here are more articles by Ludwig De Braeckeleer: http://english.ohmynews.com/english/eng_ar...368971&rel_no=1

This post has been edited by BobbyBombastic:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Here are more articles by Ludwig De Braeckeleer: http://english.ohmynews.com/english/eng_ar...368971&rel_no=1

He's an intel specialist with a particular interest in Lockerbie. He must have been rubbing his hands with glee when he came across the material on SV.

[GlassBeadGame]

Here are more articles by Ludwig De Braeckeleer: http://english.ohmynews.com/english/eng_ar...368971&rel_no=1

He's an intel specialist with a particular interest in Lockerbie. He must have been rubbing his hands with glee when he came across the material on SV.

That is great. I though he might just some random blogger type. That might mean that we are just reacting to what amounts to our own feed-back loop. But if he is an expert on intelligence and especially Lockerbie, well that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

[blissyu2]

So let me see if I have got this straight.

Ohmy News is important enough for their own Wikipedia article (for the moment at least), and Ludwig de Braeckeleer has written approximately 100 different articles, not one of which had talked about Wikipedia (at least not before this one). He has, however, written at least 4 articles on the Lockerbie bombing before this one [1] [2] [3] [4], and he has in recent times suggested that the secret service agencies had misled the public in relation to the Lockerbie bombing.

In his newest article, he has stated that he now has a name for at least one of the people responsible, SlimVirgin, to complete the mystery.

Then he adds that he suspects that she might be using Wikipedia to push some of these views.

When saying this kind of thing, it is tempting to write it all off as "a baseless conspiracy theory" because it involves the secret service. But perhaps more relevant is that this is some kind of evidence of a Wikipedia administrator changing history, which is the most vile crime that Wikipedia can achieve.

With our (Selina and my) research in to the Lockerbie bombing article (in a similar way to my research on the Port Arthur massacre article) we uncovered definitive evidence of SlimVirgin, in her first edits to Wikipedia, changing history to suit herself. Almost immediately after posting this, SlimVirgin had these edits deleted from history, and within a week the oversight command was created, and one of its first ever uses was to hide SlimVirgin's meddling with that article. Luckily Selina kept a copy of the now-oversighted edits. Unfortunately, we can't find where Selina kept them, and will have to wait for her to come back from holidays before we can present these again, perhaps to the journalist in question.

SlimVirgin of course claimed that these edits were oversighted because we were trying to "out" her. Not the case - we were trying to expose her history-changing tendencies.

We should probably keep track of SlimVirgin's reactions through this, as well as Wikipedia's reaction, to see what happens.

Thus far I've found this, which was immediately reverted by Jayjg.

[Cedric]

Thus far I've found this, which was immediately reverted by Jayjg.

There is being no "R"! There is being no "Code 14 Olive"! You must move along now!

(IMG:http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/mossad_logo.gif)

[blissyu2]

Actually that refers to this

With comments: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Note that (to date) Kylu hasn't been blocked for this (nor has Kim Bruning).

The thing is that this issue is too big to sweep under the carpet, and I don't think that they can block enough people to cover it up.

But we probably should try to keep a track of things. Also quote if we can.

Here's one quote from that excerpt:

Secondly, if you've been on here for six months even, you can guess a good half-dozen of the government-paid operatives on the site. It's not like they go to extreme lengths to hide who they are. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
I think he grossly overestimates our naiveté

Again, I think that anyone who thinks that secret service agencies from all over the world are not involved in Wikipedia is extremely naive. They get involved in all sorts of online things. And they are "intelligence", and Wikipedia is the perfect place for them to spread lies.