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.

[badlydrawnjeff]

The question may end up being when [[Linda Mack]] or [[Sarah McEwan]] is created. That's when the real shitstorm will commence.

[norsemoose]

The question may end up being when [[Linda Mack]] or [[Sarah McEwan]] is created. That's when the real shitstorm will commence.

Nah, it will just be deleted as "trolling", and the author probably blocked, no matter who created the article. Even *if* notability could be established, and Wikipedia's definition of "notability" shifts around like Jimbo Wales in a television interview, depending on what the article is and who the interested parties are. (Compare [[Wookiepedia]] to [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] for an example)

Wikipedia won't even allow an article on Swalwell, Alberta due to the interests of a particular Wikipedia group.

21:49, 22 June 2007 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Swalwell, Alberta" (created by troll)
00:00, 13 June 2007 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Swalwell, Alberta" (troll account)
15:23, 11 June 2007 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Swalwell, Alberta" (trolling)
14:57, 10 June 2007 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Swalwell, Alberta" (troll account)
23:34, 27 May 2007 Musical Linguist (Talk | contribs) deleted "Swalwell, Alberta" (Created by troll/stalker)
00:10, 6 May 2007 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Swalwell, Alberta" (content was: ''''Swalwell''' is a small town in Alberta, Canada.Category:Locations' (and the only contributor was 'Schloff') created by troll)
23:09, 20 April 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) deleted "Swalwell, Alberta" (created by troll)

[blissyu2]

Well, if SlimVirgin is working for an intelligence agency, she isn't exactly hiding it very well. I'd say that it was bleeding obvious that she was doing something fishy. And that Wikipedia is compliant with that. Now at least we have some more solid proof about it. That is the importance of the article.

By the way, I found another link to someone on Wikipedia talking about it, in Talk:Ohmy News. To date it hasn't yet been deleted, although the user was banned, apparently for using TOR. Not for posting that link of course.

I think that it should be Linda Mack, with Sarah McEwan being a redirect. But then again, perhaps it should be the other way? That is a tough one.

But more realistically, it'd be listed as "SlimVirgin controversy" or something of the like. They would most likely try their best not to reveal her real name.

Mind you, they mentioned Essjay's real name in their article on him.

Does this mean that we can remove the relevant SlimVirgin threads from the Tar Pit, so that people can view them now?