QUOTE(Infoboy @ Fri 27th July 2007, 5:29pm)
How long until we see an article called [[SlimVirgin controversy]] on Wikipedia to go with [[Essjay controversy]]? We can then get [[Category:Former wikipedians who edited under false pretenses]] and add [[SlimVirgin controversy]] to {{Template:History of Wikipedia}}.
There is a case to be made that Linda's editing of the PanAm 103 article is the equivalent of Essjay's editing of articles on Catholicism. Both made edits under false pretenses.
First of all, you have to admit that no one who knows anything about Lockerbie claims that the Libyans did it. This includes Robert Baer, who was the CIA officer closely involved with the investigation. The Libyans were used to redirect the investigation away from Syria, because Syria's support for the Gulf War was considered more important than an honest investigation. The one Libyan who was convicted will probably end up getting a new trial. The CIA, the FBI, Scotland Yard, and MI5 and their friends planted evidence in order to focus on the Libyans.
How do you reconcile these three items:
1) John K. Cooley said, "Once the two Libyan suspects were indicted, she seemed to try to point the investigation in the direction of Qaddafi, although there was plenty of evidence, both before and after the trials of Maghrebi and Fhima in the Netherlands, that others were involved, probably with Iran the commissioning power."
2) Daniel and Susan Cohen lost their daughter on PanAm 103. They have aggressively supported the "Libya did it" theory, to the consternation of many with an interest in the case. In their book, on page 233, they state that "with Linda Mack taking the lead, we helped to organize a petition against the film." The film they're referring to was a 1994 documentary by Alan Francovich titled "The Maltese Double-Cross," which presented a conspiracy theory that was at odds with those pushing the Libyan angle. The point is that this item supports Cooley's statement that Linda Mack was working to push the Libyan angle (or at least working to suppress points of view that did not support the Libyan angle).
3) All of a sudden, by 2005, Linda no longer buys the Libyan angle. Her comment
here refers to the convicted Libyan as a "miscarriage of justice which has put a man in jail for 27 years."
This evidence suggests that Linda was indeed working for outside interests when Pierre Salinger locked her out of her office at the London bureau of ABC News in the early 1990s. Either that, or sometime between 1994 and 2005 she had a "come to Jesus" moment and realized that she was on the wrong side of the truth. But if you look at her editing on Wikipedia on the Lockerbie tragedy, it seems that Linda is engaged in damage control more than anything. The keyword here is "control." She needs to control that article, because it has the potential for considerable damage.
Unlike the Essjay situation, this is not an amusing case of
Catholicism for Dummies. This is a fundamental perversion of the editing process. Linda should have recused herself from all editing on any Lockerbie article, because she has conflicts of interest and zero credibility.
Slimvirgin gets slashdotted, No place to hide...
