Rachel Marsden: The Fundamental Schizophrenia of BLP Options

[Kato]

According to former Jimbo Wales confidant Danny Wool:

http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/03/money...s-for-free.html

I've known about several of Jimbeau's affairs long before I started working at Wikipedia because, well, he used to boast of them to me. And not just to me either. In fact, I'd need two hands, two feet, and a bunch of other extremities to count all the people who knew. So Jimbeau is a lech.

[Kato]

JoshuaZ writes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=195192169

Speaking for myself Jimbo never asked me to do anything, I simply stuck my nose into something that wasn't my business. I do that quite frequently. I suspect JzG may have had a similar motivation. The topic is interesting and prominent; it doesn't require Jimbo's intervention to make editors care about an interesting BLP. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is he seriously suggesting that JzG, living in Reading England, suddenly decided to "fix" details on an article on a Canadian News Reporter who appears on some US TV show & thus an unknown in Britain, out of the blue?

And that the "early February" tip off and JzG's early February edits are a coincidence?

[guy]

Is he seriously suggesting that JzG, living in Reading England, suddenly decided to "fix" details on an article on a Canadian News Reporter who appears on some US TV show & thus an unknown in Britain, out of the blue?

Americans no doubt assume that everyone well-known to them is famous around the world, and anyone unknown to them can't be notable.

[WordBomb]

For your collective sleuthing enjoyment, I've uploaded a spreadsheet listing most of the deleted edits to the Rachel Marsden article. You'll find it here.

Keep in mind, this is only the meta data, ie: editor name, edit timestamp, and comment.

If any of these seem especially interesting, let me know and I'll get you the actual substance of any edits you want by Monday.

Note my source indicates that there are over 1,600 deleted edits in the restore/view log, which I can also get for you, though the 1,100 in this spreadsheet represents the only ones where I'm able to access the full edit text, as well.

[guy]

So by far the main editor is Bucketsofg (264 edits). Other major ones are:

90 Ceaurus
84 70.25.152.39/70.25.91.205 (possibly one person)
68 Arthur Ellis
59 Homeontherange
58 Pasboudin
51 Samaritan

Homeontherange is of course an old friend.

[WordBomb]

70.25.152.39 = Rachel Marsden
70.25.91.205 = Ceaurus

And indeed, Rachel Marsden might also be Ceaurus, but I have no idea at this point.

[Derktar]

70.25.152.39 = Rachel Marsden
70.25.91.205 = Ceaurus

And indeed, Rachel Marsden might also be Ceaurus, but I have no idea at this point.

User:Ceraurus

An Ottawa writer who is fiercely libertarian-anarchistic and believes strongly in the U.S. Bill of Rights. I believe the Canadian Charter of Rights is too vague and filled with loopholes. I especially believe in being Devil's Advocate in the face of a crowd. In another time and place, I would likely be known simply as "lynching victim number two."

[Heat]

Ceraurus and Arthur Ellis are both Journalism prof Mark Bourrie and have been much banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...se/Arthur_Ellis
He's a friend of Marsden's and when he isn't shilling for her he's pursuing his feud with Warren Kinsella - generally by vandalising his article. IRL Kinsella has sued Bourrie and won a settlement of some sort.

SlimVirgin's role in the article is interesting.

This post has been edited by Heat: Sun 2nd March 2008, 1:52am

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

For the record (and I think my record is reasonable here) I wish to resist all tabloid tittle-tattle, gossip and innuendo on biographies, particularly concerning private information. I don't want to stop and think about whether I like the subject or not. I've defended the rights of subjects as diverse as Daniel Brandt, and Chip Bartlet. I've enforced BLP on the bios of neo-nazis, pedophiles and communists. So, my views on Jimbo don't come into my insistence that badly-sourced personal crap stays out of bios.

OK, so - just so I'm crystal clear - as soon as this appears in a publication you endorse, its good-to-go for WP publication from your point of view?

Could you provide some examples of publications you'd find acceptable for this? Maybe someone will get to work waving the story under their noses.

Hey, how about http://mashable.com ?? Still too "tabloid" for wp?

[Derktar]

Hey, how about http://mashable.com ?? Still too "tabloid" for wp?

Oooohh, Here's the direct link for future reference: http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/ebay-wales-auction/

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Hey, how about http://mashable.com ?? Still too "tabloid" for wp?

Oooohh, Here's the direct link for future reference: http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/ebay-wales-auction/

Ah, I hadn't seen that one yet - I was thinking more http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/wikipedia-gossip

[dogbiscuit]

Hey, how about http://mashable.com ?? Still too "tabloid" for wp?

Oooohh, Here's the direct link for future reference: http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/ebay-wales-auction/

Ah, I hadn't seen that one yet - I was thinking more http://mashable.com/2008/03/02/wikipedia-gossip

How's this for serendipity: see the link on the last article Wikipedia Bans Overstock.com - the link is "via Gary Weiss"

Overstock, the secondary market retail website, has been blocked by Wikipedia.

Due to the spammy nature of Overstock on the user-generated encyclopedia, the company’s IP range has been blocked, meaning edits and entries can no longer be made to Wikipedia from this range of IP addresses. Also noted as undesirable behavior from the folks at Overstock are attempts to intimidate administrators that have tried to curb their spam. A Wikipedia individual initiated the block, and has left a message for all other users encouraging them to keep the block against Overstock.

With Wikipedia’s revised edit-management system still being tested and tweaked, more sites such as Wikiscanner and Wikirage will come in handy for the self-regulation of Wikipedia.

[via gary weiss]

All roads lead to Weiss?

[Kato]

All roads lead to Weiss?

http://mashable.com/2007/09/04/wikipedia-overstock/

Wow. That's amazing! And it shows what is at stake now, and how corrupt Wikipedia has become, when articles written by Weiss who has knowingly cheated the WP community still appear in links from other articles.

[One]

All roads lead to Weiss?

http://mashable.com/2007/09/04/wikipedia-overstock/

Wow. That's amazing! And it shows what is at stake now, and how corrupt Wikipedia has become, when articles written by Weiss who has knowingly cheated the WP community still appear in links from other articles.

The comment section on Weiss' related blog post is enlightening. Seems that David Gerard was championing a promiscuous ban on all thing Overstock on the eve of his absurd bans on an ISP and Piperdown using some version of the duck test. "Bagley spoor shows itself pretty obviously by style."

[Derktar]

All roads lead to Weiss?

http://mashable.com/2007/09/04/wikipedia-overstock/

Wow. That's amazing! And it shows what is at stake now, and how corrupt Wikipedia has become, when articles written by Weiss who has knowingly cheated the WP community still appear in links from other articles.

The comment section on Weiss' related blog post is enlightening. Seems that David Gerard was championing a promiscuous ban on all thing Overstock on the eve of his absurd bans on an ISP and Piperdown using some version of the duck test. "Bagley spoor shows itself pretty obviously by style."

Clearly an uninvolved admin.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

For the record (and I think my record is reasonable here) I wish to resist all tabloid tittle-tattle, gossip and innuendo on biographies, particularly concerning private information. I don't want to stop and think about whether I like the subject or not. I've defended the rights of subjects as diverse as Daniel Brandt, and Chip Bartlet. I've enforced BLP on the bios of neo-nazis, pedophiles and communists. So, my views on Jimbo don't come into my insistence that badly-sourced personal crap stays out of bios.

OK, so - just so I'm crystal clear - as soon as this appears in a publication you endorse, its good-to-go for WP publication from your point of view?

Could you provide some examples of publications you'd find acceptable for this? Maybe someone will get to work waving the story under their noses.

Hey, how about http://mashable.com ?? Still too "tabloid" for wp?

Hey, "Doc", how about http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...mtqlBZlhukSa21w ? Will you support that one as a source?

[Kato]

As for Jimbo, he was once photographed with Ann Coulter, and Marsden is supposedly the Ann Coulter of Canada, right? Only without the book deals? Maybe Jimbo is a sucker for right-wing extremist "eye-candy." Though Coulter's getting a little pigeon-toed these days, and Marsden is much younger... Maybe this could be the start of a beautiful relationship!

Somey, you were wrong back in 2006. It was the start of a hideous relationship that Wales will never live down. No Nostradamus points for you.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

For the record (and I think my record is reasonable here) I wish to resist all tabloid tittle-tattle, gossip and innuendo on biographies, particularly concerning private information. I don't want to stop and think about whether I like the subject or not. I've defended the rights of subjects as diverse as Daniel Brandt, and Chip Bartlet. I've enforced BLP on the bios of neo-nazis, pedophiles and communists. So, my views on Jimbo don't come into my insistence that badly-sourced personal crap stays out of bios.

OK, so - just so I'm crystal clear - as soon as this appears in a publication you endorse, its good-to-go for WP publication from your point of view?

Could you provide some examples of publications you'd find acceptable for this? Maybe someone will get to work waving the story under their noses.

Hey, how about http://mashable.com ?? Still too "tabloid" for wp?

Hey, "Doc", how about http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...mtqlBZlhukSa21w ? Will you support that one as a source?

OK, "Doc", now we have this one too.

And this one.

And this, this, and this,

Are we up to three "really"'s yet?

Or is "reliable" just a fig leaf here?

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

For the record (and I think my record is reasonable here) I wish to resist all tabloid tittle-tattle, gossip and innuendo on biographies, particularly concerning private information. I don't want to stop and think about whether I like the subject or not. I've defended the rights of subjects as diverse as Daniel Brandt, and Chip Bartlet. I've enforced BLP on the bios of neo-nazis, pedophiles and communists. So, my views on Jimbo don't come into my insistence that badly-sourced personal crap stays out of bios.

OK, so - just so I'm crystal clear - as soon as this appears in a publication you endorse, its good-to-go for WP publication from your point of view?

Could you provide some examples of publications you'd find acceptable for this? Maybe someone will get to work waving the story under their noses.

Hey, how about http://mashable.com ?? Still too "tabloid" for wp?

Hey, "Doc", how about http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...mtqlBZlhukSa21w ? Will you support that one as a source?

OK, "Doc", now we have this one too.

And this one.

And this, this, and this,

Are we up to three "really"'s yet?

Or is "reliable" just a fig leaf here?

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3475722.ece

"Doc"? Are you there, "Doc"?

[thekohser]

"Doc"? Are you there, "Doc"?

Of course Doc is gone now. He is behaving exactly according to plan -- see my post about it on the Wikback Graveyard of Disappointed Admins:

This is my favorite time to watch Wikipediots. The 48 hours after a scandal erupts, they scurry about -- reverting, blocking, deleting, salting, protecting. Must. Restore. Honor.

Then, it hits the mainstream media, and you just can't hold back the NY Times and ABC News and the Associated Press. And then the next major wave happens -- the "this really is a tempest in a teapot" phase.

Then, they finally come around after a few days and say, "Wow, this really was ghastly. What can we do to make sure it doesn't happen again?"

Then, they argue and bitch at one another for a few months, the media moves on, nothing substantive is remedied within Wikipedia, and the Wikipediots "reset" to "we're so proud of our project" mode.