JzG, Simon Wessely, and claims of 'harassment' Options

[Angela Kennedy]

Hello everyone,

With regard to JzG:

I advocate for my daughter, first diagnosed with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, later Lyme disease, who is severely disabled by her illness. I also undertake academic criticism, of the claims made by some psychiatrists about these illnesses being ’psychosomatic’ and advocate for the ME/CFS community itself. Therefore, I do have a real world reputation that might be brought into disrepute by libellous, defamatory comments.

JZG made a number of defamatory (and libellous) claims about me (and implied others) on the admin notice board in September 2007 and elsewhere in time and place on Wikipedia, the circumstances of which are outlined here:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APK-PAPERS/message/19

Large sections of the Simon Wessely talk page had already been removed by Jim Wales himself in 2006, after I and my erstwhile colleague formally wrote to him demanding he remove comments, made by JzG and another admin, JFW, which were highly inflammatory towards us. He removed some of them (though I kept copies of what was said), but the two admins continued making similar comments over the course of about a year and a half on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=165865721

As is probably evident from these links, my problems with the conduct of JzG, and indeed Jimbo Wales, are these:

1. JzG's misrepresentation of me and my work in the open discussions to other admins, in particular defamatory and libellous claims he has made about me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...of_userspace.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...scalate_this.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0#Simon_Wessely

Of particular worry are the claims that I ‘have a visceral hatred for Simon Wessely’, the misrepresentation of the work I am doing in the real world, the claim that “You need to draw a distinction between what Angela Kennedy says, and what might be regarded as truth by anybody with both feet on the ground”, and, most libellous of all, his claim that ‘these individuals’ [meaning me and unnamed others] have harassed Wessely in real life: all of which have potentially highly damaging effects on my real world reputation.

2. JzG's (uninformed) conclusions on his website, and on the talk pages, that CFS is psychosomatic, Wessely’s work is correct, and that objections to Wessely’s claims are extreme, ideological etc. therefore making him a biased party in a dispute which he escalated (see the end paragraph of this link for his position):

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Wesselygate

3. The placement of a "banned user" tag on my user page, which contravenes decency and privacy . The arbitrary wikipedia ‘justice’ is being used to tar people at the top of a google search. I was permanently banned by Wales himself.

4. Possible off-wiki engagement between JzG and the subject of the page, Simon Wessely, in such a way as to suggest a possible collusion, particularly around false claims that I have ‘personally harassed’ Simon Wessely (as per his comments here):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0#Simon_Wessely

(But also see here):

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/index.ph...changes&days=14

I have written to Simon Wessely’s line managers about this issue. So far they have been most uncooperative. The correspondence can be seen here:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APK-PAPERS/message/17

But the whole issue needs further investigation.


5. Off-wiki engagement with Jim Wales with prejudicial effects on me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...scalate_this.3F


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...of_userspace.3F


I appreciate this is a complex issue. I am willing to provide further evidence and answer questions on this issue where possible and appropriate.

Angela

[Kato]

I don't understand how it is acceptable on the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" that someone can be blocked without breaking any "rules", for merely having a point of view that though mainstream and well documented, differed from JzG's.

And for the editor to then be mischaracterized as a "crank" and have their real name smeared by the sins of other people, after back room dealings between JzG, Jimbo Wales and a controversial government appointed figure.

And Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with that?

[Milton Roe]

I don't understand how it is acceptable on the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" that someone can be blocked without breaking any "rules", for merely having a point of view that though mainstream and well documented, differed from JzG's.

And for the editor to then be mischaracterized as a "crank" and have their real name smeared by the sins of other people, after back room dealings between JzG, Jimbo Wales and a controversial government appointed figure.

And Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with that?

More than that-- as you see, Jimbo banned Angela Kennedy and One Click and people belonging to One Click, forever-and-ever from posting anything at all to Wikipedia. Refusing to give a reason, except that he had the power to do it, and had decided to do it. And forget the topic of CFIDS or whatever it is, that started this POV war. That's sort of irrelevant. What's relevant is the problem of epistemology which Kennedy had the temerity to lecture Jimbo on, and (even worse) to be right about. There's some really good stuff at:

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/document...n%20Wessely.doc

Here's a quote from this link, in a letter Kennedy wrote to Jimbo 17 Nov 2005, before she was given the boot. See if you notice any themes here, which keep cropping up at WR in other contexts:

Dear Mr Wales,

Your email of 16th November 2005, in response to our valid concerns about your and others' conduct in recent days, exhibits breathtaking arrogance. The examples below, or your quotes within this latest email, betray the frankly woeful lack of knowledge you have about issues of neutrality and objectivity. You clearly use these terms as buzz words and appear to have no idea about how pure `neutrality' and `objectivity' are nearly almost impossible to achieve. With this in mind, most people dealing with this issue, for example, social science researchers, attempt to mitigate the problem by understanding that all knowledge is `situated' knowledge, and that all judgements come from a particular standpoint. This means that it is understood that no one can claim to be 100% "neutral" or "objective", and that there are always power struggles involved when someone claims to be `objective` (especially whilst engaging in partisan behaviour).

While One Click contributors DO understand the issue of situated knowledge and the problems around claims to objectivity and neutrality, and freely acknowledge an inevitable and legitimate `partisanship' on the political issues the group tackles, you have found yourself in a quandary, precisely because you appear to still be attempting to cling on to an untenable claim of objectivity, despite intervening on Simon Wessely's behalf, at his behest, approving of Wessely's `incensed' stance, and doing your best to attack the motives, integrity and knowledge of contributors to One Click. This is clearly partisan behaviour and cannot be defended as otherwise. You really cannot claim `neutrality' when you attack one side in a debate, as you clearly have.

However, you do not seem to let these things bother you. You have the audacity to accuse One Click contributors of having "behavioural problems" and of "libel" and of `lying`, neither of which you are correct about (and which themselves are defamatory comments, as have other comments you have made about One Click contributors in the past few days). You also are clearly, from your own comments in recent days and in your latest email, endeavouring to denigrate One Click and our part in ME/CFS politics and knowledge production.

Whatever your protest, you do appear to be exercising censorship in this issue, and it does appear invidious and insidious.

The letter goes on to give specifics about Jimbo's lack of NPOV. Which are precious. Because Jimbo genuinely seems to think that whatever POV he has at the moment, is an NPOV. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) We've all been laughing about that for a long time at WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Angela Kennedy]

What's relevant is the problem of epistemology which Kennedy had the temerity to lecture Jimbo on, and (even worse) to be right about...

The letter goes on to give specifics about Jimbo's lack of NPOV. Which are precious. Because Jimbo genuinely seems to think that whatever POV he has at the moment, is an NPOV. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) We've all been laughing about that for a long time at WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Hi Milton,

Oh dear- the schoolmarmish thing- yes i don't know what it is about me, but I do feel this need to lecture Jimbo Wales it seems. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This is my last email to him after he told me to 'go in peace':

"Thank you for your undertaking to remove offending material about me. I am
very much hoping that I will not be needing to contact you again and the
problem will peter out.

The comments you made in your last email to me I think do require some final
clarification from me:

I did not join Wikipedia for the 'privilege' of producing knowledge about
the world by editing under your direction. I made it explicitly clear (on my
user page) that I joined, only to try and ensure that the ME/CFS and Lyme
communities and those people supporting them such as myself, were not
misrepresented on Wikipedia: because this is a common phenomenon in many
domains of discourse/knowledge production, which has had and continues to
have enormously adverse effects on those members of those communities. I
also joined specifically because an intention to publicise material
misrepresenting those communities was expressed by an Admin and others on
the Simon Wessely talk page.

I also undertook not to edit as I have known Conflicts of Interest.

I was never interested in becoming a 'Wikipedian' as such. To me, it is only
yet another public domain of knowledge production, in which the community I
advocate for, along with many others, was being misrepresented, and which
required this problem to be highlighted. You will find as you continue with
this project that there are likely to be many more people like me who engage
with Wikipedia: people for whom actually editing on Wikipedia is not a
raison d'etre, but who are nevertheless concerned about what knowledge
Wikipedia is producing, and its potential or actual adverse impact on real
world inhabitants.

Wikipedia, as a phenomenon or domain of knowledge production, does not take
place in a political or cultural vacuum. Wikipedia, like other phenomena,
will always find itself open to critical analysis and evaluation, from many
quarters. As it grows exponentially, that critical engagement by others will
do so as well. I feel that you need to- quite frankly - get used to this
idea. It is an inevitable part of engaging in public discourses, especially
one that apparently has such totalising ambition (claiming to be aiming to
produce the 'sum of all knowledge', for example).

I feel sure that even your apparent 'objectivist' position will acknowledge
that claims to knowledge inevitably involve claims to power. Even if you do
not- others will. You are likely to have your worldview challenged more and
more as Wikipedia is promoted more and more, by yourself and others. My
unsolicited advice to you- as the head of an organisation that is making
claims to knowledge at such a grand scale- is to ensure that you become more
aware of the issues around knowledge production and power relations, and
that when you encounter people, such as myself, who challenge your worldview
in various ways, it may not always be possible to dismiss them or their
concerns by excommunication- especially those of us who were never
'believers' in the first place.

Yours sincerely"

Mind you- he probably gets this sort of thing quite a lot (lecturing from disgruntled 'editors').

One of my areas of academic interest, before the Wikipedia experience and even before my daughter got ill, has been claims to power in 'knowledge' production and privileging of certain 'knowledge' over others. But, even as a 'social scientist' I'm not a relativist or 'strong programme' type: I do tend to appeal to principles of logic, scientific rigour etc. This had meant that, once I recovered from the aaaaagh! factor of certain MO's on WP (well- not quite recovered (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) ) I have found Wikipedia a fertile ground for sociological analysis. judging from others comments on WR- I'm not alone in that.

[thekohser]

This is my last email to him <Jimbo Wales> after he told me to 'go in peace':

"Thank you for your undertaking to remove offending material about me. I am
very much hoping that I will not be needing to contact you again and the
problem will peter out.

The comments you made in your last email to me I think do require some final
clarification...

<omitting the parts that Jimbo didn't read>

...especially those of us who were never
'believers' in the first place.

Yours sincerely"

Angela, Wikipedia doesn't deserve the services of someone with your intellect and thoughtfulness.

Word of advice (not that you'll ever have the need to use it again) that I actually picked up from Kelly Martin:

Jimbo can't be bothered with reading more than about 4 or 5 sentences of text in any e-mail. Anything in highly descriptive, advanced phrasing will also be mostly lost on him.

The challenge then becomes, how to get your point across in 4 or 5 sentences, using 7th-grade language, without sounding threatening or acting in bad faith. Using one of the 5 sentences to praise Jimbo about something is also helpful to your message getting through.

It sounds like I'm telling a story through parody, but I am actually speaking what I believe to be the absolute truth.

Greg