Sarah and her love for the Lizard People Fighter Options

[EricBarbour]

Kato already pointed it out previously, but I can't help commenting further:

If you ever need proof of SV's insanity, you need look no further than her endless
messing with the David Icke article. See for yourself.

According to Wikichecker, she has edited it 691 times....... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Probably she was first attracted to it by the (misinformed) idea that Icke's reptile
aliens were a coded form of saying "Jew". Even though Icke himself has disclaimed
any such belief, SV keeps hacking away at his BLP, in an apparently endless campaign
to make Icke look like a nut. (Which is actually a good thing, if you think Icke is a nut,
because most of the other editors of the Icke article, such as Sir Richardson (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
have spent the last few years trying to make Icke look like a hero. So, endless editwar!)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Does PETA have a position on lizards?

[everyking]

Kato already pointed it out previously, but I can't help commenting further:

If you ever need proof of SV's insanity, you need look no further than her endless
messing with the David Icke article. See for yourself.

According to Wikichecker, she has edited it 691 times....... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Probably she was first attracted to it by the (misinformed) idea that Icke's reptile
aliens were a coded form of saying "Jew". Even though Icke himself has disclaimed
any such belief, SV keeps hacking away at his BLP, in an apparently endless campaign
to make Icke look like a nut. (Which is actually a good thing, if you think Icke is a nut,
because most of the other editors of the Icke article, such as Sir Richardson (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
have spent the last few years trying to make Icke look like a hero. So, endless editwar!)

I can't see the problem and I certainly don't think it's insane to edit the article on David Icke. (Well, maybe so if you were pushing a pro-Icke POV.) Icke has attracted a good deal of attention, and there's been quite a lot of concern about the possibly anti-Semitic nature of his views, so why shouldn't that be represented on WP?

Personally, I'm not convinced that it's coded anti-Semitism, although it might have been created with anti-Semitism as a mental framework--the ideas have been disseminated in society to such a degree that one could unconsciously form ideas that are ultimately based on it (and people could be more receptive to the ideas because of residual anti-Semitic theory, lurking consciously or unconsciously in their minds). It seems to me that anti-lizardism is a good deal crazier than anti-Semitism, and also far less dangerous. Hell, maybe Icke actually undermines anti-Semitism by promoting an alternative interpretation of the Protocols that is so outlandishly crazy that anti-Semitism itself suffers through association.

Does PETA have a position on lizards?

I presume so. But these are lizard people--so I don't think they count. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Cla68]

Kato already pointed it out previously, but I can't help commenting further:

If you ever need proof of SV's insanity, you need look no further than her endless
messing with the David Icke article. See for yourself.

According to Wikichecker, she has edited it 691 times....... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Probably she was first attracted to it by the (misinformed) idea that Icke's reptile
aliens were a coded form of saying "Jew". Even though Icke himself has disclaimed
any such belief, SV keeps hacking away at his BLP, in an apparently endless campaign
to make Icke look like a nut. (Which is actually a good thing, if you think Icke is a nut,
because most of the other editors of the Icke article, such as Sir Richardson (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
have spent the last few years trying to make Icke look like a hero. So, endless editwar!)

Similar to the Lyndon LaRouche article, the Icke article reads like a journalist's expose', but it's not too bad. I checked the history and was surprised not to see Will BeBack's participation, since he also appears to like to edit the BLPs of demagogues, such as LaRouche or Rawat.

[Somey]

It seems to me that anti-lizardism is a good deal crazier than anti-Semitism, and also far less dangerous. Hell, maybe Icke actually undermines anti-Semitism by promoting an alternative interpretation of the Protocols that is so outlandishly crazy that anti-Semitism itself suffers through association.

You're (somewhat surprisingly) close to the mark here, EK. In effect, this sort of obsessing over labeling nutty conspiracy theorists as "anti-semitic" when they're really just "nutty" only helps to promote their ideas (and publications) among anti-semites. Anti-semites who are taken in by these publications, etc., are all nuts to begin with (otherwise they wouldn't be anti-semites), but then when they see how Wikipedia is being manipulated in this fashion, with all the misleading edit summaries and "3RR" blocks and what-not, they only become more convinced that Icke is actually "on to something." And of course, a few of these people also have money.

Obviously some will disagree, but IMO the best way to deal with people like David Icke is to give them as little ink and attention as possible. It's unfortunate, but I suppose Wikipedia(ns), as usual, merely reflect the prevailing culture in general here by having such a needlessly lengthy and detailed article on him.

Specifically, the article itself seems a little overdependent on one particular source, a PDF/paper called The Reptoid Hypothesis by Richard Kahn and Tyson Lewis. Slimmy will presumably argue that this is because the PDF is available online for free, and most of Icke's books are not - but it does avoid the problem of having to source Icke's claims to Icke's own work, which might lead people to read more of it. Long story short, I suspect Slimmy is well aware of the problem she's causing, but as always, is unwilling to solve it the way it should be solved (by trimming the article and reducing the overemphasis/overdependence), preferring to simply get as many digs in on Icke as possible. Sure, it's just one article, but the article (and the "encyclopedia") essentially suffers so that more words and phrases can be brought in to share the WP Google-juice on Icke's name.

[gomi]

This article is another example of Wikipedia's utter lack of scholarship. In general, the nuttier and less well regarded someone is, the shorter their biographical sketch, not longer. This article commits the sin of inadvertently glorifying its subject through the sheer length of the article. Separately, ans equally common on Wikipedia, is the crime of calling someone an "Anti-Semite" in the negative (its first use is in the lead, as "[Icke] strongly denies he is an Anti-Semite"). This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" style of argument completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

However, the guy is clearly a nutter, so I have a hard time getting worked up over it. It seems to keep Slimmy out of the bars and off the streetcorners at night, so on balance it might be a good thing.

[everyking]

This article is another example of Wikipedia's utter lack of scholarship. In general, the nuttier and less well regarded someone is, the shorter their biographical sketch, not longer. This article commits the sin of inadvertently glorifying its subject through the sheer length of the article.

It would only appear that way if you were locked into the concept of paper encyclopedias that assign valuable space based on the importance of the subject. Wikipedia's coverage of a subject should be just as extensive as its treatment in reliable sources will permit, without regard for its notability relative to some other subject.

[Somey]

Wikipedia's coverage of a subject should be just as extensive as its treatment in reliable sources will permit, without regard for its notability relative to some other subject.

You're missing the point, EK - Gomi is talking about lack of scholarship. Reliable sources don't "permit" anything - you either emphasize some subjects over others by article length, number of illustrations, etc., or you don't. Obviously on Wikipedia you do, but all that does is make WP articles a collection of "fact dumps."

The point of exercising editorial restraint is that it allows you to be taken more seriously as a scholarly work, because it shows that you're capable of making sound editorial decisions, as opposed to building a collection of fact (or in many cases, non-fact) dumps. If you simply don't care about scholarship, or being taken seriously as such, then you do what Wikipedia does.

[everyking]

You're missing the point, EK - Gomi is talking about lack of scholarship. Reliable sources don't "permit" anything - you either emphasize some subjects over others by article length, number of illustrations, etc., or you don't. Obviously on Wikipedia you do, but all that does is make WP articles a collection of "fact dumps."

The point of exercising editorial restraint is that it allows you to be taken more seriously as a scholarly work, because it shows that you're capable of making sound editorial decisions, as opposed to building a collection of fact (or in many cases, non-fact) dumps. If you simply don't care about scholarship, or being taken seriously as such, then you do what Wikipedia does.

In fact such an editorial decision would have no purpose in the context of a paperless encyclopedia--it would eliminate useful content for no benefit. This is just "but we've always done it that way" thinking. Whether or not something is a "fact dump" depends on the way the information is structured and presented, not on the amount of information provided.

[Somey]

In fact such an editorial decision would have no purpose in the context of a paperless encyclopedia--it would eliminate useful content for no benefit. This is just "but we've always done it that way" thinking. Whether or not something is a "fact dump" depends on the way the information is structured and presented, not on the amount of information provided.

Just when I think you're starting to get it, you post things like this... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

What you're talking about is a compendium. It's the sort of thing you see on the walls of the serial killer's attic in slasher movies, the "shrine" where he's been collecting all the photos and news clippings about himself and his victims and scrawling things all over them, until finally the intrepid teenage girl snoops around and finds the shrine and is caught by the serial killer and is forced to flee for her life, only to realize too late that the killer is... herself! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Editorial restraint is what keeps the reader from thinking you're insane, obsessed, and/or hell-bent on revenge. Editorial restraint is the thing that encourages readers to dig deeper and apply their own critical thinking abilities to form their own ideas and opinions. Editorial restraint is what prevents people, organizations, and entire ideologies from being trivialized on the one hand, and needlessly glorified on the other. A real Editor, with a capital "E," knows what to leave out as well as what to keep in.

I understand that there are no space considerations on Wikipedia, EK - unless of course you're considering the reader's attention span or ability to absorb facts in the proper context and with appropriate emphasis, which as a Wikipedian you presumably do not. The fact remains that many articles about whack-jobs and their work(s) are far lengthier, and far more detailed, than articles about people with far greater and more socially-valuable accomplishments, and this article about David Icke is just one (though classic) example. You can "structure" and "present" the information any way you like - if you don't apply editorial restraint, you have a fact dump, a shrine, and that's going to favor the whack-jobs, because more people obsess over them, and to a far greater extent.

[dogbiscuit]

The whole problem is that David Icke has been known to be mad as a box of frogs, and to suggest that his pronouncements are worthy of serious attention is, well, mad as a box of frogs.

That Wikipedian editors, seek, through some distorted sense of editorial balance, give due weight to any of his pronouncements, such as the anti-Semitism non-controversy stinks.

Publishing such an article, documenting his insanity for all to see while treating it as rational argument is a cruel and unusual punishment. Wikipedia should be ashamed, but instead you have twits who seem proud of its content.

[Jon Awbrey]

The whole problem is that David Icke has been known to be mad as a box of frogs, and to suggest that his pronouncements are worthy of serious attention is, well, mad as a box of frogs.

That Wikipedian editors, seek, through some distorted sense of editorial balance, give due weight to any of his pronouncements, such as the anti-Semitism non-controversy stinks.

Publishing such an article, documenting his insanity for all to see while treating it as rational argument is a cruel and unusual punishment. Wikipedia should be ashamed, but instead you have twits who seem proud of its content.

I haven't followed this whole thread, but the sample of comments I've read all seem to miss the underlying dynamics. A given class of loonies — like Slim and her Gang — needs to fixate on other classes of loonies, namely, those they can somehow manage to convince themselves they're at least less loony than.

Of course, that may explain why a lot of us are here …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Gruntled]

Kato already pointed it out previously, but I can't help commenting further:

If you ever need proof of SV's insanity, you need look no further than her endless
messing with the David Icke article. See for yourself.

According to Wikichecker, she has edited it 691 times....... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Probably she was first attracted to it by the (misinformed) idea that Icke's reptile
aliens were a coded form of saying "Jew". Even though Icke himself has disclaimed
any such belief, SV keeps hacking away at his BLP, in an apparently endless campaign
to make Icke look like a nut. (Which is actually a good thing, if you think Icke is a nut,
because most of the other editors of the Icke article, such as Sir Richardson (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
have spent the last few years trying to make Icke look like a hero. So, endless editwar!)

Is SV's first name Sarah? I've heard another name. Or is it a codeword?

[dogbiscuit]

Kato already pointed it out previously, but I can't help commenting further:

If you ever need proof of SV's insanity, you need look no further than her endless
messing with the David Icke article. See for yourself.

According to Wikichecker, she has edited it 691 times....... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Probably she was first attracted to it by the (misinformed) idea that Icke's reptile
aliens were a coded form of saying "Jew". Even though Icke himself has disclaimed
any such belief, SV keeps hacking away at his BLP, in an apparently endless campaign
to make Icke look like a nut. (Which is actually a good thing, if you think Icke is a nut,
because most of the other editors of the Icke article, such as Sir Richardson (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
have spent the last few years trying to make Icke look like a hero. So, endless editwar!)

Is SV's first name Sarah? I've heard another name. Or is it a codeword?

It is the name she signs herself by on the mailing lists. There is no reason to suppose it is any more her name than Slimfast.

I haven't followed this whole thread, but the sample of comments I've read all seem to miss the underlying dynamics. A given class of loonies — like Slim and her Gang — needs to fixate on other classes of loonies, namely, those they can somehow manage to convince themselves they're at least less loony than.

Of course, that may explain why a lot of us are here …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I'll buy that for a dollar. B`

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Is SV's first name Sarah? I've heard another name. Or is it a codeword?

It is the name she signs herself by on the mailing lists. There is no reason to suppose it is any more her name than Slimfast.

For a useful summary of what is known about this issue, see Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

SlimVirgin, Jimbo and the Anti-Defamation League are all *definitely* material for morphing lizard conspiracy theory. It, the lizard self within her, is probably just acting on deeply intuitive and uncontrollable instinct to conspire against Icke, in order to discredit him as an anti-semite, in order stop him exposing them ... and the entire reptilian nest on the Pee-dia.

There is even a citation in one of Ickes books to back them up, so it must be true ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif).

[gomi]

You're missing the point, EK - Gomi is talking about lack of scholarship. Reliable sources don't "permit" anything - you either emphasize some subjects over others by article length, number of illustrations, etc., or you don't. Obviously on Wikipedia you do, but all that does is make WP articles a collection of "fact dumps."

The point of exercising editorial restraint is that it allows you to be taken more seriously as a scholarly work, because it shows that you're capable of making sound editorial decisions, as opposed to building a collection of fact (or in many cases, non-fact) dumps. If you simply don't care about scholarship, or being taken seriously as such, then you do what Wikipedia does.

In fact such an editorial decision would have no purpose in the context of a paperless encyclopedia--it would eliminate useful content for no benefit. This is just "but we've always done it that way" thinking. Whether or not something is a "fact dump" depends on the way the information is structured and presented, not on the amount of information provided.

T.S. Eliot notably wondered "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

Your uncritical mind has fixated on the opinion that centuries of scholarly process can (and should) be swept away by technology. Yet the technology is only a tool, it doesn't really change the underlying processes of analysing, synthesizing, and understanding. When I want to be understood, I write clearly, briefly (not my strong suit), and simply, emphasizing key themes and leaving the details aside. When writing (e.g.) a legal contract where I want to hide a particularly onerous clause, the best place to do so is buried in several paragraphs of boilerplate, and worded either so confusingly or so innocuously that the other side never really sees it.

So it is with Wikipedia, whether as a deliberate strategy or as a side-effect of the presence of under-intelligent and under-educated goons such as yourself. When a topic is shown to be complex, controversial, or otherwise difficult, the best scholarly approach is to simplify, simplify, simplify. After all, there are all of those references and citations to look into if someone wants details and complexity. But Wikipedia goes the other direction, clouding these topics with layer upon layer of weasel-wording, superfluous detail, innuendo, and inappropriate emphasis.

Wikipedia is like a precocious grade-school child's book report on Shakespeare: full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

[Milton Roe]

So it is with Wikipedia, whether as a deliberate strategy or as a side-effect of the presence of under-intelligent and under-educated goons such as yourself. When a topic is shown to be complex, controversial, or otherwise difficult, the best scholarly approach is to simplify, simplify, simplify.

Or, simplify. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Your TS Elliot quote was exactly what I was looking for. The Thoreau quote has always been deliciously self-mocking (at least to me).

Of course, I agree with the rest of what you said. Right on.

[Heat]

Kato already pointed it out previously, but I can't help commenting further:

If you ever need proof of SV's insanity, you need look no further than her endless
messing with the David Icke article. See for yourself.

According to Wikichecker, she has edited it 691 times....... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Probably she was first attracted to it by the (misinformed) idea that Icke's reptile
aliens were a coded form of saying "Jew". Even though Icke himself has disclaimed
any such belief, SV keeps hacking away at his BLP, in an apparently endless campaign
to make Icke look like a nut. (Which is actually a good thing, if you think Icke is a nut,
because most of the other editors of the Icke article, such as Sir Richardson (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
have spent the last few years trying to make Icke look like a hero. So, endless editwar!)

Yes, well I suppose if Icke has disclaimed something it couldn't possibly be true. I mean if someone says they aren't antisemitic they couldn't possibly either by lying or deluding themselves?

I'm sorry but the guy's barking mad and an anti-Semite.

[dogbiscuit]

As a prime example of WikiTwitterdom, I present the following quote:

Yes, well I suppose if Icke has disclaimed something it couldn't possibly be true. I mean if someone says they aren't antisemitic they couldn't possibly either by lying or deluding themselves?

I'm sorry but the guy's barking mad and an anti-Semite.

Another twit demonstrating the Catch-22 of the Wikipedian honey trap. Oddly enough, even Tony Blair has come to pronounce the nature of the modern world - nothing can have a rational and reasonable explanation any more, everything is a conspiracy, people are not allowed to hold other viewpoints - agree to disagree - there has to be something nefarious behind it.

I do believe that he is mentally ill. It therefore follows that any such pronouncements he makes can hold no legitimate value in terms of evaluating what his beliefs are. This rather undermines the whole premise of having an article that seeks to set out in all seriousness, the lworks and beliefs of David Icke.

I've never understood what caused David Icke to go from being a lively and interesting sports reporter, a minor celeb in the UK, to being an international nutter of the first order. All I know is that it is rather sad, and unfortunately the media eats such people up and spits them out.

I cordially invite Heat into my exclusive club of certified WikiTwits, an award previously only accorded to Everyking.