Grace Sherwood, Today's FA, plagiarized by Rlevse Options

[thekohser]

And wouldn't you know it, the citizen press has picked up on this story already!

[Milton Roe]

And wouldn't you know it, the citizen press has picked up on this story already!

Wonder if this will picked up by reliable source newpapers.

It won't be long before Mr. Randy Lee Everette can have his own 15 minutes of fame and rectal exam, followed by an honorary WP BLP, properly sourced, to record the scandal and everything. His kids can then read about it. His wife can read about it. His church clubs can read about it.

Isn't Wikipedia cool? Binding us all together in a social network of reliable, verifiable information.

[powercorrupts]

The majority of the articles are formatted in a way that makes them easy to synthesise, plagiarise, generally miscreate, or taint with deliberately false detail: and crucially the results will all look the same. There is nothing in place to stop any newly-created article filling up with nonsense, and thus every Wikipedia article does to some degree. Wikipedia articles are basically structurally unsafe.

The thing to do is to write them (or re-format them) as traditional essays, where essential factors like weight are built into form and syntax, and they cannot look credible without credible work put into them. Such entries can be written collaboratively in a far less fractious way than the current 'articles' have been, but the Big Problem for Wikimedia would be that a great many of them will be quite-speedily become effectively realised, or relatively-quickly come to a stage where future changes are minimal.

Wikimedia are more-than-happy with the often-dreadful 'Featured Articles' for two main reasons: primarily because their presence satisfies those lucrative sponsors who buy into the ideal of a world-saving 'encyclopedia of everything', and also because any post-FA edits to them, such as unwanted complication or vandalism, can be far more-easily controlled by various 'protective' admin. But Featured Article status is more a matter of presentation and uniformity - they are not properly assessed for accuracy (all those user-page nitwits who like to polish-one-up for breakfast included), and they are still theoretically intended to develop and improve.

But an effectively finished product though? Next to censorship (or anything that blocks the content flow), truly-encyclopedic entries are Wikimedia's worst nightmare, and they will never willingly allow them to happen. Working 'together' towards a complete encyclopedia? It's a massive centralised lie: Wikipedia is first and foremost a giant battleground in which a clever and complicated corporation can thrive and develop. Every day we see Wikimedia balance damage-limitation using various semi-positive and cynical measures (including plenty of media spin), with deliberately allowing the 'great brood' of editors to shout themselves horse in the various edit/block - ban/sock cycles they inevitably get locked into.

[Doc glasgow]

Ann Clin (also known as "Risker") blocked the IP address so that it couldn't speak up any more about the plagiarism.

Evidence to imputed motive?

This is negative and unfounded summation posing as fact, and is the worst type of hatchet-job journalism.

Risker blocked the IP for "block evansion". By all means say that you disbelieve her, and suspect other motives (you are not forced to assume good faith), if you want to move into the realm of commentary. However, if you are reporting, then stick to the facts. Certainly, you should report the reason Risker gave, even if your (rather biased) conclusion is that you expect other motives.

Poor journalism indeed.

[Theanima]

Poor journalism indeed.

You expected a quality article from Gregory Kohs? Really?

[SB_Johnny]

Ann Clin (also known as "Risker") blocked the IP address so that it couldn't speak up any more about the plagiarism.

Evidence to imputed motive?

This is negative and unfounded summation posing as fact, and is the worst type of hatchet-job journalism.

Risker blocked the IP for "block evansion". By all means say that you disbelieve her, and suspect other motives (you are not forced to assume good faith), if you want to move into the realm of commentary. However, if you are reporting, then stick to the facts. Certainly, you should report the reason Risker gave, even if your (rather biased) conclusion is that you expect other motives.

Poor journalism indeed.

The IP apparently only made that one edit, so even if it was someone evading a block, the only thing they did was point out a (real) problem on a talk page. Sockpuppet of an enemy of the wiki-state or no, they were actually helping to improve the quality of the encyclopedia.

[powercorrupts]

they appear to be semi-officious

They appear to me to be completely and 100% officious on Webster's definition ("volunteering one's services where they are neither asked nor needed: meddlesome"). In fact, a large proportion of what Rlevse has been doing for months, if not years, may be described as officious. That's how you get to be on ArbCom. If you mean semi-official, then yes, anything from an ArbCom member necessarily has a certain aura of officialdom attached to it, even if it isn't intended. (Not that it's unintended in his case.)

I was talking about the Awesome Wikipedian Days he awards people to give various positions he agrees with a lift. Try quoting the first half of the sentence too - it's a good discipline in places like this!

TenOfAllTrades was a constant trolling presence during the already-difficult Community DeAdminship development, and outrageously hijacked its poll at the eventually-hurried RfC with an 'introductory' attack that was somehow projected from his user space, so no one could edit it in any way. TenofAll was clearly chosen to be as threatening as he could be throughout, and he did his job with real froth - though miraculously he got no one blocked. Rlevse awarding him his very own 'Awesome Wikipedian Day' during the poll was basically an act of Caligulan spite towards the many voters who were simply trying to make admin accountable in some way. CDA was a truly unpleasant experience, but Christ what can you say: that's Wikipedia. Always as messy as they can make it.

Good riddance to Rlevse, if he's really gone - it's not the only time he's abused the so-callled 'barnstar' for political purposes. These fucked-up Romans genuinely think they are above the underclass who slave away beneath them. Why shed any tears when they stab each other in their backs?

Awesome Wikipedian Day!

User:ILikeYourStance has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian
and therefore, I've officially declared today as ILikeYourStance Day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear ILikeYourStance!

Peace,
Rlevse

Yet more decadent cybersex from the toga-wearing Admen of Planet Alpha. When will this bizarre race stop pleasuring and preening each other on the encyclopedia that is supposed to be for everyone?

I've got my own Awesome Wikipedian day, but I'm at a loss as to when Rlevse ever had a meaningful interaction, indirect or no.

Respecting your editing history (I haven't looked), the odds are that Rlevse was simply 'into' something you either said or supported at the time - and gave you the cynical award to add extra credibility to it, to help convince passers by. I'm seen him give it to a unashamedly-POV 'SPA' account, who has had a lengthy block for voting with a sock puppet in a nationalist issue, and has never made a single non-comment or non-revert edit. The SPA is a cheery chap who retires and pops back on a regular basis, sometimes changing his account name officially (he's one of those social networking-style editors who like to chat about politics in his friend's user pages), but it was conclusive evidence Rlevse just doesn't check up - he simply goes with the moment.

What is so damaging is that the award naturally appears to reflect actual editor consensus over a history of quality contributions - when at times there is anything but. Some great editors may well have received the award, but reality it's all about Rlevse, the expedience of his POV, and of course his enormous ego in taking charge of such a ridiculously portentous thing in the first place.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Mon 1st November 2010, 9:28pm

[lilburne]

What is it with those stupid banners anyway?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hernancad_nya...l-24333070@N00/

[Peter Damian]

Respecting your editing history (I haven't looked), the odds are that Rlevse was simply 'into' something you either said or supported at the time - and gave you the cynical award to add extra credibility to it, to help convince passers by. I'm seen him give it to a unashamedly-POV 'SPA' account, who has had a lengthy block for voting with a sock puppet in a nationalist issue, and has never made a single non-comment or non-revert edit. The SPA is a cheery chap who retires and pops back on a regular basis, sometimes changing his account name officially (he's one of those social networking-style editors who like to chat about politics in his friend's user pages), but it was conclusive evidence Rlevse just doesn't check up - he simply goes with the moment.

What is so damaging is that the award naturally appears to reflect actual editor consensus over a history of quality contributions - when at times there is anything but. Some great editors may well have received the award, but reality it's all about Rlevse, the expedience of his POV, and of course his enormous ego in taking charge of such a ridiculously portentous thing in the first place.

Yes quite I've never seen the rhyme or reason to it. I mean, just look at some of the names

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlevse/Today/Archive

[wikieyeay]

Ann Clin (also known as "Risker") blocked the IP address so that it couldn't speak up any more about the plagiarism.

Evidence to imputed motive?

This is negative and unfounded summation posing as fact, and is the worst type of hatchet-job journalism.

Risker blocked the IP for "block evansion". By all means say that you disbelieve her, and suspect other motives (you are not forced to assume good faith), if you want to move into the realm of commentary. However, if you are reporting, then stick to the facts. Certainly, you should report the reason Risker gave, even if your (rather biased) conclusion is that you expect other motives.

Poor journalism indeed.

Well it's reasonable to point out that the IP was blocked after just a single, good, edit. Why was risker even looking up the IP?

There's certainly no reason to believe the IP should be blocked, given that the identity of the blocked user hasn't been specified, and there's no evidence of connection with any other users that I can see.

Even if it's true that this IP is a banned user (and I see no reason to believe it is), blocking good contributors for past sins is one of the worst aspects of the Wikipedia MMORPG

[powercorrupts]

Respecting your editing history (I haven't looked), the odds are that Rlevse was simply 'into' something you either said or supported at the time - and gave you the cynical award to add extra credibility to it, to help convince passers by. I'm seen him give it to a unashamedly-POV 'SPA' account, who has had a lengthy block for voting with a sock puppet in a nationalist issue, and has never made a single non-comment or non-revert edit. The SPA is a cheery chap who retires and pops back on a regular basis, sometimes changing his account name officially (he's one of those social networking-style editors who like to chat about politics in his friend's user pages), but it was conclusive evidence Rlevse just doesn't check up - he simply goes with the moment.

What is so damaging is that the award naturally appears to reflect actual editor consensus over a history of quality contributions - when at times there is anything but. Some great editors may well have received the award, but reality it's all about Rlevse, the expedience of his POV, and of course his enormous ego in taking charge of such a ridiculously portentous thing in the first place.

Yes quite I've never seen the rhyme or reason to it. I mean, just look at some of the names

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlevse/Today/Archive

The whole lot should be moved to Oct 31st. A few people keep it pretty quiet, clearly. I wonder which ones would have the ego to complain if someone simply deleted the whole list?

[jayvdb]

And wouldn't you know it, the citizen press has picked up on this story already!

In your article you have said that other content added by Rlevse, in addition to Grace Sherwood, has been found to contain copyvios; are they listed somewhere?

[powercorrupts]

And wouldn't you know it, the citizen press has picked up on this story already!

In your article you have said that other content added by Rlevse, in addition to Grace Sherwood, has been found to contain copyvios; are they listed somewhere?

I notice that it's your Day this weekend. Are you doing anything nice for it?

[CharlotteWebb]

In your article you have said that other content added by Rlevse, in addition to Grace Sherwood, has been found to contain copyvios; are they listed somewhere?

I'd give this a 50% chance of confusion with Roger Davies, Ryan Postlethwaite, or one of the other "R"-people.

[thekohser]

Ann Clin (also known as "Risker") blocked the IP address so that it couldn't speak up any more about the plagiarism.

Evidence to imputed motive?

This is negative and unfounded summation posing as fact, and is the worst type of hatchet-job journalism.

Risker blocked the IP for "block evansion". By all means say that you disbelieve her, and suspect other motives (you are not forced to assume good faith), if you want to move into the realm of commentary. However, if you are reporting, then stick to the facts. Certainly, you should report the reason Risker gave, even if your (rather biased) conclusion is that you expect other motives.

Poor journalism indeed.

Yes, yes, and the SS was merely assisting with relocation of the Jews to areas where they could be more free to flourish in communities of their own. Heck, a reliable source tells us that "German Jews Support Reich".

I have personal experience with "Risker", you nitwit. Therefore, my summation isn't "unfounded" -- it is "expertise".

You're becoming an embarrassment to yourself, Doc. But, go ahead... side with the plagiarists.

[jayvdb]

And wouldn't you know it, the citizen press has picked up on this story already!

In your article you have said that other content added by Rlevse, in addition to Grace Sherwood, has been found to contain copyvios; are they listed somewhere?

I notice that it's your Day this weekend. Are you doing anything nice for it?

I might go on a rampage and delete all the bloody barnstars; that would be nice.

[thekohser]

And wouldn't you know it, the citizen press has picked up on this story already!

In your article you have said that other content added by Rlevse, in addition to Grace Sherwood, has been found to contain copyvios; are they listed somewhere?

That was a mistake on my part, misinterpreting other commentary I had been reading. My statement has been revised to say:

After more analysts weighed in on Everette's content pasting, it became increasingly clear that his was but another example in a series of Arbitration Committee members copying other people's work as their own.

[BelovedFox]

Ann Clin (also known as "Risker") blocked the IP address so that it couldn't speak up any more about the plagiarism.

Evidence to imputed motive?

This is negative and unfounded summation posing as fact, and is the worst type of hatchet-job journalism.

Risker blocked the IP for "block evansion". By all means say that you disbelieve her, and suspect other motives (you are not forced to assume good faith), if you want to move into the realm of commentary. However, if you are reporting, then stick to the facts. Certainly, you should report the reason Risker gave, even if your (rather biased) conclusion is that you expect other motives.

Poor journalism indeed.

Yes, yes, and the SS was merely assisting with relocation of the Jews to areas where they could be more free to flourish in communities of their own. Heck, a reliable source tells us that "German Jews Support Reich".

I have personal experience with "Risker", you nitwit. Therefore, my summation isn't "unfounded" -- it is "expertise".

You're becoming an embarrassment to yourself, Doc. But, go ahead... side with the plagiarists.

Defending proper standards of journalism is hardly siding with plagiarists or siding with the Nazis. Congrats on not even waiting a few posts before lumping people who suggest you aren't telling all sides of a story with genocidal fascists. If calling you out on your constant and tiring self-promotion is being an embarrassment... well, then I'm an embarrassment.

[Doc glasgow]

Ann Clin (also known as "Risker") blocked the IP address so that it couldn't speak up any more about the plagiarism.

Evidence to imputed motive?

This is negative and unfounded summation posing as fact, and is the worst type of hatchet-job journalism.

Risker blocked the IP for "block evansion". By all means say that you disbelieve her, and suspect other motives (you are not forced to assume good faith), if you want to move into the realm of commentary. However, if you are reporting, then stick to the facts. Certainly, you should report the reason Risker gave, even if your (rather biased) conclusion is that you expect other motives.

Poor journalism indeed.

Yes, yes, and the SS was merely assisting with relocation of the Jews to areas where they could be more free to flourish in communities of their own. Heck, a reliable source tells us that "German Jews Support Reich".

I have personal experience with "Risker", you nitwit. Therefore, my summation isn't "unfounded" -- it is "expertise".

You're becoming an embarrassment to yourself, Doc. But, go ahead... side with the plagiarists.

You've rather made my point here. Your "column" isn't attempting to be journalism, its just your personal place to rant, re-interpreting reality to suit your agenda. It's a political attack piece, not journalism. Fair enough, but stop pretending it is something else.

I'm the first to condemn plagiarism, so I'm not sure this attack fits the fact......oh, wait, that doesn't matter, of course.

[powercorrupts]

And wouldn't you know it, the citizen press has picked up on this story already!

In your article you have said that other content added by Rlevse, in addition to Grace Sherwood, has been found to contain copyvios; are they listed somewhere?

That was a mistake on my part, misinterpreting other commentary I had been reading. My statement has been revised to say:

After more analysts weighed in on Everette's content pasting, it became increasingly clear that his was but another example in a series of Arbitration Committee members copying other people's work as their own.

Why don't you and other Examiner contributors get together to edit each others work or something? I know it's not that well paid, but any press ('free' or not) that is self-editing, will eventually end up screwing up to a point were it either gets into serious trouble, or simply fails to maintain credibility, and consequently struggles to stay afloat. Everyone knows the pitfalls that come with editing yourself - it's why papers have large editing teams.

What annoys me off about The Examiner (you could pass this on to them) is that it is one of those "nation-wide" websites that is clearly US-only, but gives no direct indication of this. It just gives the impression that Americans think the entire internet is American, and it annoys Brits like me all the time (although casually annoying Brit's is national pastime in the US, I do realise that). I'm not asking for it to be dotted with flags (it's mercifully free of that) - just provide the words 'USA' or 'America' somewhere on the homepage (or to actually be se-friendly, on each page). It can't be that hard.