The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Kinsella rebuts Berlet, two Notable Wikipedians square off
nobs
post Fri 16th February 2007, 3:19am
Post #1


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
This is a blatant attempt to stage a confrontation to allow the complainant and allies to hijack a page and sanitize any serious criticism of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI). [Cberlet]
QUOTE
No, criticism is normal and acceptable. But you don't "balance" a criticism with one from David Duke, duhh! Stephan Kinsella 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
QUOTE
User:Cberlet on the other hand has linked to materials that he personally authored for and published with the Southern Poverty Law Center [44][45] and furthermore he did not disclose at the time of the addition that the source he cited was his own. [Rangerdude]
QUOTE
Adding an entry in [Kinsella's] blog so that [Kinsella] can come here and cite it is not the way to write an encyclopedia. -Willmcw 22:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
QUOTE
Williamcw: You said, "Adding an entry in your blog so that you can come here and cite it is not the way to write an encyclopedia." But, apparently, referring to baseless smears against libertarians (Hoppe) by someone (Palmer) who's made it an ongoing policy to smear this person, is the way to write an encylopedia? Encyclopedia articles should not be yet another place where campaigns of character-assasination are waged. And that holds for individuals and institutions. -- David J. Heinrich
QUOTE
Willmcw and others kept insisting that critiques from "mere blogs" didn't count; yet Willmcw had previously linked to the Tom Palmer blog. Stephan Kinsella 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Will Beback inserts David Duke in LvMI
QUOTE
I put in David Duke's criticism of the Center to prove that point...Point made, problem solved.
Kinsella, like Daniel Brandt was the victim of a vicious smear and tried to defend himself through Wikipedia's processes.
QUOTE
[Will Beback], are you saying that your personal attacks are excusable if they are in response to others made against you? Moreover, I never knew anything about you until I saw you making up stuff about me--that I had erected my own entry (untrue); that I worked for the Mises Institute (untrue)--in your first attempt to delete my entry. When I objected, you smarmily danced around and I then noticed your pattern of snide, leftist-inspired wikistalking, such as your second attempt to delete me, your utterly outrageous and repeated attempts to add a snide comment about the copyright status in one of my articles detailing my opposition to IP law [Wikibio describes Kinsella as "an American intellectual property lawyer" and is in Category:Patent attorneys]; when you did not like my edit to the Mises Institute page showing the SPLC [authored by Berlet], who had smeared the Mises Institute as being a hate group, had been criticized by others for going overboard--you "buttressed" this with a criticism by David Duke, which was a very slimy, dishonest, bad faith, and disingenuous move; and your ridiculous repressing of my entry due to a CopyVio simply because of your busybody dislike for my own website's quite standard copyright notice, in your attempt to use your power as an editor to try to push your pet GNU agenda. Outrageous. [[User:Nskinsella|NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella)]] 02:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
QUOTE
Stephan, this isn't helpful. We're trying to resolve the dispute here, not engage in it. Words like outrageous, snide, dishonest etc etc are the problem, not the solution and I'm asking everyone here to be part of the solution. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So Berlet, Will Beback, et al can slander and defame Kinsella as being associated with a hate group (sourced to Berlet) in Wikipedia. When he responds, words he uses like outrageous, snide, and dishonest "are the problem".

ArbCom finally found an "error" on Will Beback's part, but don't follow the links from there, it's part of the coverup.

This post has been edited by nobs: Wed 21st February 2007, 5:28am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
nobs   Kinsella rebuts Berlet   Fri 16th February 2007, 3:19am
Herschelkrustofsky   Nobs, this is the sort of thing that were probably...   Fri 16th February 2007, 7:33am
nobs   Nobs, this is the sort of thing that were probabl...   Fri 16th February 2007, 6:09pm
Somey   [quote name='Herschelkrustofsky' post='22879' dat...   Fri 16th February 2007, 6:37pm
nobs   If all this were actually happening [i]now, as opp...   Fri 16th February 2007, 7:36pm
Somey   Brandt said he's looking for an [intellectual ...   Fri 16th February 2007, 8:10pm
nobs   [quote name='nobs' post='22900' date='Fri 16th Feb...   Fri 16th February 2007, 8:35pm
Somey   ...as I understand it GNU & GFLD came into exi...   Fri 16th February 2007, 11:34pm
gomi   ...as I understand it GNU & GFLD came into ex...   Sat 17th February 2007, 12:58am
anon1234   Nobs, this is the sort of thing that were probabl...   Sat 17th February 2007, 2:19am
nobs   Will Beback said I will take Will Beback's cha...   Sat 17th February 2007, 5:05pm
Somey   I'm not a lawyer either, in case you couldn...   Sat 17th February 2007, 2:02am


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th 6 13, 3:33am