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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

> Biograph, Wikipedia and the FBI, New Wikipedia harassment incriminates more
biographco
post Sun 29th April 2007, 10:41pm
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



As you all have been following the Wikipedia slam of our company "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company". Since that time, more activity is going on which I will share with you. The activity however, has coincided with attempted malicious changes to our listings, including IMDB.com. These other websites have been informed and are very supportive.

The most recent activity in the article is the malicious Wikipedian editors attempting to "Split" the article to "New Company" vs "Old Company" but there is no way they can try and prove we are NOT the same company, intimating unless we "Show" these "Editors" our confidential paperwork that shows we are the same company. Pretty slick? Show us what you have or we will defame you.

I will give you this Wikipedia example from the article "Discussion"....

"I agree. This situation seems similar to the history of PanAm airlines. It went out of business then was revived a couple of times. We have separate articles for each incarnation: Pan American World Airways, Pan American Airways (1996-1998), Pan American Airways (1998-2004). In this instance the original company is more notable so we could leave it at the present name and the new company could be at "American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (1991)". -Will Beback · † · 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, though I haven't seen any evidence that the new company is notable enough for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Splitting it into two articles won't end the squabbling by the new company that it is really the same as the old company, will it? I don't know if the new company really has enough substance for its own article. In 16 years it has released one commercial product: a DVD containing an interview with Tommy Bond and a silent Our Gang comedy in the public domain. — Walloon 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't to end squabbling, which would probably continue no matter what. The immediate problem we're facing is the use of categories. These two sets are in conflict.

Category:Companies established in 1895

Category:Defunct media companies of the United States

Category:Companies established in 1991

Category:Re-established companies

Splitting the article would allow more logical categorizattion. I think we can make a case for the notability of the new company based on several profiles they've received. -Will Beback · † · 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company
"


First, the Little Rascals my Dad "Hosted" and there is only one 12 minute silent Rascals film included in the whole hour long DVD. The majority of it is my Dad's stories, viniettes, and talking to his older star friends.

Second - They got caught on calling our company "Defunct". Too late! Already downloaded and reported! Again, all this is funny. They can block, change and scramble all they want on Wikipedia, this does them no good now. Truth and honesty does win out, and always will. And to the others, when this hammer falls, it will change, and hopefully clean up Wikipedia, forever.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
dtobias
post Mon 30th April 2007, 2:00pm
Post #2


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in defamation. All they're doing is saying that the burden of proof is on him to show some sort of continuity between a company that demonstrably went out of business 70-some years ago, and one that was incorporated 60-some years later. Wikipedia has strict policies requiring claims to be backed by verifiable references; without them, any crackpot would be able to insist that their bizarre theories be inserted. But he's perfectly free not to disclose any confidential information; nobody's putting a gun against his head or breaking into his office to search it. It just means that the article won't contain alleged "facts" about his company that he is unable or unwilling to prove, that's all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joseph100
post Wed 2nd May 2007, 12:48am
Post #3


Senior Member like Viridae
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 4:01am
Member No.: 871



QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 30th April 2007, 8:00am) *

The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in defamation. All they're doing is saying that the burden of proof is on him to show some sort of continuity between a company that demonstrably went out of business 70-some years ago, and one that was incorporated 60-some years later. Wikipedia has strict policies requiring claims to be backed by verifiable references; without them, any crackpot would be able to insist that their bizarre theories be inserted. But he's perfectly free not to disclose any confidential information; nobody's putting a gun against his head or breaking into his office to search it. It just means that the article won't contain alleged "facts" about his company that he is unable or unwilling to prove, that's all.



To believe the statment made by MR. Dtobias, "love, peace and wikipedia" numb nut, and I have some nice land in Florida for sale, cheap, and with the gators thown in for free...

Let's be clear, there is no rule of law on Wikipedia, other than jungle law. There is no such thing as fair and just when dealing with Wikipedia - it is just a dank dark jungle full of intellectual thugs, like MR Dtobias and JIMBO's merry band band of juice drinkers, who's lies and deceit and thuggery makes Wikipedia, the laughing stock of the intellectual world.

Drink up.

This post has been edited by Joseph100: Wed 2nd May 2007, 12:49am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 2nd May 2007, 3:56am
Post #4


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Tue 1st May 2007, 7:48pm) *
To believe the statment made by MR. Dtobias, "love, peace and wikipedia" numb nut, and I have some nice land in Florida for sale, cheap, and with the gators thown in for free...

I thought we were going to be nice-ish...?

Technically, that isn't exactly what Dan wrote originally. This thread has been heavily modified FOR MORE LOW-END POWER!!! to allow the, uh, discussion to continue in a more, uh, constructive fashion.

Nevertheless...

I, for one, completely accept the notion that Wikipedia has to have high standards as to what constitutes verification of an assertion by a self-interested entity. I would hope for nothing less, in fact... The issue here is really the threat of undue emphasis, and potentially an effort to "punish" a principal representing the subject(s) of an article for, and I think we all have to admit this, being a "tendentious editor" and violating WP's internal definition of "conflict of interest." While that editor may have been tendentious, the company itself has not been - it's still just a company, and even if we accept that the editor represents the company, or even is the company, his behavior shouldn't be a factor, as hard as that is to accept.

Personally, I don't think they should split the article, and making some sort hard distinction between the "old company" and the "new company" really isn't all that necessary in terms of providing accurate information. Britannica's approach to the situation was the right one: Simply mention that the company has been revived, maybe include a few details about how it was revived, and leave it at that. After all, AMBC, as it's currently constituted, is in the same business, claims a fairly plausible (though admittedly not rock-solid) chain of ownership, appears to be working with the same titles, and apparently has plans to continue doing so.

But if you ask me (and I realize nobody has), the comparisons to Gaumont and Pathe aren't close enough to warrant similar treatment. Granted, both Gaumont and Pathe went bankrupt and underwent various merges and restructurings, but from what I can tell, there just weren't any decades-long periods of complete inactivity. In Gaumont's case in particular, that company has always been primarily owned by the mysterious Seydoux family, in some shape or form, and may not have been completely inactive at any time - other than maybe the middle of WWII.

Anyway, the problem with Wikipedia in a case like this (at least as I see it) is that standards of conduct fly out the window when flamewars erupt. People can turn into persecutors very quickly, particularly when dealing with what they see as unreasonable demands. What can be done about it? Maybe nothing, but they should try anyway. Remember, they're the Big Huge Massive Online Encyclopedia - they can afford to back off from counter-attack mode if the situation calls for it... right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sat 5th May 2007, 9:01pm
Post #5


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 1st May 2007, 8:56pm) *
...After all, AMBC, as it's currently constituted, is in the same business, claims a fairly plausible (though admittedly not rock-solid) chain of ownership, appears to be working with the same titles, and apparently has plans to continue doing so.

But if you ask me (and I realize nobody has), the comparisons to Gaumont and Pathe aren't close enough to warrant similar treatment. Granted, both Gaumont and Pathe went bankrupt and underwent various merges and restructurings, but from what I can tell, there just weren't any decades-long periods of complete inactivity. In Gaumont's case in particular, that company has always been primarily owned by the mysterious Seydoux family, in some shape or form, and may not have been completely inactive at any time - other than maybe the middle of WWII.


First, thank you Somey for the input... I needed to interject a quick item here for our WR readers. This next quote comes from the "Gaumont" http://www.gaumont.fr/gaumont/qui.html profile itself...

"In 1925, Leon Gaumont signs an agreement of distribution with the Subway Goldwin Mayer and creates a new company GMG, Gaumont Metro Goldwin, dissolved in 1928. With the arrival of speaking, in 1930, Leon Gaumont withdraws itself: Gaumont Franco Film Aubert (GFFA) was born: in addition to the extension of the park of rooms, the company produces comedies and, especially, immortal Atalante of Jean Vigo. In 1938, the GFFA becomes the New Company of the Establishments Gaumont (SNEG) ..."

This explicidely states that Gaumont is a "New" company, only carrying on a "Gaumont" name. Yet, in Wikipedia, there is NO contradiction on the "Gaumont" article, ..." See Wiki-Talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaumont_Film_Company and it is fully accepted by Wikipedia with only ONE source that this is the same and contunuing company...

"Gaumont is a French film production company founded in 1895 by the engineer-turned-inventor, Léon Gaumont (1864-1946). It is the oldest running film company in the world." [i]See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaumont

Yet on our article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Muto...iograph_Company it is completely ripped apart with 40+ references trying to disprove (Unsuccessfully) that we are the SAME or continuation of the same company, even though we have verifiable outside sources, (One being Encyclopedia Brittanica) which have been completely ignored by the Wiki-Editors and the Wiki-Staff. Our situation is different since we are a continuation. But nevertheless on the articles and prejudice, I would like for someone to explain to me why? Thanks:)

This post has been edited by biographco: Sun 6th May 2007, 3:51am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sun 6th May 2007, 3:37am
Post #6


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 5th May 2007, 4:01pm) *
...This next quote comes from the "Gaumont" http://www.gaumont.fr/gaumont/qui.html profile itself...

"In 1925, Leon Gaumont signs an agreement of distribution with the Subway Goldwin Mayer and creates a new company GMG, Gaumont Metro Goldwin, dissolved in 1928. With the arrival of speaking, in 1930, Leon Gaumont withdraws itself: Gaumont Franco Film Aubert (GFFA) was born: in addition to the extension of the park of rooms, the company produces comedies and, especially, immortal Atalante of Jean Vigo. In 1938, the GFFA becomes the New Company of the Establishments Gaumont (SNEG) ..."

This explicidely states that Gaumont is a "New" company, only carrying on a "Gaumont" name...

And yet it's quite possible that some of the same people, particularly the owners, who ran GMG might have ended up with GFFA or SNEG, since it was only ten years. Does anyone know, actually?

It seems to me the problem is really that AMBC is both the same company and a different one simultaneously. AMBC wants to assert that the similarities are what's really important, and Wikipedia wants to counter-assert that the similarities are superficial and it's the differences that are important - even going so far as to dismiss evidenciary claims made by AMBC that would probably be accepted at face value, had they come from a company that hadn't been accused of editing the article about itself.

It's a terribly interesting problem, but the unusual nature of it actually makes it more difficult to find fault in the positions and/or actions of both parties. I realize that's a highly equivocal, and therefore wimpy-assed stance to take, but I'm not sure what other stance would make sense to me.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 6th May 2007, 4:23am
Post #7


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th May 2007, 8:37pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 5th May 2007, 4:01pm) *
...This next quote comes from the "Gaumont" http://www.gaumont.fr/gaumont/qui.html profile itself...

"In 1925, Leon Gaumont signs an agreement of distribution with the Subway Goldwin Mayer and creates a new company GMG, Gaumont Metro Goldwin, dissolved in 1928. With the arrival of speaking, in 1930, Leon Gaumont withdraws itself: Gaumont Franco Film Aubert (GFFA) was born: in addition to the extension of the park of rooms, the company produces comedies and, especially, immortal Atalante of Jean Vigo. In 1938, the GFFA becomes the New Company of the Establishments Gaumont (SNEG) ..."

This explicidely states that Gaumont is a "New" company, only carrying on a "Gaumont" name...

And yet it's quite possible that some of the same people, particularly the owners, who ran GMG might have ended up with GFFA or SNEG, since it was only ten years. Does anyone know, actually?

It seems to me the problem is really that AMBC is both the same company and a different one simultaneously. AMBC wants to assert that the similarities are what's really important, and Wikipedia wants to counter-assert that the similarities are superficial and it's the differences that are important - even going so far as to dismiss evidenciary claims made by AMBC that would probably be accepted at face value, had they come from a company that hadn't been accused of editing the article about itself.

It's a terribly interesting problem, but the unusual nature of it actually makes it more difficult to find fault in the positions and/or actions of both parties. I realize that's a highly equivocal, and therefore wimpy-assed stance to take, but I'm not sure what other stance would make sense to me.

Somey, thank you for your input and let me try to clarify this further. I did receive "Items" from a person from Biograph Company that was back all the way to 1908 with the company. I can't go into this more than that because of confidentiality. As stated before, we have direct links all the way back, not just similarities. My problem is that the Gaumont company states that its company was transferred and a new company formed. They also claim to be the "Oldest in the world", which is fine by me. My problem is that Wikipedia's article states them as the "Oldest movie company in the world", yet with us they assert we are an "Entirely new company" and only "Took the name" which is not true. Gaumont has been given the benefit of the doubt without having to "Prove" anything, and if there information is ambiguous, it's "Oh well". We, however, have been scrutinized, disected and interrogated to prove who we are. On another note, we did NOT post the original article on the company. We did a couple of times interject information, but to be honest we were unaware at the time of the strangeness of Wikipedia and thought it was legitimate. Wikipedia has made assault after assault on us for no reason. The editing has been completely biased. They have stated time and again they want us to look "Bad". "Ridiculous", etc. They have ignored all legitimimate sources. With all due respect, this negates finding or not finding fault in "Both" sides, since Wikipedia has assaulted us for no reason. My question is, what proof is needed by us that we have not provided, short of revealing our confidential company information, to prove who we are, and why are we being pressured to show even more proof? We have verified published sources, government documents, published articles, verifiable and reputable listings, references, etc. Again, what proof is needed to prove who we are that we have not provided already? Thanks:)

This post has been edited by biographco: Sun 6th May 2007, 5:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
biographco   Biograph, Wikipedia and the FBI   Sun 29th April 2007, 10:41pm
Anonymouse   Well, one would think the burden of proof would be...   Mon 30th April 2007, 12:47am
biographco   Well, one would think the burden of proof would b...   Sun 6th May 2007, 11:55pm
wikilove   I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph ...   Mon 7th May 2007, 12:52pm
biographco   I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograph...   Wed 9th May 2007, 12:23am
GlassBeadGame   I hadn't read the details before Mr. Biograp...   Wed 9th May 2007, 12:58am
biographco   [quote name='biographco' post='30772' date='Tue 8...   Fri 11th May 2007, 9:19pm
Somey   Perhaps, but it does seem to have gone beyond that...   Mon 30th April 2007, 2:48am
Cedric   Yet on our article [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w...   Sat 5th May 2007, 9:21pm
biographco   This would be the nearest explanation I can come u...   Sat 5th May 2007, 9:31pm
wikilove   The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in ...   Sun 6th May 2007, 11:23pm
biographco   The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in...   Sun 6th May 2007, 11:44pm
Jonny Cache   I confess that I've only sampled this groove a...   Mon 30th April 2007, 2:48pm
biographco   For our Wikipedia Review members and ANYONE here a...   Mon 30th April 2007, 9:46pm
dtobias   Those various proclamations prove nothing, given t...   Mon 30th April 2007, 9:57pm
biographco   The last posting was in reference to verifiable in...   Mon 30th April 2007, 10:08pm
JTM   Those various proclamations prove nothing, given ...   Sun 6th May 2007, 3:05am
Somey   I will at least say that the Biograph Company webs...   Mon 30th April 2007, 10:21pm
biographco   I will at least say that the Biograph Company webs...   Tue 1st May 2007, 1:18am
dtobias   My only "agenda", by the way, is that I...   Mon 30th April 2007, 10:31pm
dtobias   So I suppose the company didn't die in the 192...   Mon 30th April 2007, 11:36pm
Uly   I think a closer parallel would be the British Eas...   Tue 1st May 2007, 9:12pm
biographco   I think a closer parallel would be the British Ea...   Sat 5th May 2007, 4:07am
Somey   Okay folks, we're going to try again with the ...   Tue 1st May 2007, 10:34pm
biographco   Anyway, if we're going to continue this thread...   Tue 1st May 2007, 11:38pm
biographco   I would also like to post a clarification on an it...   Wed 2nd May 2007, 12:16am
biographco   Somey, thank you for the input and posting. I want...   Wed 2nd May 2007, 5:16am
Toledo   Under federal trademark law, "Nonuse for two ...   Fri 16th November 2007, 6:04pm
GlassBeadGame   Under federal trademark law, "Nonuse for two...   Sat 17th November 2007, 3:02pm


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: 25th 2 18, 5:46am