Thu 11th November 2010, 10:06pm
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 11th November 2010, 2:58pm)
Cirt has left notices about the AFD at a dozen Wikiprojects, not to mention user pages. How does Cirt manage to get away with such overt canvasing?
Well, almost all the notifications were of users who had edited the page, and the nominator really should have notified those people (it's a courtesy). AfD is supposed to be biased toward keep, and notifying the people who have worked on an article will often insure a base of Keep comment. Unless the work has been heavily to remove bias. From the history, Cirt could be confident that notifying the editors who have assisted him would not accomplish that. They were all, however, trivial edits. The only balancing editor there was the nominator.
The nominator, DaveApter (T-C-L-K-R-D)
is not sophisticated. Not quite an SPA, but a heavy interest in Landmark Education.
Lotso Wikiprojects notified, including some very weird ones, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
. Normally, notifying WikiProjects is okay, but ... I'm suspecting that WikiProjects have been selected for some kind of expectation of support for the article. It could be subtle; but it is suspicious that a project like this is notified, when, on the face, it has nothing to do with the article.
There is are some user notifications that are suspicious, those of Magioladitis (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, PM800 (T-C-L-K-R-D)
Looking about, I see that Cirt has been heavily involved in editing the Werner Erhard
, and one problematic edit
popped out at me. He reverted an editor who was right to remove the information. It has little or nothing to do with Werner Erhard. Question is, is the award Erhard received notable? Who else received these awards, and do their articles, if there are any, have such a notification about what happened to Yoghesh Gandhi? I'm seeing signs of POV editing on both sides, likely, but it would take a lot more work to be sure. The inclusion of every mindless detail that can be sourced seems to be a Wikipedia trait. It's a problem with BLPs, as lots of us know!
Well, since I've seen it, here is the poop. According to the very reputable source Wikipedia, Ghandi Memorial International Foundation
, which looks "shady as hell," a term of art, gave the "Mahatma Gandhi Humanitarian Award" to these people:Werner ErhardJoan BaezShirley Temple BlackDavid PackardHogen Fukunaga
... and there were other awards toBill Clinton
. In addition, the U.S. Senate hosts a report that the Ghandhi Peace Award was also given to Michael Gorbachev
and Mother Theresa
and Nelson Mandela
How this worked seems reasonably visible from the Senate report. Sasakawa, a Japanese tycoon, a year after receiving the award, gave the Foundation $500,000. Then, in 1996, Yoghesh Gandhi was able to gain a photo op for Fukunaga with Bill Clinton.
Plus the Foundation gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee (returned in 1996, and this was part of a huge scandal that I remember from the time.) The Senate report claims that this money came from Yoshio Tanaka, another Japanese tycoon, who also has an "Earth Aid International Foundation," and this was all aimed at providing more access for Fukunaga and thus more money for Yoghesh Gandhi to obtain and use.
Okay, there are some obvious possibilities here. In 1988, the award was given to a series of people, and it appears that the goal was to shine up the award and the Foundation. I rather doubt that the prominent recipients of the award paid for it! Warner Erhard was given the award because Gandhi believed that he would be considered an obvious humanitarian, and it appears that the Hunger Project
was specifically mentioned with the award.
Unfortunately, Werner Erhard still cites the Gandhi award as evidence of his accomplishments, when, in fact, he's far more notable than that award.... Shooting himself in the foot, certainly as far as his Wikipedia article is concerned! Since he cites it
(indirectly, through citing a book that refers to it), since it's been mentioned so much, there is hardly any way to keep both this out and the balancing fact that discredits the award. Which could be much better stated than in the article. The award was a scam, but given to people with real accomplishments, some of them. In order to make the award look more legitimate. If it had just been given to Fukunaga and Sasakawa, who would have noticed?
Cirt was roughly correct. But the presentation of the facts is not likely to give a clear picture to the reader of what actually happened.
I notice that the award to David Packard isn't mentioned in the Packard article. But it is mentioned on the hp web site, as one in a long list of awards that Packard received.