Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2009-10-16T21:02:53Z

Horenvalle:

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but... I am a student in public high school, and am taking AP Biology. I have just learned that Evolution is an entire '''chapter'''''' in the course. Would it be moral for me to learn evolution without believeing it just to pass the test? Or should I drop the course? (This would be very time consuming and difficult)- David
::Nothing immoral about learning about evolution at all. Go for it and you will be pleasantly surprised to learn what evolution is actually like. After all, the majority of people have major misconceptions on what it is which leads to their denial of it. Learning about something from those who support it is always best for learning the truth about the subject, don't limit your understanding of things to just those against it. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I think Riddle is a very smart man and you should listen to what he has to say. No, you don't need to believe in evolutionism, but how are we suppose to become one peaceful humanity without learning about one another. [[user:horenvalle]] 14:01, October 16 2009 (EDT)

:::Learn a falsehood and pretend it's true, and more falsehoods, confusion, depression and errors will follow. Realize that atheists must believe in evolution despite its falsehood and you'll immediately see why they push, and push, and push it in public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

::better learn the material. College consists of a lot of required courses you have to take but don't have to believe. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:05, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

:::All the examples of such requirements consist of learning and reciting anti-Christian beliefs. I'm not aware of any colleges or AP tests that require learning a Christian belief to obtain basic credits.

:::Try homeschooling David, or try a college that does not require recitation of evolutionary beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

== Unable to edit? ==

I would like to post the following to the Jesse Helms article after "Foreign Policy" but am locked out. I don't know why. {{unsigned|BertSchlossberg}}
: Editing is often turned off overnight (U.S. time), which may have been your problem, although that means that you shouldn't have been able to post here, so unless it was turned back on in the meantime, I can't explain it. Would you like to try it again? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:: Right. The [[Jesse Helms]] entry is not locked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When only part of an article is accepted==
I recently posted an entry, [[F-105 Thunderchief]], and included a references section and a category, but in the final article, neither section shows up, although they are clearly present when the "Edit" button is clicked. Just now, this happened again with another entry I tried to make. What gives? Does the site only accept so much information in a new entry? --[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:You had a bad <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag which I have fixed. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::I did? Oopsie. And thanks.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==KAL 007 article on Main page==
I would like to propose having the article [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] as a featured article on the Main page. Thanks.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 15:32, 1 March 2008 (EST)
(finally got it right!)

: I'd like to review it in detail and hear what others think about it. On its surface, without yet studying it, it appears to be a major work. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:: There's a [[Conservapedia:Featured articles|page]] for listing proposed featured articles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:52, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut==

I just wrote an exteremly long and extensive artical about these two songs. Then, when I went to save the page, it said that it did not save it because there was a quote in their to explain about the song that contained a profanity. What gives? I thought that this website was supposed to educate people, yet people cannot be educated if they cannot know what the artical is talking about and what the proof is. {{unsigned|Std}}
: We have a profanity filter for good reason, but sometimes exceptions need to be made. You haven't supplied enough information for us to judge if this warrants an exception. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

What exactly are the exeptions that would get me the warrent?

How do you upload an image?

{{unsigned|Std}}
:You have to ask an administrator. There was a problem with people uploading obscene materials. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
: An exception would be warranted if, for example, the word caught by the filter was not objectionable in the context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Can anyone do an article on Cong. Larry McDonald, a passenger aboard KAL 007?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 07:01, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

==Proposal==
I wrote some time ago about making plans to build Conservapedia into a force to be reckoned with. This site has the potential to become a powerful tool, but still has a ways to go, I think. As an example, I just did a search on [http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= ACORN], a group funded by leftist billionaire [[George Soros]] that is becoming a very serious threat to the integrity of local elections. All I found was a one-line page about the oak tree. Of course the solution to this is to simply create the page myself. But I don't think this solves the larger issue; to my knowledge, there isn't a program of incentives inviting conservatives to contribute high-quality information and research articles on our opposition. How do we do this?

For one, I take it that Conservapedia gets some heavy traffic. Heavy traffic = $$$ in potential advertising revenue. Use that money to attract the right people to help build Conservapedia into a powerhouse of information. This could include rewards for college students, or hired admins (background checked with references and resume, of course). Perhaps contact county or state Republican/conservative groups, show what you've done, and propose a team effort to get more people to contribute articles to the web site.

In short, there's a million ways that this project can grow, and it is more important to me that the conservative cause succeeds than to keep these ideas to myself. My hope is that someone reading this will take hold of them... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

My IP address at home appears to have been blocked. Could someone please unblock me? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 15:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Bobby R. Himes==
I have a photo for the new article [[Bobby R. Himes]]. Can I get permission to upload it?[[User: Bhathorn|Bhathorn]] 18:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: If the picture is on-line (and available for Conservapedia to use, of course), post the address here or click [[Special:Emailuser/Philip_J._Rayment|here]] to e-mail me the link and I can upload it to Conservapedia for you. If it's on your computer, e-mail me via that link anyway and I will reply with my e-mail address for you to e-mail me the picture, so I can then upload it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Banning policy?==
Hello, I represent a website interested in your work. However recently a member of ours, JMcClane used your website and edited a page on Obama because it stated he was a Muslim, which it has been proven he isn't, he has been banned for 5 years, care to comment? It was a JPatt who did the banning, would he like to comment too?
:JMcClane removed a large amount of material in that article and replaced it with this:
::''"Obama is regularly mistaken as Islamic due to his second name, in fact he is not Muslim though stands for equality between religions. He is in fact Christian, though rumours were spread by Conservative spin Doctors hoping to turn the public against him."''
:And who is JMcClane to you? Care to comment on that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:16, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:Beyond the fact that you didn't answer my question mate, we're part of the same website who are interested in the current election in America, you might have heard of it. He became involved in this site and this happened, so I reiterate, gonna answer the question properly?
::I did answer your question, "mate", and you're not going to act like you run ''this place''; you will answer mine now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, we're part of the same website. I'm sorry about the mate comments, I'm just friendly like that. You've said you banned him cause of the edit, but isn't it kind of harsh as it is proven he's not Muslim so the entire article was pointless. That's all I'd like to know. And 5 years does seem steep.

Which website do you represent? Why are you interested in Conservapedia? Our banning policy is carefully calibrated and appropriate to the demands of the various situations. And sign your posts with four tildes, please; we are not interested in anonymous 'contributions'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Google misdirection==
In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 13:19, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*Thanks for noticing and reporting this, FOIA, but nothing needs to be done. When we had the hard drive failure, and temporarily re-directed, the search engine bots picked that up. Now that things are restored, the bots will report back to all the search engines, and in due time will be directing properly. The Google (and all other engines) are smart enough to compare and repair. Or so they say. Administrator Conservative might have more insight into this, and I have linked him to this page. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
** For what its worth, Google is pretty much 100% automated. They almost never manually intervene in their search results, and that's generally due to a court or otherwise governmental order. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
*** You mean that they generally ''only'' intervene due to court or governmental orders, correct? [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== Copyright? ==
I'd like to comment that [[:File:Kathleen Sebelius.jpg]] should probably be tagged as “fair use” rather than as “public domain.” Also, I think the description of the {{tl|commons}} template, both in [[Help:List of Templates]] and in the template body itself, is slightly misleading: items in Wikimedia Commons are not necessarily in the public domain. Thank you. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== In the News ==
I'm not sure how to submit suggestions, so I'll post this here: Timothy Larsen, "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html Look Who's a Believer Now]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', May 29, 2009, p. W13. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 10:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

== Google Gadget? ==
I understand that [[google]] has problems, but has there ever been thought to developing a "Google Gadget" with a conservapedia news feed?[[User:Mrguido45|Mrguido45]] 20:59, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Evolution Feature on the Main Page ==
The section of the main page devoted to the Evolution article states that, "In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." The study was conducted with 2000 Americans (approximately), selected by pseudo-random digit dialing over the telephone. the study found that the portion of people unsure about evolution has increased in a statistically significant manner. The second finding of the study was that the proportion of people who believe in evolution and creationism have not changed in any statistically significant way (i.e.: That the p-value of the 1985 and 2005 data sets is greater than 0.05 - simply put, that there is not enough detectable difference between the respondents in 1985 and 2005 to make any kind of statement about it). Essentially, the study cited on the main page didn't actually prove that the public belief in evolution is declining. I would request a change to that article to remove the irrelevant citation about a decrease in evolutionary thinking among Americans. [[User: Praboud|Praboud]] 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Referred to as a Methodist ==

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right location to ask this, but at the bottom of my user page there is a category section that says "Category: Methodist Conservapedians". I didn't place that there and it isn't available for editing out when I look at the editable content for my user page. I only bring this up because I am not a Methodist and I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I am. I do not know who added me to this category or why, or somehow if I accidentally did this myself. If possible, may I be added to the "Agnostic conservapedians" category instead? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 8:42, 20 June 2009 [EDT]

:It appears to be because of your userbox "This user believes in the United States Constitution." When I tried putting it on my user page, the Methodist category automatically appeared there as well. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 09:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::Fixed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:20, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

== I might be wrong... ==

But I do see quite a bit of bias on Conservapedia. If this is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" then shouldn't bias be removed? I think that some of the articles are great and others are blatantly biased based upon the authors moral views. I know that some of the topics go against the beliefs of the people who run this site but it isn't a great way to run things. Tolerance of others and their beliefs, no matter what we think of them, is what Conservapedia should be about. Just my opinion and nothing more.

:Just your '''unsupported''' opinion and nothing more, you might have said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:35, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::I could have, but I figured that people would pick that up from "'''I might be wrong...'''". I never had any beliefs that my opinions were supported here, as I had to make an effort to "vocalize" them. Generally people on and off of the internet don't support my opinions.

:::What I meant was that you made a claim of bias without providing any examples to support your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Ah. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Che_Guevara]] "Ernesto "Che" Guevara" "became a cultural icon for" "'''dumb white teenagers'''." [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Communism]] "Communism is an atheistic political system" Although extremely hilarious, I think that those articles are somewhat biased and detract from Conservapedia's accountability. I have not seen Wikipedia style hijackings yet though.

==Tau ceti to Tau Ceti==

I created an article called [[Tau ceti]], but it should be Tau Ceti, is there anyway the name can be reset as the latter? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:00, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

:Yes, there [[Tau Ceti|'''is''']]. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks! -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:22, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

==Alger Hiss==
I just tried to link to The Encyclopedia of Ukraine at and got this message:

::Spam protection filter

::The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

The spam filter apparently mistook part of the URL for an obscenity.

Is there any way to fix this? Thanks![[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 21:40, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

*You can give the URL without making it a link, so that people can copy and paste the link into their own browser, but I am not inclined to unblock any part of that corner of the world, for pretty obvious reasons. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

==Kapteyn's star to Kapteyn's Star==

The article I created called [[Kapteyn's star]] was created with a lower case s for star, it should be upper case, could someone with the rights change the title to Kapteyn's Star? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:00, 8 July 2009 [EDT]

== Double Redirects ==
All three of the current [[Special:doubleredirects|double redirects]] are protected. Could a Sysop fix them, please? Thanks. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

=I'm having a bit of trouble with some linking=

I'm trying to get the "Weather Report" and "Return to Forever" articles to link to jazz fusion. Instead, it's linking me to another jazz fusion article that I accidentally created and was recently deleted. Any help is much appreciated. [[User:Jdelong11|Jdelong11]]

==Username change==
Is it possible to change one's username? I haven't decided what I want the new one to be but will let you know when I have.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:30, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia

2009-09-20T03:18:26Z

Horenvalle:

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

'''Wikipedia''' is a self-described<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> online [[encyclopedia]] project founded by [[entrepreneur]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]
and [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001 and usually edited by unemployed liberal community college dropouts.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Origins==

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a [[conservative bias]]. [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==

An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility, and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.
[[Image:Prouty1.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (1917 - 2001).]]
[[Chip Berlet]] built a career writing in various far-left [[revolution]]ary publications, including ''[[Guardian (NY)]]'' of New York,<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Preface & Acknowledgements. Berlet writes, "John Stockwell gave an interview even though he felt my "Guardian" article on Craig Hulet implied Stockwell was an ally of "Bo" Gritz. That was not my intent, and I regret any misunderstanding and appreciate Mr. Stockwell's patience. Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains very useful, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective." The ''Guardian'' article is cited at PublicEye.org, "Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left," ''The Guardian'' (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]</ref> founded by [[KGB]] agent [[Cedric Belfrage]], whose writers at times included KGB operatives [[Anna Louise Strong]], [[Agnes Smedley]] and [[Wilfred Burchett]]. Burchett was a long time personal friend of [[Ho Chi Minh]],<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613596-5012694,00.html Losing it in Nam], ''The Australian'', October 20, 2007.</ref> assisted in extracting confessions from American [[POW]]s in the [[Korean War]]<ref>[http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/rebel_reporter/ A Rebel Reporter], Book Review by Bertil Lintner, Asia Pacific Media Services, August 2006.</ref> and spread [[disinformation]] about American use of [[germ warfare]] which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the [[Kremlin]].<ref>Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News & World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.</ref>

Berlet and Daniel Brandt wrote for the ''[[Covert Action Information Bulletin]]'' in the 1970s, and Brandt wrote for ''[[CounterSpy]]'' magazine, edited by [[Philip Agee]] and [[Timothy Butz]]. Butz was also on the editorial staff of ''[[The Public Eye]]''<ref>"Public Eye Staff," The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.</ref> with Berlet as managing editor<ref>''The Public Eye'', Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).</ref> and which Berlet describes as a "spawn of the first ''Counterspy''."<ref>Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, ''Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression,'' (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Rev. 1/14/91).</ref> ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the names of several [[CIA]] agents,<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948672,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Dirty Work], ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Oct. 02, 1978.</ref> including CIA Athens Station Chief [[Richard S. Welch]] who was murdered by the [[terrorist]] [[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]] in 1975<ref>''[[Washington Post]]'', [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29,+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch Obituary: Richard S. Welch], 29 December 1975, A16. ISBN 01908286 </ref> and gave the impetus for passage of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]].<ref>For The Record, ''Washington Post'', 27 July 1980. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20051101.asp]</ref> Berlet was also a member of Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme [[leftism]] demands ideological purity from its followers. Berlet made an ultimatum to remove another Board member.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed Berlet from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included, in Berlet's words, "LaRouche-defender Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel, was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. Berlet considered Prouty a [[fascist]]. Brandt retorted, "When it came to making a choice between Prouty and Berlet, it was a rather easy decision for me to make."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5315&pid=18679&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry18679</ref> Berlet further sought to undermine Brandt by convincing three others to quit, adding "He (Brandt) was mad"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> but admitting "On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of the LaRouchians."<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Part 033 ''The JFK Conspiracy'' - November 22, 1993. Retrieved from the Nizkor Project, October 29, 2007.</ref>

The WikiMedia Foundation retains Berlet, despite his penchant for excess,<ref>Brandt notes, "Berlet, from Political Research Associates, is always denouncing folks as right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, cultic, or conspiracist." [http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/SQ]</ref> to deal with the ceaseless barrage of idiosyncratic musings from the followers of [[Lyndon LaRouche]].

=== Impugning critics ===

'''Neutral Point of View (NPOV)''' requires,
{{Cquote|without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles.}}
Berlet complained about criticism in his Wikipedia biographical entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and the organization he is associated with, [[Political Research Associates]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=24242896</ref> One critic was blasted in the article mainspace with an unsourced, unspecified rebuttal by Berlet as "unethical;" when an editor asked if the charge by Berlet could be substantiated the editor was rebuked and accused of "harassing a controversial expert."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_2#Laird_Wilcox</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Dispute_Resolution_Process</ref> Another reliable source in the article read,
{{Cquote|one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s 'crusade' against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet 'may try to undermine your work and isolate you.' <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory], By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com October 16, 2003.</ref>}}
Berlet stated, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and a Daniel Brandt entry on Wikipedia soon was created. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible. Brandt observed, "I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry21441</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6666&pid=23072&mode=threaded&show=&st=20&#entry23072</ref><ref>SlimVirgin stated on stated 21:57, Dec 28, 2004, "Daniel Brandt is not a reputable source." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_1 Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1], and at 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) "I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source"[http://www.talkaboutalternative.com/group/alt.conspiracy/messages/1164072.html]</ref>

'''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Self-published sources''' states,
[[Image:25may2006cberlet2.GIF|thumb|300px|right|Berlet inserts highly inflammatory, guilt by association material cited to himself; the slanders remained for at least 16 months.]]
{{Cquote|Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources</ref>}}
'''Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Reliable sources''' states,
{{Cquote|Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the '''No original research''' and '''Verifiability''' policies, and could lead to [[libel]] claims....Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links...Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory...<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources</ref>}}
Brandt is also a registered user at Wikipedia, hence '''No Personal Attacks''' and '''Civility''' clauses apply, in addition to '''What Wikipedia is Not''', a vehicle for propaganda, advertising or self-promotion, and '''Wikipedia is not a battleground'''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground</ref>

'''Wikipedia:No Original Research''', which has undergone several revisions, at the time stated, "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge...If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere...the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person...They must cite reliable, third-party publications... bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=50820065#The_role_of_expert_editors</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Citing_oneself</ref>
'''Wikipedia:Ownership of articles''' prohibits asserting ownership over articles, particularly where a [[conflict of interest]] may arise. Chip Berlet has been cautioned by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee on several occasions about over involvement in his Wikipedia biography.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Arbitration_report</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_regarding_autobiography</ref> When Berlet was unable to have criticism sourced to Brandt removed from his entry, Berlet dredged up a 16 year old highly inflammatory and vicious [[guilt by association]] smear against Brandt to elevate Berlet's own personal credibility and further undermine Brandt as a reputable critic of Chip Berlet. Berlet himself placed the slanders in Wikipedia entries about Brandt, citing himself, and using his own in-house self publishing source. Despite rigorous protestations and appeals to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the ultimate arbitrator Jimbo Wales himself, the slanders remained in for a year and half.



=== What is a reputable source? ===

[[Image:Americanextremist.JPG|thumb|300px|right|[http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America,'']John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, Chapter 9, ''[[Guardian]]'', pgs. 125-131. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)]]
Several official Wikipedia policies were rewritten<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Workshop/Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes].</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=31675236&oldid=31668491 Wikipedia:No original research], Revision as of 00:21, 17 December 2005; SlimVirgin removes the language, "Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."</ref>and modified at various times to exempt [[Chip Berlet]] from provisions and applications. Enforcement of basic civility clauses and no personal attacks regarding Berlet's conduct are routinely ignored. Berlet considers himself an expert on the subject of anti-Semitism, but was unanimously rejected by several key and influential Wikipedia Administrators<ref>"I, '''Jayjg''', hereby award you this '''Barnstar''' for your scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards, most recently in your brilliant use of '''reliable sources''' at '''Holocaust Denial'''. 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goodoldpolonius2&diff=41765875&oldid=40600697], retrieved from WP/User:Goodoldpolonius2, October 14, 2007.</ref><ref>Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2005. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20507026&oldid=20505285]</ref> as a reputable source<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20321342&oldid=20321025 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/Deep problems with the article], Revision as of 07:17, 5 August 2005, Goodoldpolonius2; "the whole article is essentially original research. The only source cited (besides Chip Berlet's chart, which, whatever its merits, has remarkably little to do with the roots of racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century)....The racial anti-Semitism section is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20321341#Racial_anti-Semitism not factually correct]."</ref> for the Wikipedia [[mainspace]] article, "Roots of Anti-Semitism" in 2005. As of October 2007, Wikipedia's '''Reliable sources/Extremist sources''' policy stated,
{{Cquote|Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as [[extremist]], whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extreme sources], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 14, 2007.</ref>}}
High level Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin, in a remarkably transparent action removed herself as a defendant<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21733464 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], SlimVirgin (→Rangerdude - moved Katefan's); SlimVirgin made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21732881 '''involved third party: Katefan0'''] a full party to take her place in the case after ArbCom voted to Accept. Katefan0 it was discovered later was Kathryn Wolfe of ''Congressional Quarterly'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=2f1782927c11d7a9e62cf6815238337d&showtopic=7603&view=findpost&p=25526][http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=thissite_masthead] accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. Wolfe lost her Senate press credentials when an undisclosed [[conflict of interest]] came to light regarding her activities as an anonymous Wikipedia Administrator. Wolfe was promoted to a Wikipedia Administrator after her role in the frame up of the complaining party. Wolfe initiated Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures over an article about a former employer, the ''Houston Chronicle''. The facts were made known to ArbCom. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was a policy, and not a guideline. Several parties were known to enter Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures, signing an agreement to participate in Good Faith, only to be viciously defamed in a public forum accessible to Google search engines, without recourse, and both the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and WikiMedia Foundation turned a blind eye to the situation.</ref> from Wikipedia's internal policy making and self-regulatory process governing user conduct known as Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee voted to accept a complaint filed against her<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], Revision as of 15:45, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude], Revision as of 15:46, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept and merge)".</ref> to review her conduct. SlimVirgin made the Complaining party the defendant, removed herself, and placed a third party, User:Katefan0 in her place. SlimVirgin then presented evidence in the same case which stated,
{{Cquote|'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence/Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).</ref>}}
The Complaining party stated,
{{Cquote|the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?], Revision as of 21:49, 4 August 2005, Rangerdude.</ref>}}
Nonetheless, reprisal actions were taken against the Complaining party who exposed the duplicity of Wikipedia internal regulatory processes and favoritism granted to an extreme [[leftist]] writer.

=== Jimbo Wales chooses sides in the dispute ===

The negative publicity engendered by the Seigenthaler and Brandt cases put Wikipedia into crisis management mode. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From [[WikiTruth]], the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official statement declaring Brandt was not a reliable source of criticism on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry, yet another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain Brandt's biography simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. As in the Seigenthaler controversy, Brandt once again demanded accountability, this time from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own background which would deny him inclusion as a source on anything other than himself.

Brandt is now known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

===First casualty: a Congressional correspondent gets canned===

The first casualty in the war between Brandt and the Wikipedia Admin community<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7785&st=0&p=26282&#entry26282</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=prev&oldid=118823615</ref> was a reporter for ''Congressional Quarterly'' and accredited to the [[U.S. Senate]] Press Gallery.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&pid=7935&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry7935</ref> User:Katefan0 was a member of the Association of Immoral Wikimedians<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=243978&oldid=243977</ref> founded by [[Jimbo Wales]].<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=232409&oldid=230690</ref> Brandt stated,
[[Image:Washington 05 183.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Katefan was accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery; ArbCom knew of some her conflicts of interest.]]
{{Cquote|One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the ''Congressional Quarterly'', even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in [[Washington DC]] that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious [[conflict of interest]] to the extent that it was not disclosed.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1422&view=findpost&p=7935</ref>}}

Katefan outed herself<ref>http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/KinF/messages/1416?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1</ref> but Brandt conceded the circumstances surrounding her exit from Wikipedia damaged his reputation. Meantime the issue of accountability at the forefront of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]] was all but forgotten as privacy concerns of anonymous Administrators surmounted defamations of innocent real life people whose identity was known.

Katefan initiated '''Wikipedia:Dispute resolution''' with a knowledgeable conservative editor over various controversies on the ''Houston Chronicle'' article, including references to the ''Chronicle's'' coverage of [[Republican]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom Delay]]. Katefan had in fact worked for the ''Houston Chronicle'' during many of these controversies,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14272141</ref> was using Original Research and admitted to being friends with editors and reporters on the ''Chronicle'' staff.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Archive_1#Response</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14339760</ref> Katefan removed properly sourced examples of the ''Chronicle's'' Editorial Board and her former co-workers [[hate speech]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=next&oldid=14285136</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14285136</ref> which included references to prominent Republicans as a subhuman species. Katefan's [[conflict of interest]] was made known to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_incivility_and_bullying</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14282308</ref> For her assistance in silencing, and ultimately harassing a knowledgeable conservative editor out of the project with an Arbitration ruling of "tendentious editing,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#POV_editing_by_Rangerdude</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Rangerdude_placed_on_probation</ref> Katefan was promoted to Admin.

Not long after, another professional journalist politely protested Wikipedia's exceedingly biased entries about [[Paul Weyrich]]. Patently false information about Weyrich was cited to none other than Chip Berlet, with the customary alleged "links and ties" to "fascist" [[Dominionism]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dominionism/Archive_1#latest_removal</ref> Berlet's latest ideological crusade. The user admitted to being a member of the same Melkite [[Catholic]] parish as Mr. Weyrich,<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Well_referenced_but_biased_sources Talk:Paul Weyrich#Well referenced but biased sources]</ref> and offered to volunteer his professional expertise to improve Wikipedia's Dominionism series and bring neutral balance. The editor was instructed point blank by high level Wikipedia Administrators, "people with a vested interest in the content of an article should not edit it,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pravknight#Paul_Weyrich User talk:Pravknight#Paul Weyrich]</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-January/060162.html ; Berlet circumvented official WP:Dispute Resolution by posting "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this..." at Wikien-1 and asked someone else to nominate '''Category:Soviet spies''' for deletion while the issue was being Mediated. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was policy and participants signed a Mediation pledge to participate in Good Faith [http://encyc.connectonline.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop#Good_faith]. Berlet's conflict of interest can be seen in (1) personal association with ''[[Guardian]]'' of New York, (2) personal association with [[Harry Magdoff]], (3) personal connection with ''CounterSpy'' magazine. ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the true identities of living CIA officials, and lead to creation of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]]. Berlet it appears never had a problem with exposing the real life identities of living CIA agents but has fought strenuously to keep deceased identities of [[KGB]] agents out of Wikipedia. Two years after Berlet circumvented policy, '''Category:Soviet spies''' has not been deleted.</ref> and of course, profiled as a conservative, was banned for "tendentious editing."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight#Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?] The editor stated, "why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Wikipedia? Why is it that I constantly get harassed, picked on and intimidated for trying to bring things back to the center by excising the hate-filled, bigoted rhetoric that populates the articles about Christians in politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harassment."</ref>

By March 2007 Katefan's name was no longer on the Senate Press Gallery list.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7603&st=0&p=25526&#entry25526</ref>

=== Second casualty: Wikipedia "experts" called into question, the Essjay Scandal ===

On April 29-30, 2005 a conference of [[radical]] [[leftist]]s to discuss the "real agenda of the Christian right" <ref>[http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2005-June/018692.html ''Public university sponsorship of conference on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right"'']</ref> was held a CUNY. Berlet spoke at the forum and Doug Ireland reported,
{{Cquote|Nobody at the national level is tracking these ''[[Christer]]''<ref>[http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html Religious Right Watch''] July 10, 2005.</ref> censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. 'People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at [[Political Research Associates]] would love to do it,' says Berlet, 'but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it ....' <ref>[http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/06/the_new_blackli.html ''The New Blacklist: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers''], Doug Ireland, June 09, 2005.</ref>}}
Wikipedia had the resources, Political Research Associates began tracking them, and the “strategies to defeat them” were carried into the battleground of Wikipedia. Berlet's massive, “Dominionism” series, a compendium of anti-Christian screeds best characterized by Stanley Kurtz of the ''[[National Review]]'', who also reported on the conference, claims the "real agenda" of the Religious Right is to,
{{Cquote|suppress other religions ...reestablish slavery. ...reduce women to near-slavery by making them property. ...execute anyone found guilty of pre-marital, extramarital, or homosexual sex and ...to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp ''Dominionist Domination, The Left runs with a wild theory.''] Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, May 02, 2005.</ref>}}

Ten days later on May 10 Essjay posted on his user page,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#Your_.22apologies.22_sound_fake</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23005</ref>
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. 

My Academic Degrees: 
* Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
* Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
* Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
* Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) 
</blockquote>

Essjay was nominated for Admin on July 13, 2005 and in accepting he wrote, "Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all. I’ve added a good bit of material to articles, particularly material related to [[Roman Catholicism]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=18741394&oldid=18741092</ref>
An anonymous IP commented, "I have read several of Essjay's articles on Catholicism and I am very impressed with how thorough and clear they are. Many scholars try to be "thick" in their language, but not Dr. Essjay."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=19090368&oldid=19089436</ref> His Adminship was completed one week later with near unanimous support.

After serving in the leadership of various Wikipedian associations such as Administrator General of Esperanza and official contact for Wikimedia with Freenode, the IRC network that hosts most of Wikimedia's IRC channels, Essjay was elected a Bureaucrat on March 31, 2006.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay</ref>

==== Hoaxes perpetrated against academics and mainstream media ====

On April 7, 2006 one week after moving into his new role as a Bureaucrat Essjay sent an email to a professor in response to her comments on using Wikipedia as an academic source. The professor had told her students, "PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source." The email is not of a personal nature and Essjay clearly represents himself as speaking for Wikipedia and posted a verbatim copy for others to use. The letter stated:
{{Cquote|I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology... I find it very disturbing that you included the statement "it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy." ... Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public. ...

Wikipedia has recently experienced some bad publicity over the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair (I know the issue extensively; I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales); it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity. ...'''It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia'''; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before. (''bolden added'') <ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

Of the two hundred thousand registered users, and the nearly one thousand administrators with powers to block others from editing, Essjay was one of only 14 with Checkuser rights, a responsibility which has always been the cause of grave privacy concerns and only given to those who have earned the trust of the WikiMedia Foundation. Essjay was recommended to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff of ''The New Yorker'' by a member of Wikipedia’s management team<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote Know It All], Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?, by Stacy Schiff ''The New Yorker'', July 31, 2006; Editor's Note appended.</ref> and would not identify himself other than confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>
In a piece entitled, ''Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?'', Schiff wrote,
[[Image:Schiffstacy 3l.jpg|thumb|350px|right|[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff was hoaxed by Essjay and Wikipedia's management team.[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote] ]]
{{Cquote|One regular on the site is a user known as Essjay, who holds a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law and has written or contributed to sixteen thousand entries. A tenured professor of religion at a private university...

Wales also appointed an arbitration committee to rule on disputes. Before a case reaches the arbitration committee, it often passes through a mediation committee. Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed...

Wales recently established an “oversight” function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there. }}

''The New Yorker'' unwittingly published the deceptive information on Essjay's credentials in its July 31, 2006 issue. The same month Brandt pointed out at Wikipedia Review,<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701</ref> a forum frequented by prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day.

In August 2006, a professional journalist who attended the same Catholic parish as [[Paul Weyrich]] of the [[Free Congress Foundation]] protested the patently false information about Weyrich. Weyrich was [[politically profiled]] as a right-wing "theocratic dominionist." Wikipedia's [[Dominionism]] entry, authored by Berlet, stated in its opening sentence, "Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&diff=83649766&oldid=83640075</ref> There was one big problem, Weyrich is Catholic. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Inaccurate_information Talk:Paul Weyrich#Inaccurate information]</ref> By now Essjay was becoming established as Wikipedia's leading scholar on Catholicism.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_finding_of_fact_by_Doug_Bell User:Essjay/RFC/Outside finding of fact by Doug Bell], 2 March 2007.</ref>

====The Wikipedia Review forum====

On January 7, 2007, Essjay outed his own true life identity on his user page at Wikia.<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wmessjay.png</ref> A site administrator at Wikipedia Review posted on January 11 the Essjay user page at Wikia had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees and noted there was no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The same administrator posted further details <ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992</ref> of discrepancies between Essjay's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19, after Essjay added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

Essjay claimed on February 2 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel before he accepted the position.<ref>Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC), [http://web.archive.org/web/20071105191108/www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html User:Essjay/Archives/52]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales_asks_Wikipedian_to_resign_"his_positions_of_trust"_over_nonexistent_degrees&oldid=382962 Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees], Wikinews.</ref><ref>http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/05/one-last-brief-comment-on-the-essjay-scandal/</ref> It was apparent Essjay had lied.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref> Brandt sought to contact Stacy Schiff with the information, and expressed disillusionment over the next several weeks at not receiving a response.

Brandt sent several letters regarding his own biography to the Foundation Legal Department and never received a response. On February 3 Florence Devouard, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation announced Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html Executive director], Florence Devouard, Feb 3 21:47:48 UTC 2007.</ref>
[[Image:Mania-logo.gif|thumb|300px|right|The 2006 ''WikiMania'' Conference was held in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]], August 4-6.]]
Ken Myers, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and author of ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia''<ref>[http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2 ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia'']</ref> presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts<ref>http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM1</ref> is known in the community as Ksm10. Myers registered an account at Wikipedia Review on February 21, 2007<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1003</ref> and spent several hours which included a discussion with Brandt on Section 230 issues. Brandt had been arguing for months that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the WikiMedia Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia and that the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only internet service providers are immune from liability for libelous content under Section 230.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5641&view=findpost&p=19429</ref> Brandt's efforts to get Wikipedia to remove the libelous information about him attracted a lot of attention, and was even being studied in a Cyberlaw class at [[Harvard]].<ref>
Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus#Day_3._A_Potential_Solution:_Intermediary_Liability Day 3. A Potential Solution: Intermediary Liability] 2007 Winter Term.</ref>

Two days later one of the lesser known occurrences in the explosive maze of events of February 23 happened when Wikipedia Administrator Yanksox registered an account at Wikipedia Review.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014</ref> Curiously enough, Yanksox spent several hours perusing the site where the background material on Berlet and SlimVirgin's efforts to discredit Brandt is laid out but never posted anything in Wikipedia Review for still another two months. In a bizarre turn of events and without discussing with anyone, Yanksox suddenly executed what Brandt had been asking for 15 months: invoking '''Ignore All Rules''' ('''IAR''') policy, Yanksox deleted the Brandt biographical entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=110357260</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence</ref> The page had been nominated for deletion numerous times, but always failed to win the necessary support in Wikipedia's mind-numbing bureaucratic processes. Yanksox stated his reasons as "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Yanksox&page=Daniel+Brandt</ref> then performed a "kamikaze dive" by deleting his own user page.

It was now common knowledge among critics at the Wikipedia Review forum and many of Wikipedia's so-called "inner cabal" that gross distortions and lies had been used to advance Essjay within the organization and perpetrated against a mainstream news source with a good reputation for fact checking. Many of the more mature Wiki Admins now saw the wisdom of ending the dispute with Brandt which was claiming more and more dupes with no understanding of the root of the dispute. In the midst of the firestorm over Yanksox out of process deletion that same day, Jimbo Wales announced Essjay's appointment to the Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-February/063809.html</ref>

Three days later, on February 26, Brandt received and posted a response from the Deputy Editor of ''The New Yorker'' stating a retraction would be published in the March 5 issue including the comment, "which comes out today."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23635</ref> Wikia’s public relations firm made Essjay’s response to ''The New Yorker''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111710102&oldid=111704869</ref>

====The scandal breaks====

When the scandal broke it was [[international]] in scope with ABC News,<ref name="ABC video">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|title=ABC News broadcast on Essjay|accessdate=2007-03-08}}</ref> Associated Press,<ref name="Larry_Sanger_Springs_Citizendium">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia
|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2980046
|work=[[ABC News]]
|publisher=[[Associated Press]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-26
}}</ref> BBC,<ref name="BBC">{{cite news
| title = Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
| work = [[BBC News]]
| date = March 6, 2007
| accessdate = 2007-03-16
}}</ref> USA Today,<ref name="BrianBergstein">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia
|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm
|publisher=[[USA Today]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-25
}}</ref> London Daily Telegraph,<ref name=Jardine>{{cite news
|first=Cassandra
|last=Jardine
|title=Fount of all wisdom – and foolery
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/08/nosplit/ftwiki108.xml
|publisher=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''
|section= Features
|date=March 8, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=21
|quote =}}</ref> London Guardian,<ref name="Guardian">Finkelstein, Seth. [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html "Read me first"], ''[[The Guardian|The London Guardian]]'', March 8, 2007.</ref> Le Monde,<ref>[http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=979865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01 Wikipédia, à visage découvert], Olivier Dumons, LE MONDE.FR 08 Mars 2007.</ref> The Register,<ref name="Farewell, Wikipedia?">{{cite web
| url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/
| title = Farewell, Wikipedia?
| accessdate = 2007-03-18
| last = Orlowski
| first = Andrew
| authorlink = Andrew Orlowski
| date = March 6, 2007
| work = Music and Media
| publisher = [[The Register]]
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
}}
</ref> Newsweek,<ref name=Keen>{{cite news
|first=Steven
|last=Levy
|title=Invasion of the web amateurs
|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/36171
|publisher=[[Newsweek]]
|section=The Technologist
|date=March 26, 2007
|accessdate=
|page=16
|quote =}}</ref> BusinessWeek,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070321_174505.htm?chan=search|title=Wikipedia's Not the Net Police|author=B.L.Ochman|publisher=''[[BusinessWeek]]''|date=2007-03-22|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref> CNSNews,<ref name=Bozell>{{cite news
|first=L. Brent
|last=Bozell III
|title=Not Your Father's Encyclopedia
|url=http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/archive/2007/col20070321.asp
|publisher=CNSNews.com
|section=
|date=March 21, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=
|quote =}}</ref> Boston Globe<ref name=Beam>{{cite news
|first=Alex
|last=Beam
|title=Tricky truths behind Wikipedia
|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/03/12/tricky_truths_behind_wikipedia/
|publisher=''[[Boston Globe]]''
|section=LivingGarts
|date=March 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=E5
|quote =}}</ref> and Sydney Morning Herald<ref name="LarrySanger2002">{{cite news
|first =
|last =
|authorlink =
|title = More than just a war of words
|url = http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-just-a-war-of-words/2007/04/21/1176697134712.html
|work =
|publisher = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
|pages =
|date = April 21, 2007
|accessdate = 2007-04-23
}}</ref> all reporting on it. The reaction within the Wikipedia Community was largely a feeling of shock, anger, and betrayal. Many ''bona fide'' experts and academics quit in disgust.<ref>[http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2007/05/sand_castles_of_knowledge.html Sand Castles of Knowledge], Kyle Gann, May 5, 2007.</ref>

Jimbo Wales' handpicked Arbitrator of civility began name-calling and attacked "Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies;"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111701367&oldid=111700836</ref> however this excuse rings hollow since Essjay posted the bogus credentials long before the Katefan controversy, and shortly after the campaign against Brandt's credibility began months before Brandt was ever involved, or even aware of it. Essjay also blamed ''The New Yorker'' :
{{Cquote|I’m also sorry the ''New Yorker'' chose to print what they did…no respectable publication would print it.”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285</ref>}}''The New Yorker'' retraction quoted Jimbo saying, "I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref> Estranged co-founder [[Larry Sanger]], who is probably recognized as Wales most respected critic, confronted Wales,
{{Cquote|Look, either you hired him thinking he was a tenured professor, or you hired him knowing he was a fraud. There wasn't a third option. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#not_a_violoation_of_trust.3F.21 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20], March 2 - 5, 2007.</ref>}}

A longtime editor from the very earliest days of the Wikipedia project, named JHK, after hearing [[Andrew Schlafly]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307.ram<</ref> founder of Conservapedia speak told Jimbo Wales,
{{Cquote|he is right about there being a cadre of people who tend to get their way on editorial matters. Perhaps that's part of the social engineering experiment that is part of Wikipedia. But when a member of that cadre has clearly abused his position based in part on lies he told to get that position, and the cadre circles wagons ...?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20</ref>}}

''The Chronicle of Higher Education'' noted,
{{Cquote|Like most of the controversies that swirl around Wikipedia, the incident has wider ramifications than a simple personal dispute....the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.<ref>{{cite news |title= Essjay, the Ersatz Academic|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070305162127/http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1909 |publisher= ''The Chronicle of Higher Education''|date= March 2 2007|last=Read|first=Brock}}</ref>}}

Six weeks after Foundation Chair Florence Devouard announced Brad Patrick resuming his role as General Counsel to focus on addressing "a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces," Patrick resigned.<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html Brad Patrick Resigns as General Counsel], Brad Patrick, Mar 22 19:01:14 UTC 2007</ref>

===What did Jimbo know and when did he know it? ===

On April 11, 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation published as part of its Privacy policy for Checkuser rights a requirement for disclosure of the identification of Administrator to the Foundation. At the time of Essjay's appointment to Checkuser, several prominant Wikipedians expressed concern over the trustworthiness of Checkusers. Here is how Essjay addressed the gravity of their concerns:
{{Cquote|We have users from all over the world. Not all of them live in countries where their safety is guaranteed; there are, most assuredly, editors from regimes where if their personal information was discovered, they could be imprisoned and perhaps even killed. That terrifies me, because I don't want anybody dying over Wikipedia, nor do I want them to end up in prison. If checkuser falls into the wrong hands (I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine foreign governments wanting to hunt down our contributors; after all, at least two have blocked us flat out already), the result could literally be a matter of life and death. ''Life and death.''<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/020054.html [Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?], Essjay Mon Apr 17 06:14:53 UTC 2006.</ref>}}
An editor asked, "I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and [another Admin] are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the Foundation board." The other Checkuser Admin responded,
{{Cquote|the fact that Essjay and I are well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/006776.html Foundation-l new checkuser policy] Essjay, Fri Apr 21 19:22:21 UTC 2006</ref>}}

===Cracks in the dam===

Wikipedia reached a milestone in its history on October 12, 2007, when Wikipedia "controversial and knowledgeable expert" [[Chip Berlet]] received his first block for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet] Berlet, who had written for [[extremist]] publications<ref>[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+"experts":+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451 Expertly using "experts": leftist media organs selectively use so-called experts to propagandize the masses on behalf of a statist agenda. (Expert Opinion)].</ref><ref>John George and Laird Wilcox, [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, (ISBN 0-87975-680-2), pgs. 125-131.</ref> throughout his career, had achieved a special "controversial expert" exemption from virtually all Wikipedia's written policies. This exemption from policy extended to citing self, no original research, no self promotion, incivility and personal attacks, and other policies.

In the wake of the Essjay scandal, and questions surrounding Berlet's conduct toward non-LaRouche editors, Wikipedia appears to be moving away from the "expert" designation, and now uses the term "knowledgeable editor."

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10360&view=findpost&p=36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense [[group-think]] Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm Article: Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.

[[Category:Wikis]]

Hip hop

2009-09-20T03:09:25Z

Horenvalle:

'''Hip-hop''', or '''rap''', is a music style that developed in the mid-1970s in the [[United States]], particularly in [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]]. Hip hop performances generally consist of two main roles, [[DJ]]ing (producing live beats and sounds, or more commonly, [[sample|sampling]] from existing records and breaks) and [[rap|MCing]] or rapping (vocals). Hip hop is one of two genres of music invented in the [[United States]] (the other being [[jazz]]).

More so than any other music genre, hip hop vocals are similar to regular speech, with the exception that it is sped up. Traditional singing is often only entailed during the chorus. Musically, hip-hop evolved from hard [[funk]] and [[soul]], and frequently [[sample|samples]] such records.

Successful hip-hop artists inculde [[DJ Shadow]], [[Eminem]], [[Dr. Dre]], [[The Sugarhill Gang]], [[NWA]], [[Kanye West]] and [[Notorious B.I.G]].

== The four elements ==
During the 1980s, the nascent culture of hip-hop was seen as encompassing more than just music. Originally, there were said to be four elements of hip-hop:
* rapping
* DJing, ie playing the records that provided the musical background for rapping
* breakdancing
* [[graffiti]], in the disctinctive style that has now spread all over the Western world.

However, hip-hop graffiti and dancing are now niche interests whose popularity is dwarfed by the global ubiquity of hip-hop music. Even DJing is now largely marginalised, as modern hip-hop music is mainly performed by solo rappers over pre-produced beats, rather than the 'crews' of rappers and DJs who were popular in the early days of the genre.

==Criticism==

Because many rappers come from poor communities, poor living conditions, and poor schooling, they often rap about what these conditions are like and express emotionally how they feel about them today. These raps have Christian groups widely decry the sub-genre of [[gangsta rap]], because this emotional expression often demeans women and strongly promotes violence as well as an overly materialistic sense of life as a result. Songs such as "Big Pimpin'" by Jay-Z promote prostitution while songs like "**** Wit Dre Day" describe the performers Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre performing sexual acts. Songs like "Where the Hood At?" have become anthems for young gangs and some conservatives believe the songs incite listeners into behaving violently.

===Genres of Rap===
*[[Gangsta Rap]]
*[[Crunk]]
*[[G-Funk]]
*Christian Rap - a genre of rap music with more positive lyrics than conventional rap[http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:213]

===See Also===
*[[Turntablism]]
*[[Sample|Sampling]]
*[[American Music]]

[[category:musical Genres]]

Wikipedia

2009-09-18T02:52:28Z

Horenvalle:

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

'''Wikipedia''' is a self-described<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> online [[encyclopedia]] project founded by [[entrepreneur]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]]
and [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001 and usually edited by unemployed liberal community college dropouts.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, although only 130 have more than 1000 articles. Conservapedia is only in English<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Origins==

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a [[conservative bias]]. [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==

An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility, and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.
[[Image:Prouty1.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (1917 - 2001).]]
[[Chip Berlet]] built a career writing in various far-left [[revolution]]ary publications, including ''[[Guardian (NY)]]'' of New York,<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Preface & Acknowledgements. Berlet writes, "John Stockwell gave an interview even though he felt my "Guardian" article on Craig Hulet implied Stockwell was an ally of "Bo" Gritz. That was not my intent, and I regret any misunderstanding and appreciate Mr. Stockwell's patience. Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains very useful, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective." The ''Guardian'' article is cited at PublicEye.org, "Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left," ''The Guardian'' (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]</ref> founded by [[KGB]] agent [[Cedric Belfrage]], whose writers at times included KGB operatives [[Anna Louise Strong]], [[Agnes Smedley]] and [[Wilfred Burchett]]. Burchett was a long time personal friend of [[Ho Chi Minh]],<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613596-5012694,00.html Losing it in Nam], ''The Australian'', October 20, 2007.</ref> assisted in extracting confessions from American [[POW]]s in the [[Korean War]]<ref>[http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/rebel_reporter/ A Rebel Reporter], Book Review by Bertil Lintner, Asia Pacific Media Services, August 2006.</ref> and spread [[disinformation]] about American use of [[germ warfare]] which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the [[Kremlin]].<ref>Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News & World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.</ref>

Berlet and Daniel Brandt wrote for the ''[[Covert Action Information Bulletin]]'' in the 1970s, and Brandt wrote for ''[[CounterSpy]]'' magazine, edited by [[Philip Agee]] and [[Timothy Butz]]. Butz was also on the editorial staff of ''[[The Public Eye]]''<ref>"Public Eye Staff," The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.</ref> with Berlet as managing editor<ref>''The Public Eye'', Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).</ref> and which Berlet describes as a "spawn of the first ''Counterspy''."<ref>Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, ''Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression,'' (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Rev. 1/14/91).</ref> ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the names of several [[CIA]] agents,<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948672,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Dirty Work], ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Oct. 02, 1978.</ref> including CIA Athens Station Chief [[Richard S. Welch]] who was murdered by the [[terrorist]] [[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]] in 1975<ref>''[[Washington Post]]'', [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29,+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch Obituary: Richard S. Welch], 29 December 1975, A16. ISBN 01908286 </ref> and gave the impetus for passage of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]].<ref>For The Record, ''Washington Post'', 27 July 1980. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20051101.asp]</ref> Berlet was also a member of Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme [[leftism]] demands ideological purity from its followers. Berlet made an ultimatum to remove another Board member.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed Berlet from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included, in Berlet's words, "LaRouche-defender Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel, was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. Berlet considered Prouty a [[fascist]]. Brandt retorted, "When it came to making a choice between Prouty and Berlet, it was a rather easy decision for me to make."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5315&pid=18679&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry18679</ref> Berlet further sought to undermine Brandt by convincing three others to quit, adding "He (Brandt) was mad"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> but admitting "On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of the LaRouchians."<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Part 033 ''The JFK Conspiracy'' - November 22, 1993. Retrieved from the Nizkor Project, October 29, 2007.</ref>

The WikiMedia Foundation retains Berlet, despite his penchant for excess,<ref>Brandt notes, "Berlet, from Political Research Associates, is always denouncing folks as right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, cultic, or conspiracist." [http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/SQ]</ref> to deal with the ceaseless barrage of idiosyncratic musings from the followers of [[Lyndon LaRouche]].

=== Impugning critics ===

'''Neutral Point of View (NPOV)''' requires,
{{Cquote|without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles.}}
Berlet complained about criticism in his Wikipedia biographical entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and the organization he is associated with, [[Political Research Associates]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=24242896</ref> One critic was blasted in the article mainspace with an unsourced, unspecified rebuttal by Berlet as "unethical;" when an editor asked if the charge by Berlet could be substantiated the editor was rebuked and accused of "harassing a controversial expert."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_2#Laird_Wilcox</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Dispute_Resolution_Process</ref> Another reliable source in the article read,
{{Cquote|one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s 'crusade' against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet 'may try to undermine your work and isolate you.' <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory], By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com October 16, 2003.</ref>}}
Berlet stated, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and a Daniel Brandt entry on Wikipedia soon was created. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible. Brandt observed, "I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry21441</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6666&pid=23072&mode=threaded&show=&st=20&#entry23072</ref><ref>SlimVirgin stated on stated 21:57, Dec 28, 2004, "Daniel Brandt is not a reputable source." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_1 Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1], and at 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) "I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source"[http://www.talkaboutalternative.com/group/alt.conspiracy/messages/1164072.html]</ref>

'''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Self-published sources''' states,
[[Image:25may2006cberlet2.GIF|thumb|300px|right|Berlet inserts highly inflammatory, guilt by association material cited to himself; the slanders remained for at least 16 months.]]
{{Cquote|Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources</ref>}}
'''Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Reliable sources''' states,
{{Cquote|Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the '''No original research''' and '''Verifiability''' policies, and could lead to [[libel]] claims....Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links...Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory...<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources</ref>}}
Brandt is also a registered user at Wikipedia, hence '''No Personal Attacks''' and '''Civility''' clauses apply, in addition to '''What Wikipedia is Not''', a vehicle for propaganda, advertising or self-promotion, and '''Wikipedia is not a battleground'''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground</ref>

'''Wikipedia:No Original Research''', which has undergone several revisions, at the time stated, "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge...If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere...the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person...They must cite reliable, third-party publications... bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=50820065#The_role_of_expert_editors</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Citing_oneself</ref>
'''Wikipedia:Ownership of articles''' prohibits asserting ownership over articles, particularly where a [[conflict of interest]] may arise. Chip Berlet has been cautioned by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee on several occasions about over involvement in his Wikipedia biography.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Arbitration_report</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_regarding_autobiography</ref> When Berlet was unable to have criticism sourced to Brandt removed from his entry, Berlet dredged up a 16 year old highly inflammatory and vicious [[guilt by association]] smear against Brandt to elevate Berlet's own personal credibility and further undermine Brandt as a reputable critic of Chip Berlet. Berlet himself placed the slanders in Wikipedia entries about Brandt, citing himself, and using his own in-house self publishing source. Despite rigorous protestations and appeals to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the ultimate arbitrator Jimbo Wales himself, the slanders remained in for a year and half.



=== What is a reputable source? ===

[[Image:Americanextremist.JPG|thumb|300px|right|[http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America,'']John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, Chapter 9, ''[[Guardian]]'', pgs. 125-131. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)]]
Several official Wikipedia policies were rewritten<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Workshop/Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes].</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=31675236&oldid=31668491 Wikipedia:No original research], Revision as of 00:21, 17 December 2005; SlimVirgin removes the language, "Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."</ref>and modified at various times to exempt [[Chip Berlet]] from provisions and applications. Enforcement of basic civility clauses and no personal attacks regarding Berlet's conduct are routinely ignored. Berlet considers himself an expert on the subject of anti-Semitism, but was unanimously rejected by several key and influential Wikipedia Administrators<ref>"I, '''Jayjg''', hereby award you this '''Barnstar''' for your scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards, most recently in your brilliant use of '''reliable sources''' at '''Holocaust Denial'''. 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goodoldpolonius2&diff=41765875&oldid=40600697], retrieved from WP/User:Goodoldpolonius2, October 14, 2007.</ref><ref>Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2005. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20507026&oldid=20505285]</ref> as a reputable source<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20321342&oldid=20321025 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/Deep problems with the article], Revision as of 07:17, 5 August 2005, Goodoldpolonius2; "the whole article is essentially original research. The only source cited (besides Chip Berlet's chart, which, whatever its merits, has remarkably little to do with the roots of racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century)....The racial anti-Semitism section is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20321341#Racial_anti-Semitism not factually correct]."</ref> for the Wikipedia [[mainspace]] article, "Roots of Anti-Semitism" in 2005. As of October 2007, Wikipedia's '''Reliable sources/Extremist sources''' policy stated,
{{Cquote|Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as [[extremist]], whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extreme sources], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 14, 2007.</ref>}}
High level Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin, in a remarkably transparent action removed herself as a defendant<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21733464 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], SlimVirgin (→Rangerdude - moved Katefan's); SlimVirgin made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21732881 '''involved third party: Katefan0'''] a full party to take her place in the case after ArbCom voted to Accept. Katefan0 it was discovered later was Kathryn Wolfe of ''Congressional Quarterly'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=2f1782927c11d7a9e62cf6815238337d&showtopic=7603&view=findpost&p=25526][http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=thissite_masthead] accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. Wolfe lost her Senate press credentials when an undisclosed [[conflict of interest]] came to light regarding her activities as an anonymous Wikipedia Administrator. Wolfe was promoted to a Wikipedia Administrator after her role in the frame up of the complaining party. Wolfe initiated Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures over an article about a former employer, the ''Houston Chronicle''. The facts were made known to ArbCom. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was a policy, and not a guideline. Several parties were known to enter Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures, signing an agreement to participate in Good Faith, only to be viciously defamed in a public forum accessible to Google search engines, without recourse, and both the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and WikiMedia Foundation turned a blind eye to the situation.</ref> from Wikipedia's internal policy making and self-regulatory process governing user conduct known as Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee voted to accept a complaint filed against her<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], Revision as of 15:45, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude], Revision as of 15:46, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept and merge)".</ref> to review her conduct. SlimVirgin made the Complaining party the defendant, removed herself, and placed a third party, User:Katefan0 in her place. SlimVirgin then presented evidence in the same case which stated,
{{Cquote|'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence/Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).</ref>}}
The Complaining party stated,
{{Cquote|the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?], Revision as of 21:49, 4 August 2005, Rangerdude.</ref>}}
Nonetheless, reprisal actions were taken against the Complaining party who exposed the duplicity of Wikipedia internal regulatory processes and favoritism granted to an extreme [[leftist]] writer.

=== Jimbo Wales chooses sides in the dispute ===

The negative publicity engendered by the Seigenthaler and Brandt cases put Wikipedia into crisis management mode. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From [[WikiTruth]], the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official statement declaring Brandt was not a reliable source of criticism on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry, yet another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain Brandt's biography simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. As in the Seigenthaler controversy, Brandt once again demanded accountability, this time from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own background which would deny him inclusion as a source on anything other than himself.

Brandt is now known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

===First casualty: a Congressional correspondent gets canned===

The first casualty in the war between Brandt and the Wikipedia Admin community<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7785&st=0&p=26282&#entry26282</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=prev&oldid=118823615</ref> was a reporter for ''Congressional Quarterly'' and accredited to the [[U.S. Senate]] Press Gallery.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&pid=7935&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry7935</ref> User:Katefan0 was a member of the Association of Immoral Wikimedians<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=243978&oldid=243977</ref> founded by [[Jimbo Wales]].<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=232409&oldid=230690</ref> Brandt stated,
[[Image:Washington 05 183.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Katefan was accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery; ArbCom knew of some her conflicts of interest.]]
{{Cquote|One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the ''Congressional Quarterly'', even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in [[Washington DC]] that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious [[conflict of interest]] to the extent that it was not disclosed.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1422&view=findpost&p=7935</ref>}}

Katefan outed herself<ref>http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/KinF/messages/1416?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1</ref> but Brandt conceded the circumstances surrounding her exit from Wikipedia damaged his reputation. Meantime the issue of accountability at the forefront of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]] was all but forgotten as privacy concerns of anonymous Administrators surmounted defamations of innocent real life people whose identity was known.

Katefan initiated '''Wikipedia:Dispute resolution''' with a knowledgeable conservative editor over various controversies on the ''Houston Chronicle'' article, including references to the ''Chronicle's'' coverage of [[Republican]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom Delay]]. Katefan had in fact worked for the ''Houston Chronicle'' during many of these controversies,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14272141</ref> was using Original Research and admitted to being friends with editors and reporters on the ''Chronicle'' staff.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Archive_1#Response</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14339760</ref> Katefan removed properly sourced examples of the ''Chronicle's'' Editorial Board and her former co-workers [[hate speech]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=next&oldid=14285136</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14285136</ref> which included references to prominent Republicans as a subhuman species. Katefan's [[conflict of interest]] was made known to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_incivility_and_bullying</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14282308</ref> For her assistance in silencing, and ultimately harassing a knowledgeable conservative editor out of the project with an Arbitration ruling of "tendentious editing,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#POV_editing_by_Rangerdude</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Rangerdude_placed_on_probation</ref> Katefan was promoted to Admin.

Not long after, another professional journalist politely protested Wikipedia's exceedingly biased entries about [[Paul Weyrich]]. Patently false information about Weyrich was cited to none other than Chip Berlet, with the customary alleged "links and ties" to "fascist" [[Dominionism]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dominionism/Archive_1#latest_removal</ref> Berlet's latest ideological crusade. The user admitted to being a member of the same Melkite [[Catholic]] parish as Mr. Weyrich,<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Well_referenced_but_biased_sources Talk:Paul Weyrich#Well referenced but biased sources]</ref> and offered to volunteer his professional expertise to improve Wikipedia's Dominionism series and bring neutral balance. The editor was instructed point blank by high level Wikipedia Administrators, "people with a vested interest in the content of an article should not edit it,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pravknight#Paul_Weyrich User talk:Pravknight#Paul Weyrich]</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-January/060162.html ; Berlet circumvented official WP:Dispute Resolution by posting "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this..." at Wikien-1 and asked someone else to nominate '''Category:Soviet spies''' for deletion while the issue was being Mediated. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was policy and participants signed a Mediation pledge to participate in Good Faith [http://encyc.connectonline.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop#Good_faith]. Berlet's conflict of interest can be seen in (1) personal association with ''[[Guardian]]'' of New York, (2) personal association with [[Harry Magdoff]], (3) personal connection with ''CounterSpy'' magazine. ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the true identities of living CIA officials, and lead to creation of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]]. Berlet it appears never had a problem with exposing the real life identities of living CIA agents but has fought strenuously to keep deceased identities of [[KGB]] agents out of Wikipedia. Two years after Berlet circumvented policy, '''Category:Soviet spies''' has not been deleted.</ref> and of course, profiled as a conservative, was banned for "tendentious editing."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight#Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?] The editor stated, "why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Wikipedia? Why is it that I constantly get harassed, picked on and intimidated for trying to bring things back to the center by excising the hate-filled, bigoted rhetoric that populates the articles about Christians in politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harassment."</ref>

By March 2007 Katefan's name was no longer on the Senate Press Gallery list.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7603&st=0&p=25526&#entry25526</ref>

=== Second casualty: Wikipedia "experts" called into question, the Essjay Scandal ===

On April 29-30, 2005 a conference of [[radical]] [[leftist]]s to discuss the "real agenda of the Christian right" <ref>[http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2005-June/018692.html ''Public university sponsorship of conference on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right"'']</ref> was held a CUNY. Berlet spoke at the forum and Doug Ireland reported,
{{Cquote|Nobody at the national level is tracking these ''[[Christer]]''<ref>[http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html Religious Right Watch''] July 10, 2005.</ref> censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. 'People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at [[Political Research Associates]] would love to do it,' says Berlet, 'but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it ....' <ref>[http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/06/the_new_blackli.html ''The New Blacklist: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers''], Doug Ireland, June 09, 2005.</ref>}}
Wikipedia had the resources, Political Research Associates began tracking them, and the “strategies to defeat them” were carried into the battleground of Wikipedia. Berlet's massive, “Dominionism” series, a compendium of anti-Christian screeds best characterized by Stanley Kurtz of the ''[[National Review]]'', who also reported on the conference, claims the "real agenda" of the Religious Right is to,
{{Cquote|suppress other religions ...reestablish slavery. ...reduce women to near-slavery by making them property. ...execute anyone found guilty of pre-marital, extramarital, or homosexual sex and ...to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp ''Dominionist Domination, The Left runs with a wild theory.''] Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, May 02, 2005.</ref>}}

Ten days later on May 10 Essjay posted on his user page,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#Your_.22apologies.22_sound_fake</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23005</ref>
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. 

My Academic Degrees: 
* Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
* Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
* Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
* Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) 
</blockquote>

Essjay was nominated for Admin on July 13, 2005 and in accepting he wrote, "Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all. I’ve added a good bit of material to articles, particularly material related to [[Roman Catholicism]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=18741394&oldid=18741092</ref>
An anonymous IP commented, "I have read several of Essjay's articles on Catholicism and I am very impressed with how thorough and clear they are. Many scholars try to be "thick" in their language, but not Dr. Essjay."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=19090368&oldid=19089436</ref> His Adminship was completed one week later with near unanimous support.

After serving in the leadership of various Wikipedian associations such as Administrator General of Esperanza and official contact for Wikimedia with Freenode, the IRC network that hosts most of Wikimedia's IRC channels, Essjay was elected a Bureaucrat on March 31, 2006.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay</ref>

==== Hoaxes perpetrated against academics and mainstream media ====

On April 7, 2006 one week after moving into his new role as a Bureaucrat Essjay sent an email to a professor in response to her comments on using Wikipedia as an academic source. The professor had told her students, "PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source." The email is not of a personal nature and Essjay clearly represents himself as speaking for Wikipedia and posted a verbatim copy for others to use. The letter stated:
{{Cquote|I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology... I find it very disturbing that you included the statement "it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy." ... Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public. ...

Wikipedia has recently experienced some bad publicity over the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair (I know the issue extensively; I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales); it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity. ...'''It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia'''; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before. (''bolden added'') <ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

Of the two hundred thousand registered users, and the nearly one thousand administrators with powers to block others from editing, Essjay was one of only 14 with Checkuser rights, a responsibility which has always been the cause of grave privacy concerns and only given to those who have earned the trust of the WikiMedia Foundation. Essjay was recommended to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff of ''The New Yorker'' by a member of Wikipedia’s management team<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote Know It All], Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?, by Stacy Schiff ''The New Yorker'', July 31, 2006; Editor's Note appended.</ref> and would not identify himself other than confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>
In a piece entitled, ''Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?'', Schiff wrote,
[[Image:Schiffstacy 3l.jpg|thumb|350px|right|[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff was hoaxed by Essjay and Wikipedia's management team.[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote] ]]
{{Cquote|One regular on the site is a user known as Essjay, who holds a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law and has written or contributed to sixteen thousand entries. A tenured professor of religion at a private university...

Wales also appointed an arbitration committee to rule on disputes. Before a case reaches the arbitration committee, it often passes through a mediation committee. Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed...

Wales recently established an “oversight” function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there. }}

''The New Yorker'' unwittingly published the deceptive information on Essjay's credentials in its July 31, 2006 issue. The same month Brandt pointed out at Wikipedia Review,<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701</ref> a forum frequented by prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day.

In August 2006, a professional journalist who attended the same Catholic parish as [[Paul Weyrich]] of the [[Free Congress Foundation]] protested the patently false information about Weyrich. Weyrich was [[politically profiled]] as a right-wing "theocratic dominionist." Wikipedia's [[Dominionism]] entry, authored by Berlet, stated in its opening sentence, "Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&diff=83649766&oldid=83640075</ref> There was one big problem, Weyrich is Catholic. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Inaccurate_information Talk:Paul Weyrich#Inaccurate information]</ref> By now Essjay was becoming established as Wikipedia's leading scholar on Catholicism.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_finding_of_fact_by_Doug_Bell User:Essjay/RFC/Outside finding of fact by Doug Bell], 2 March 2007.</ref>

====The Wikipedia Review forum====

On January 7, 2007, Essjay outed his own true life identity on his user page at Wikia.<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wmessjay.png</ref> A site administrator at Wikipedia Review posted on January 11 the Essjay user page at Wikia had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees and noted there was no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The same administrator posted further details <ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992</ref> of discrepancies between Essjay's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19, after Essjay added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

Essjay claimed on February 2 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel before he accepted the position.<ref>Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC), [http://web.archive.org/web/20071105191108/www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html User:Essjay/Archives/52]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales_asks_Wikipedian_to_resign_"his_positions_of_trust"_over_nonexistent_degrees&oldid=382962 Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees], Wikinews.</ref><ref>http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/05/one-last-brief-comment-on-the-essjay-scandal/</ref> It was apparent Essjay had lied.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref> Brandt sought to contact Stacy Schiff with the information, and expressed disillusionment over the next several weeks at not receiving a response.

Brandt sent several letters regarding his own biography to the Foundation Legal Department and never received a response. On February 3 Florence Devouard, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation announced Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html Executive director], Florence Devouard, Feb 3 21:47:48 UTC 2007.</ref>
[[Image:Mania-logo.gif|thumb|300px|right|The 2006 ''WikiMania'' Conference was held in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]], August 4-6.]]
Ken Myers, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and author of ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia''<ref>[http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2 ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia'']</ref> presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts<ref>http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM1</ref> is known in the community as Ksm10. Myers registered an account at Wikipedia Review on February 21, 2007<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1003</ref> and spent several hours which included a discussion with Brandt on Section 230 issues. Brandt had been arguing for months that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the WikiMedia Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia and that the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only internet service providers are immune from liability for libelous content under Section 230.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5641&view=findpost&p=19429</ref> Brandt's efforts to get Wikipedia to remove the libelous information about him attracted a lot of attention, and was even being studied in a Cyberlaw class at [[Harvard]].<ref>
Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus#Day_3._A_Potential_Solution:_Intermediary_Liability Day 3. A Potential Solution: Intermediary Liability] 2007 Winter Term.</ref>

Two days later one of the lesser known occurrences in the explosive maze of events of February 23 happened when Wikipedia Administrator Yanksox registered an account at Wikipedia Review.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014</ref> Curiously enough, Yanksox spent several hours perusing the site where the background material on Berlet and SlimVirgin's efforts to discredit Brandt is laid out but never posted anything in Wikipedia Review for still another two months. In a bizarre turn of events and without discussing with anyone, Yanksox suddenly executed what Brandt had been asking for 15 months: invoking '''Ignore All Rules''' ('''IAR''') policy, Yanksox deleted the Brandt biographical entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=110357260</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence</ref> The page had been nominated for deletion numerous times, but always failed to win the necessary support in Wikipedia's mind-numbing bureaucratic processes. Yanksox stated his reasons as "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Yanksox&page=Daniel+Brandt</ref> then performed a "kamikaze dive" by deleting his own user page.

It was now common knowledge among critics at the Wikipedia Review forum and many of Wikipedia's so-called "inner cabal" that gross distortions and lies had been used to advance Essjay within the organization and perpetrated against a mainstream news source with a good reputation for fact checking. Many of the more mature Wiki Admins now saw the wisdom of ending the dispute with Brandt which was claiming more and more dupes with no understanding of the root of the dispute. In the midst of the firestorm over Yanksox out of process deletion that same day, Jimbo Wales announced Essjay's appointment to the Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-February/063809.html</ref>

Three days later, on February 26, Brandt received and posted a response from the Deputy Editor of ''The New Yorker'' stating a retraction would be published in the March 5 issue including the comment, "which comes out today."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23635</ref> Wikia’s public relations firm made Essjay’s response to ''The New Yorker''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111710102&oldid=111704869</ref>

====The scandal breaks====

When the scandal broke it was [[international]] in scope with ABC News,<ref name="ABC video">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|title=ABC News broadcast on Essjay|accessdate=2007-03-08}}</ref> Associated Press,<ref name="Larry_Sanger_Springs_Citizendium">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia
|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2980046
|work=[[ABC News]]
|publisher=[[Associated Press]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-26
}}</ref> BBC,<ref name="BBC">{{cite news
| title = Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
| work = [[BBC News]]
| date = March 6, 2007
| accessdate = 2007-03-16
}}</ref> USA Today,<ref name="BrianBergstein">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia
|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm
|publisher=[[USA Today]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-25
}}</ref> London Daily Telegraph,<ref name=Jardine>{{cite news
|first=Cassandra
|last=Jardine
|title=Fount of all wisdom – and foolery
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/08/nosplit/ftwiki108.xml
|publisher=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''
|section= Features
|date=March 8, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=21
|quote =}}</ref> London Guardian,<ref name="Guardian">Finkelstein, Seth. [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html "Read me first"], ''[[The Guardian|The London Guardian]]'', March 8, 2007.</ref> Le Monde,<ref>[http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=979865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01 Wikipédia, à visage découvert], Olivier Dumons, LE MONDE.FR 08 Mars 2007.</ref> The Register,<ref name="Farewell, Wikipedia?">{{cite web
| url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/
| title = Farewell, Wikipedia?
| accessdate = 2007-03-18
| last = Orlowski
| first = Andrew
| authorlink = Andrew Orlowski
| date = March 6, 2007
| work = Music and Media
| publisher = [[The Register]]
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
}}
</ref> Newsweek,<ref name=Keen>{{cite news
|first=Steven
|last=Levy
|title=Invasion of the web amateurs
|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/36171
|publisher=[[Newsweek]]
|section=The Technologist
|date=March 26, 2007
|accessdate=
|page=16
|quote =}}</ref> BusinessWeek,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070321_174505.htm?chan=search|title=Wikipedia's Not the Net Police|author=B.L.Ochman|publisher=''[[BusinessWeek]]''|date=2007-03-22|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref> CNSNews,<ref name=Bozell>{{cite news
|first=L. Brent
|last=Bozell III
|title=Not Your Father's Encyclopedia
|url=http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/archive/2007/col20070321.asp
|publisher=CNSNews.com
|section=
|date=March 21, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=
|quote =}}</ref> Boston Globe<ref name=Beam>{{cite news
|first=Alex
|last=Beam
|title=Tricky truths behind Wikipedia
|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/03/12/tricky_truths_behind_wikipedia/
|publisher=''[[Boston Globe]]''
|section=LivingGarts
|date=March 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=E5
|quote =}}</ref> and Sydney Morning Herald<ref name="LarrySanger2002">{{cite news
|first =
|last =
|authorlink =
|title = More than just a war of words
|url = http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-just-a-war-of-words/2007/04/21/1176697134712.html
|work =
|publisher = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
|pages =
|date = April 21, 2007
|accessdate = 2007-04-23
}}</ref> all reporting on it. The reaction within the Wikipedia Community was largely a feeling of shock, anger, and betrayal. Many ''bona fide'' experts and academics quit in disgust.<ref>[http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2007/05/sand_castles_of_knowledge.html Sand Castles of Knowledge], Kyle Gann, May 5, 2007.</ref>

Jimbo Wales' handpicked Arbitrator of civility began name-calling and attacked "Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies;"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111701367&oldid=111700836</ref> however this excuse rings hollow since Essjay posted the bogus credentials long before the Katefan controversy, and shortly after the campaign against Brandt's credibility began months before Brandt was ever involved, or even aware of it. Essjay also blamed ''The New Yorker'' :
{{Cquote|I’m also sorry the ''New Yorker'' chose to print what they did…no respectable publication would print it.”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285</ref>}}''The New Yorker'' retraction quoted Jimbo saying, "I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref> Estranged co-founder [[Larry Sanger]], who is probably recognized as Wales most respected critic, confronted Wales,
{{Cquote|Look, either you hired him thinking he was a tenured professor, or you hired him knowing he was a fraud. There wasn't a third option. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#not_a_violoation_of_trust.3F.21 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20], March 2 - 5, 2007.</ref>}}

A longtime editor from the very earliest days of the Wikipedia project, named JHK, after hearing [[Andrew Schlafly]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307.ram<</ref> founder of Conservapedia speak told Jimbo Wales,
{{Cquote|he is right about there being a cadre of people who tend to get their way on editorial matters. Perhaps that's part of the social engineering experiment that is part of Wikipedia. But when a member of that cadre has clearly abused his position based in part on lies he told to get that position, and the cadre circles wagons ...?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20</ref>}}

''The Chronicle of Higher Education'' noted,
{{Cquote|Like most of the controversies that swirl around Wikipedia, the incident has wider ramifications than a simple personal dispute....the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.<ref>{{cite news |title= Essjay, the Ersatz Academic|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070305162127/http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1909 |publisher= ''The Chronicle of Higher Education''|date= March 2 2007|last=Read|first=Brock}}</ref>}}

Six weeks after Foundation Chair Florence Devouard announced Brad Patrick resuming his role as General Counsel to focus on addressing "a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces," Patrick resigned.<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html Brad Patrick Resigns as General Counsel], Brad Patrick, Mar 22 19:01:14 UTC 2007</ref>

===What did Jimbo know and when did he know it? ===

On April 11, 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation published as part of its Privacy policy for Checkuser rights a requirement for disclosure of the identification of Administrator to the Foundation. At the time of Essjay's appointment to Checkuser, several prominant Wikipedians expressed concern over the trustworthiness of Checkusers. Here is how Essjay addressed the gravity of their concerns:
{{Cquote|We have users from all over the world. Not all of them live in countries where their safety is guaranteed; there are, most assuredly, editors from regimes where if their personal information was discovered, they could be imprisoned and perhaps even killed. That terrifies me, because I don't want anybody dying over Wikipedia, nor do I want them to end up in prison. If checkuser falls into the wrong hands (I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine foreign governments wanting to hunt down our contributors; after all, at least two have blocked us flat out already), the result could literally be a matter of life and death. ''Life and death.''<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/020054.html [Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?], Essjay Mon Apr 17 06:14:53 UTC 2006.</ref>}}
An editor asked, "I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and [another Admin] are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the Foundation board." The other Checkuser Admin responded,
{{Cquote|the fact that Essjay and I are well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/006776.html Foundation-l new checkuser policy] Essjay, Fri Apr 21 19:22:21 UTC 2006</ref>}}

===Cracks in the dam===

Wikipedia reached a milestone in its history on October 12, 2007, when Wikipedia "controversial and knowledgeable expert" [[Chip Berlet]] received his first block for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet] Berlet, who had written for [[extremist]] publications<ref>[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+"experts":+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451 Expertly using "experts": leftist media organs selectively use so-called experts to propagandize the masses on behalf of a statist agenda. (Expert Opinion)].</ref><ref>John George and Laird Wilcox, [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, (ISBN 0-87975-680-2), pgs. 125-131.</ref> throughout his career, had achieved a special "controversial expert" exemption from virtually all Wikipedia's written policies. This exemption from policy extended to citing self, no original research, no self promotion, incivility and personal attacks, and other policies.

In the wake of the Essjay scandal, and questions surrounding Berlet's conduct toward non-LaRouche editors, Wikipedia appears to be moving away from the "expert" designation, and now uses the term "knowledgeable editor."

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10360&view=findpost&p=36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense [[group-think]] Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm Article: Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.

[[Category:Wikis]]

Metallica

2009-09-18T02:50:38Z

Horenvalle:

'''Metallica''' is an American [[thrash metal]]/[[heavy metal]] band known for establishing the thrash metal genre along with Slayer, [[Megadeth]], and Anthrax (known as the "Big Four of Thrash Metal"). Formed in 1981 in Los Angeles by guitarist and lead vocalist James Hetfield and drummer Lars Ulrich<ref>http://www.metallica.com/Band/history.asp</ref>, they have become one of the most popular in-concert bands while selling about 90 million records worldwide.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/2q8c/</ref>

They have released a total of eight studio albums, the most well known being Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, and Metallica, and in September 2008, the band released it's ninth album Death Magnetic.<ref>http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=14828</ref>

The band has come under criticism following their campaign to sue internet users who shared their music on Napster. However Napster also went under criticism for stealing their music.

==Original lineup==
Originally, the band consisted of;
*James Hetfield (Rhythm Guitar and vocals)
*Lars Ulrich (Drums)
*Dave Mustaine (Lead Guitar)
*Ron McGovney (Bass)

==Kill 'Em All lineup==
Before Metallica's first album was recorded, both McGovney and Mustaine were fired, Mustaine due to his struggles with alcohol and drugs, and McGovney due to his inability to get along with other members. Metallica hired Kirk Hammett to replace Mustaine, and Cliff Burton to replace McGovney. This would be known as the "classic" Metallica lineup.

==After Master Of Puppets==
After Master Of Puppets, widely believed to be Metallica's best album, bassist Cliff Burton died in a tour bus accident in Sweden. He was replaced with Jason Newsted.

==St. Anger==
Just before te recording of Metallica's 8th studio album, Newsted left the band, due to never feeling like he fit in. Producer Bob Rock took over the duty of playing the bass for St. Anger.

==Current lineup==
*James Hetfield (guitars and vocals)
*Lars Ulrich (drums)
*Kirk Hammett (guitars)
*Robert Trujillo (bass)

==Discography==
*''Kill 'Em All'' (1983)
*''Ride the Lightning'' (1984)
*''Master of Puppets'' (1986)
*''...And Justice for All'' (1988)
*''Metallica'' (1991)
*''Load'' (1996)
*''ReLoad'' (1997)
*''St. Anger'' (2003)
*''Death Magnetic'' (2008)

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.metallica.com/ Official Metallica Website]

[[Category:Bands]]
[[Category:Rock Bands]]
[[Category:Heavy Metal]]

Talk:Marijuana

2009-09-18T02:34:27Z

Horenvalle:

My largest concern is of a huge hypocrisy between two articles. In the "Liberalism" article it mentions how liberals in the U.S. demand government intervention much like socialism. But then this article claims that Liberals do not want marijuana to be regulated by the government. So...which is it, more or less government involvement? Or is that not pertinent to their view because it is constantly changing between all the concerns?

Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm pretty sure NORML which is a advocacy group for the legalization of Marijuana includes many conservatives and Libertarians in its ranks. And almost all Libertarians seek the legalization of Marijuana on the basis of principle not because they're users, after all less government interference is what they seek. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ron Paul, Larry Elder and William Buckley are not liberal.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny how the source given for liberals favoring legalizing marijuana is about Libertarians supporting its legalization. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely take the Libertarian view on this issue. If tobacco is going to be legal, this should be too. Needless regulation. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hooray for another supporter. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Illegal drug ==
Who keeps calling it an "illegal drug"? It is possible to get federal approval for using it, under the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, many states allow it under medical marijuana laws. Yes, the drug is commonly abused, and sold illegally, but it is not an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:In nearly every concievable use, it is an illegal drug. Lots of illegal things can be done by people with a permit/approval, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost always illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That is just not true. There are 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California. There are some in other states as well.
:: The existence of illegal use does not make it an illegal drug. A lot of the Viagra use is derived from black-market purchases, but you would not call Viagra an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How about "illegal in most states", or "legal in some states with prescription"; or "has been decriminalized in some states". Something to that effect. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California, as opposed to California's population of 33.8 million. The U.S. kills hundreds, if not thousands, of death row inmates every year, in a perfectly legal manner. This doesn't mean that wanton killing is legal. And I really think it's usually considered an illegal drug. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Technically it is a "Controlled Substance" not an "Illegal Drug." That way some people can use it, but if you don't have the proper authorization, it is illegal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think we can agree upon that wording? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Perfect. And blatantly factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Actually, despite legalization by some states for medicinal purposes or private use in small quantities, it still remains a controlled substance by the federal government and is not allowed for medicinal or recreational use. Though it disappoints me, it still remains more or less illegal in the U.S. ([http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/terminal_illness_is_no_excuse.html see here]) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How can something put here by our Lord be made illegal? What grounds do we really have to override God? Marijuana has proven Medicinal, entheogenic and social benefits, and also promotes creative and abstract thought. In the Bible there is a possible reference to cannabis

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” -- Genesis 1: 29-30

Doesn't it seem slightly blasphemous to make one of Gods herbs illegal? [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:53, 31 January 2008 (BDT)

== Angel Raich ==
This section has been copied from wikiepedia and so I am removing it not only as a copyright violation but this is conservapedia and just brionging stuff from wikipedia defeats the point, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 13:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

DOES NOBODY HERE OWN A DICTIONARY? "Colloquial" means "slang" or "casual speech." Marijuana is or is not an illegal drug, but it is not "colloquially known" as one. Marijuana is "colloquaily known"
as pot, grass, weed, etc.

== Appraisal of its effects/consequences ==
RobS is on one, ''again''. He just reverted this eminently sensible addition below. Does anyone else feel that this honest appraisal ''promotes'' its use?

:In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.

:In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by [[LSD]] or [[psilocybin]], these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).

:Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly [[schizophrenia]]. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not going to use sales pitches to induce people to use illegal drugs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What the sweet ____ are you on about? I simply say what it does - from direct first hand experience, I might add. Have you ever been stoned, RobS? One of the key things in teaching kids about drugs is that you need to be truthful about ''why'' people use it. If you focus purely on the negatives, then your message is flatly contradicted by a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the child's peer group. You end up looking like an idiot and being completely ignored. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree: you really can't start a fight when stoned, just try the "left handed cigarette" once!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

''Allegedly'' harmful affects. Would somebody please make the change. Unfortunately it would be unethical to perform an experiment that could conclude its harm, as it is a controlled substance. Kind of convenient for conservatives, eh? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Can we unlock this article now so factual information may be added? It is rather annoying to see an article as important as this be locked for so long for reasons that amount to nothing.

Yeah, most of the stuff seems... suspect. Especially the driving claim. A comparison against legal things, such as, say, alcohol would be nice. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

"harmful medical and emotional effects and its likelihood of harm to third parties due to drug-related crime and reckless driving"
citation needed citation needed a thousand times CITATION NEEDED

==Request==

this page is locked, but I wanted to make a few changes. I wanted to remove the link from Larry Elder, as that page does not exsist. I would also like to add a few things about the referendums in Colorado [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:40, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reefer Madness ==

You should add in something about the film "Reefer Madness" into this article. There is, in fact, a page on it. You can get there by clicking [[Reefer Madness|here]]. I think that this should be added because there is too much, well, negatives on the drug, and, I think that it would be humorous to add something about a very crappy, yet funny film. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Why locked? ==

The sections on this page about marijuana effects is incomplete (it seems that there are only unpleasant effects listed). There is also very little information about the chemical compound THC itself, which I think would add a lot to the article.

:Yes, why is this locked? The article is missing lots of info; marijuana has ''already'' been decriminalized in parts of the U.S. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 19:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reference no longer exists ==

http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml

It says the page no longer exists. Someone should remove or replace it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 19:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This article needs to be unlocked. Now. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== Um? ==

When will this article be unlocked?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:40, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allowed in the Bible ==

"every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3).

"He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth" (Psalms104:14)

This should be added for approval, or at least interpretation, for legalized Marijuana use, seeing as this is a Christian encyclopedia.

== Mistakes ==

I spotted some silly mistakes:

1. Marijuana is not a drug and neither is Cannabis. THC is the most active drug compound and 'Marijuana' is Mexican-Spanish slang for the Cannabis Sativa plant.

2. The full name for THC is more correctly known as Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.

I feel the page is somewhat biased towards belittling the subject and why are no positive effects listed? Why only the supposed negative effects? Brum 21:25, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Humor ==

I don't have a pony in this race, but both sides might find this funny.
:http://www.criminalbrief.com/?p=5445

Usain Bolt

2009-09-18T02:09:57Z

Horenvalle: Created page with ' Usain Bolt is a competitive runner from Jamaica prominently known for his short distance events. He currently holds the world record for the 100m dash with a time of 9.58s and 2...'

Usain Bolt is a competitive runner from Jamaica prominently known for his short distance events. He currently holds the world record for the 100m dash with a time of 9.58s and 200m dash with a time of 19.19 seconds. he's black.

Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?

2009-09-18T02:02:22Z

Horenvalle:

{{debate-politics}}

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - United States Constitution

-----------------------

:"... or abridging the freedom of speech ..." Nuff said. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 10:10, 02 January 2008 (EST)

----------------------
Amendments can be amended. The fact that we can all legally enjoy a beer is proof (except for you college freshmen and sophomores in New York State)
:::<s>Spoken like a true person-who-has-recently-attained-the-age-of-majority! Me, I can legally ''consume'' a beer. But enjoy? After years of bracing myself, swallowing the stuff, trying hard not to wince, and learning to say "Ahhh! That hit the spot" as if I meant it, I finally concluded that I don't actually ''like'' the taste of spoiled yeast dying in its own waste products. (Now, milk overgrown with lactobacillus acidophilus bacteria? Mmmm, good. A burned slab of mangled muscle tissue from an immature castrated cow? Yes, and give me fries with that.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:36, 24 March 2007 (EDT)</s>
:::Yikes! I just found out that Andrew Schlafly's mother's nephew—would that be a second cousin?—Tom Schlafly, runs [http://www.schlafly.com/faq.shtml Schlafly Beer], a craft brewery in St. Louis, that even brews [http://www.schlafly.com/beers.shtml beer made from sorghum]. I guess I'd better stop making negative comments about beer, huh? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well actually the example here is misleading. Prohibition wasn't amended, it was repealed. Amendments aren't amended, the constitution is. The bill of rights is not going to change. It is the moral fabric of our constitution. Separation of church and state was made as a result of the religious persecution of christian sects in England. There is no need for a secular government to display any religious paraphernalia of any kind.
:By the way, by "public" I assume this article means government buildings and property as "public", and not public demonstrations by private citizens.
:Furthermore, the role of the 10 commandments for christians is clear: Jesus fulfilled the law. He also gave us the sum-total of the commandments, love your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. The whole idea of erecting stone monuments of a book is a bit cultish anyway, bordering on a violation of the commandment prohibiting engraven images. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
-----------------------

Separation of church and state is not in the constitution; it perfectly constitutional to allow a public display of the ten commandments. In fact, if one takes the constitution at its word rather than twisting it (probably by calling it an "evolving document"), it is '''''UN'''''constitutional for congress to prohibit any public display of religion.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:19, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Nobody is suggesting that displays of the 10 Commandments by private individuals should not be allowed. The issue is whether any branch of the Government should allow the public display of religious documents for the express purpose of encouraging their acceptance. Specifically, allowing a judge to display the protestant version of the 10 commandments (there are differences between different Christian sects) and to imply he is using them to superceede the actual laws of the country.

:Surely it depends on the context: what message the people who placed the display meant to send, what message is perceived by those who view it.

:Do you think it would be constitutionally protected free speech for a judge to have a huge swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:19, 17 January 2007 (EST)

::This is silly because you are conflating the judge in his roles as a private citizen and public servant. In a courtroom, which is a public building, there is separation of church and state, no religious paraphernalia allowed. But in his private life, he can practice any religion he wants.

'''Reply:''' Despite your straw man, I will answer that, yes, it would be protected. Perhaps the judge who has the swastika should never have been approved as judge, or perhaps there may even be good grounds to impeach him, yet his swastika should not be removed under the excuse that it is religious symbol; that would be unconstitutional. Fortunately I think that there is little chance of this ever being a problem.

:Well, I think that the legal situation here, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, '''must surely depend''' on what is in the judge's heart. If the judge is, in his heart, a Hindu, and has put the swastika up for the purpose of expressing his Hinduism, then it is sending a ''religious'' message. But what if the judge is not really a Hindu at all, but is actually a Nazi, and has put it up to send a ''political'' message and is just pretending that it is a religious message? Is it the same situation?

:Although I used the phrase "free speech" and you might be right: it might be protected regardless of whether it is "really" a Hindu or Nazi symbol, and in both cases the ''speech'' might be protected, but that would not necessarily make the judge immune from consequences. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:59, 18 January 2007 (EST)

::Guys, the question is a trick. The judge does not have control over his courtroom above the constitution. Suppose he also wanted to put a French flag in the courtroom, can he do that? Of course not. The courtroom is not his private property; he is a public servant working in a public building under the regulation of a government that is separate from the church.

What message do you think that the ten commandments send, and what message would be perceived by the viewers?

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 20:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)

:'''It depends.''' In the case of the monuments funded by Cecil B. DeMille, for example, it was at least partially a commercial message.

:Even in the case of something like the Ten Commandments, which are part of the religious heritage of the vast majority of American citizens, there are opportunities for sectarian friction, since Protestants, Catholics, and Jews number the commandments differently. Incredible as it may seem, this was a real issue when the Eagles began placing these monuments in the 1950s. "It wasn’t until after a few of the monoliths were placed that some criticism surfaced because of the different versions of the Ten Commandments and their numbering. Changes were made after the first series of distributions regarding the numbering and the wording of the Ten Commandments based on the Interdenominational Public School Format of 1958. Some aeries still chose to keep the numbering system even after the change was offered."[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:38, 17 January 2007 (EST)

*'''Comment''' Some resources for exploring this question include:
**[http://morallaw.org/ Foundation for Moral Law], Judge Roy Moore's organization and website, "Defending our Inalienable Right to Publicly Acknowledge God."
**[http://www.judicial.state.al.us/documents/final.pdf Court decision] removing Moore from office (which states "Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country")
**[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm The real history of the Ten Commandments project] Website about the partnership between Cecil B. DeMille and the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which placed many Ten Commandments monuments in public places
**[http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/index.html ACLU's website] explaining their viewpoint on Ten Commandments cases: "A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*The ACLU is clearly wrong on this one. The first Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)
**Perhaps the ACLU is wrong, but I doubt that they are "''clearly''" wrong. If the issue were clear, it would not be controversial. Since the ACLU has won some of these cases, some judges must have thought some cases of this kind were not "clear." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:32, 21 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I don't quite agree with your argument. The ACLU has an agenga; they are trying to remove religious symbols from public display. Despite the fact that allowing a public display of the 10 commandments '''''is''''' clearly protected by the constitution, the ACLU ''still'' fights it because it is against their agenda. This is why (I believe at any rate) that people call the constitution an "evolving document" and why the 1st ammendment is re-interpreted "eperation of church and state"; The only hope for the ACLU is to '''''reduce''''' clarity.

::: Tim, I'm a bit confused by your logic. You state that "regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion." This isn't an issue of congress passing a law prohibiting the display but an issue of whether government officials can have such displays and if so under what circumstances. It isn't at all clear to me what that has to do with congress passing regulations. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:03, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::: The only way to prohibit displays of the 10 commandments would be for congress to make a law against them. This is prohibited by the free exercise clause: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [Of Religion.]" The only reason ever given for prohibiting government officials from having displays of the 10 commandments is that it violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is nothing in the establishment clause that prohibits officials from having displays. People say that there is a "Separation of Church and State," in the first ammendment, but that is not true. The establishment clause was put in to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. (like the Church of England) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY: We need to be clear, that although the Constitution does not use the PHRASE "Separation of Church and State," it may contain the IDEA. The writings of Thomas Jefferson (Letter to the Danbury Baptists) and of James Madison, in particular, indicate that a separation of Church and State is EXACTLY what was intended by the 1st Amendment.

::::::People also say there's "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" in the Constitution, but gosh darn it, I can't seem to find those words anywhere! Does that mean that those, too, are invalid? A public display of the 10 Commandments, on public/government property, is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that it implies that one religion (in this case any one of a number of Christian denominations) is endorsed and valued more highly than any other by government. Government should remain neutral to religion, and the 10 Commandments are certainly not a religiously neutral document.

:::: Ok, so let me see if I understand your argument. You are dismissing out of hand the actual logic used in all cases by the courts where they have struck down such displays and therefore think that the only relevant case is if congress prohibited it? Am I following you correctly? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:47, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::::'''Reply''' I am saying that the "Separation of Church and State" is not Found in the Constitution, therefore 10 commandments displays cannot be banned based on it, and any court ruling contrary to that is not following the constitution. And the only way to properly ban it (that I can think of)would be an act of congress, and that is prohibited by the free exercise clause. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:58, 7 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Point- since the entire argument revolves around whether or not there is an establishment clause problem, it might be best to focus on that issue. Also note that one doesn't need a "Separation of Church and State" to consider the placement of a 10 commandments to be an establishment of religion (note that not even everyone agrees how to split them up. As far as I can tell there are three major divisions, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish (although some Protestants use the Jewish division, and some Protestants(Anglicans?) use the Catholic division). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

The Establishment clause is very clear, and it does not prohibit government officials free exercise of religion. The division of the commandments is irrelevant to this debate. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)
::You're right, it doesn't prohibit government officials the free exercise of their religion. It does, however, prohibit governmental endorsement of any religion, which would be implicit in the placement of such a monument on public/government property.

:It's not quite irrelevant, because it means that even though the Ten Commandments are common to Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, any particular public display of them ''in which they are numbered one through ten'' is identifiable as being the Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish "version." How many people are aware of this, or how important it is, I don't really know. But I'll bet a nickel that Judge Roy Moore ''is'' aware of this, and that his monument uses the Protestant numbering. (I haven't checked yet...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:40, 7 February 2007 (EST)

:I finally found a largish image of Moore's monument[http://www.retakingamerica.com/ten_commandments_001.html]... and, not to my surprise, see that he uses the Protestant numbering. (Unless you count "I am the Lord thy God in which case he has eleven commandments...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:16, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:But really, the interesting question is: why are people making such a fuss about this? I have the feeling that neither side is being candid about their motivation.

:If Judge Roy Moore (or anyone else) wants to acknowledge God, he can do so with his actions and with the conduct of his life... I don't know why he needs a ton of stone to do it. If I felt that the only message people intended to send by a display of the Ten Commandments was that they personally oppose murder, adultery, profane language, and Sunday shopping, I don't think I would see any harm in it.

:On the other hand, I don't really think I really equate a public display of the Ten Commandments, with a legal requirement that, as a condition of employment, every government official and university professor must subscribe to the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 7 February 2007 (EST)

== Freedom of religion ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]I have no problem with someone putting up a massive banner with the 10 Commandments on it all over their house or workplace, but you have to be prepared for your next door neighbor putting up an equally massive banner with satanic slogans on it. The USA does not have a state religion, and as such if you allow public displays of one religion's tenants you must extend that to all religions. So if you're prepared to see Islamic, Buddist, Hindu, CoS(Church of Satan), Athiest, Shamanistic and Nihilistic banners too, go ahead and put up those commandments.

:The moral values of Western culture aren't based of Satanic, Animist, and Shamanistic ideals. They are based directly off of what is described on the Ten Commandments. It's not a religious point; It's a historical one, because the entire justice system is based off of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::Unfortunately, we're still not allowed to make laws outlawing religious displays just because they're for a false religion. For soem fool reason, the Founding Fathers didn't make Christianity the State Religion of the US, so if the courts allow the 10 Commandments, they HAVE to allow everyone to put up their 'holy' laws as well. Do you want YOUR kids reading quotes from the Satanic Bible in school? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:49, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:::That might have something to do with the fact that there was not then and is not now any one religion called 'Christianity'. Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans all come readily to mind. So also do the Quakers, the Puritans. Today the number of different branches of Christianity is even greater. Which one should be the official religion of America and why? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think you missed the point of my statement; the Ten Commandments could easily be considered as historical artifacts, because of the significant impact that they have had on American society as a whole for over 2,000 years. I doubt that The Satanic Bible, The Qu'ran, etc. have had anywhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:53, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::::The second largest religion in the world is Islam. It seems that the Koran has had somewhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments - especially given that the Ten Commandments had a couple thousand years' head start to make its impact. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 16:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Western'' culture; The Qu'ran didn't have the impact on ''Western'' culture like the Bible did. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::By your reasoning then [[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']] the public schools could teach history OF the Bible. I don't think that's likely to happen. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Public schools ''can'' and ''do'' teach the ''history'' of the Bible, in ''history'' class. The curriculum I am familiar with (Washington State) has a 2-week high school freshman course on the ''history'' of Biblical times, Jesus's life, etc. As a historical, literary object, the Bible is extremely important. Just like the ten Commandments have significant historical impact. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CrimesoftheLemon:

Absolutely not. It's a clear breach of the 1st Amendment.

HUH? im from washington state...i dont remember that course at all.... I do vaugly remember
that there was one paragrah on Jesus in our history books but it didnt call him messiah.
which town are you from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:49, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Shouldn't the title be...==
*'''Are''' public displays of the Ten Commandments allowed under the constitution?

or

*Does the Constitution '''ever''' prohibit public displays of the Ten Commandments?

As it reads now, it seems to be asserting that the Constitution does not allow public displays of the Ten Commandments, and the debate is whether or not it should (presumably by amendment). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Don't the first and second commandments contradict the American constitution? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that the title is misleading. The word "public" is the problem. As worded, it seems to ask if a display "visible to the public" should be allowed (which, ''of course'', it is!). The question I believe it ''means'' to ask is whether the 10C's can be displayed on ''public property'' - which they can be, and are - when they are presented in historical context (cf. the frieze on the Supreme Court). It is when they are presented in the context of the processes of government, especially presented alone, that the issue gets contentious. So the lesson I see here for people posting debate topics is to be very careful about wording so the question is clear and unambiguous. Which can sometimes be very challenging! [[User:Human|Human]] 16:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well its clear that some people dont want ANY displays of the 10 commandments, what it comes
down to is if a teacher puts up the 10 commandments on a wall in thier classroom is that an
"establishment" of Christianity of is it "free exercise thereof". Now if the Teacher wanted
to wear a T-shirt that had the 10 commandments to me thats "free exercise thereof" and there
is nothing the gov't can do..however if she were to post it on the wall of a gov't building
it might be construed as "establishing" Christianity as far as the gov't is concerned and probably
shouldnt be allowed. One might note though other relgions namely islams 5 laws? may be posted on
gov't property under the lame excuse of "historical reference".
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==The Constitution DOES allow the public display of the 10 Commandments==

For 200 years the Constitution allowed the display of the 10 Commandments on public property. The Supreme Court building itself has a representation of the 10 Commandments engraved on it. The Constitution has not changed since that time. What has changed is the interpretation of the Constitution by unelected federal judges and justices.

The Constitution still allows display of the 10 Commandments. Sadly the interpretation of the Constitution currently enforced by our government does not allow their display.

The courts won't allow the 10 Commandments, but they will allow a crucifix in a bowl of urine. They will protect anti-religious "art" in the name of freedom of speech. If the First Amendment did not mention religion, then freedom of speech would allow display of the 10 Commandments. The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to allow even more freedom for religious expression, but courts have interpreted them to provide less protection for religious symbols than for ordinary speech. The courts have twisted the religion clauses to protect people from religion, rather than to protect religion from government.

The Constitution should be interpreted - as it long was - as allowing religious expression in the public arena and preventing the government from interfering with religion. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 09:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

-----------------------------

One thing that just really bugs me though: If people are so keep on displaying these 10 commandments, it should also be allowed to disply the punishements for "breaking" these commandments:

1st. Commandment, Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. Old Testament punishment - Deuteronomy 17:1-5 “And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”. Deuteronomy 13:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God." Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed”. New Testament punishment - Mark 16:16 “He that believeth not, shall be damned”.

2nd. Commandment, Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.” Old Testament punishment- Deuteronomy 27: 1 5 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.”

3rd. Commandment, Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain”. Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 24:16 “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death”, New Testament punishment - Matthew 12:32 “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come”. Mark 3:29 - “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgivness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”.

4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”. Old Testament punishment - Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death”. Numbers 15:32. “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”
5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 “Honour thy father and thy mother”. Old Testament punishment - Exodus 21:15-17 “And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death”. More punishment - Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”.

6th. Commandment, Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill”. Strangely enough this is a commandment despite all the punishments that require death in the New Testament and the Old Testament. How can thou not kill when thou is commanded to kill at the same time?

7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”.

I havent looked up the last three yet, but I think its pretty obvious that it is a waste of time and money to allow the 10 commandments to be displayed, since no one will step up and uphold the "punishments" for breaking those "laws"..

Other than that, if this were allowed, other religions might have a go at it too..

{{unsigned|Xchokeholdx}}

: The ten commandments were given as a ''standard'' by which to live. This standard is applicable to everybody, for all time. The punishments you list were specific to the particular culture to which they were given. In other words, they are no longer applicable. Sorry you wasted so much time on that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:28, 2 January 2008 (EST)

==A Better Question Would Be...==

"Should such displays be funded with taxpayer dollars?"

Really, I don't think it's possible to debate the original question: manifestly, such displays are allowed. I don't even think the question of whether "the government" should be allowed to do so is one for serious debate.

The question, it seems to me, should be whether or not such displays can be funded by state and federal taxes. THERE, I think, we get into questions of Constitutionality, as it inevitably leads to a situation where some taxpayers are being required to pay for speech they don't support. (And, yes, I realize that there are many issues of taxpayer dollars being misspent in this fashion; I personally believe that all of them are un-Constitutional.)

I believe that such displays on public property, if funded by private contributions specifically for that purpose, pass the muster of Constitutionality and should be permitted.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 16:05, 2 May 2008 (EST)

I Believe in the direction BenP is going...but I personally don't think it should even be allowed on public property; private is most certainly allowed. Reason being this: while BenP understands that "some taxpayers are being required to pay for speech they don't support" you also have to remember that the public property has to be maintained with taxpayers money as well. And it is public property, not christian property. I certainly wouldn't want my walk in the park infested with billboards of multitudes of faiths vying for my attention.

Talk:African Americans

2009-09-18T01:55:08Z

Horenvalle:

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

:::The term ''African-American'' is described as an example of [[Political correctness]] in that very article.
:::"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" (Genesis 15:13)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 07:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== some political correctnes is important ==

There has to be some political correctness.
Imagine if others would just start to tell about conservapedians "Idiots".
Or what do you think about calling creationistst "Ignorants"?
That would not be political correct, I think. But would it be wronger as you would be when calling african americans "Negroes"?
So better you think about, what you are saying before others call you racists, fundamentalists,.... --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To many blacks, the term 'negro' is at best archaic and condescending, and at worst, a derivative of 'nigger'. We can argue semantics all day, but lets not insult people in an effort not to be politically correct. And 'the other side of town'? Not where I live. [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 15:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The reference to [[political correctness]] on the [[Main Page]] seems to have been removed. Perhaps political correctness is acceptable here after all. Though it doesn't yet seem to extend as far as [[homosexuality]].
::"He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light." (Job 33:28)
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&diff=48204&oldid=48150 here] on 19th March 2007
:::"He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed." (Leviticus 27:33)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Give me a break==

There's a difference between being politically incorrect and being uncouth. Calling them Negroes is just uncouth. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proof==

My addition to this article ("Black people originated as descendants of Cain, along with Asians, Arabs, American Indians, Polynesians and other non-white races") has been proved by Creation Science. Creation Geneticists have found the gene EVL6 in all the races I listed, and EVL6 is traceable back to Cain.

:Uh huh, right. I'd love to see how they managed to trace it back to Cain, assuming you're not just making this all up yourself. Your source would be what?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, he's just making it up. And if he doesn't watch his step, he'll be blocked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Whom did Cain marry?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:Awan. Probably. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== This Article Phails.... What to add first? ==

A far more extensive history...
List of awesome contributors...
Modern history, culture, issues...
Statistics...

Man... This article seriously phails. >_<
(Decides to add at random)

And by the way, saying that a contemporary ethnic name is PC is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. I say, what gives one the right to name another ethnicy anyway? (Negros, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos...) Perhaps it would be better (4 ONCE in history) to not push one's opinion on matters that don't concern one, hmm? Let ethnicies name themselves, thank you.
 
[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
I know pictures are nice to have in Encyclopedia articles (especially Wiki type) but does anyone really need a picture to know what an African American looks like? and why is that picture David Patterson by the way? [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 15:10, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:I am in agreement. I find this picture to be a not very flattering picture of David Patterson, and therefore a not very flattering picture of what appears on this page to represent an entire race of people. I am inclined to agree that the picture is unnecessary and if it must remain, find a less rude, more relevant picture.

==Lock==
Why is this page locked? I have a reference I'd like to add. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 15:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to fix some of the writing, too. Who wrote "This people group"? In fact, the whole article needs rewriting. -[[User:JakeW|JakeW]]

Do any of you have any actual African American culture to add to this article? Maybe a little bit about their natural physique, or imperialism, or tribes. anything about martin Luther K.? And can someone fix the emancipation proclamation thing? I specifically learned that it only freed slaves who were specifically in the north, it wasn't until after the war that the fourteenth amendment was passed, given blacks full rights as Americans.