[WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.

[u/n - adrianm]

The problem with what David Gerard wrote is that it isn't 
true, most importantly because I didn't get banned from 
Citizendium.  If you followed the links that David Gerard 
provided, you would find that they prove that I was NOT 
banned from Citizendium.  Instead, the reality is that I 
quit Citizendium in protest at them inserting factual 
inaccuracies from Wikipedia in to an article that I had 
created, in spite of previously promising that they 
wouldn't do this.  I wasn't "kicked off", and suggesting 
so is quite simply false.  I quit.  They did interpret my 
quitting as suggesting that I was asking to be banned, and 
enforced that, although they have said that I could be 
unbanned if I wanted to.  And it most certainly was NOT 
for the same reasons as what happened on Wikipedia.  It 
was over the same article, yes, but most certainly not for 
the same reason.

For anyone who isn't aware of the case, I edited Wikipedia 
and within a week of my first edit, I was put on a Request 
for Arbitration, with absolutely no explanation as to what 
that was, and with no opportunity to defend myself (in 
theory I could, but I had no idea what to do, so in 
reality I could not).  It was a classic case of Newbie 
Biting.  The reality of the situation is that at that 
stage Wikipedia was maintaining a factually inaccurate 
article on the Port Arthur massacre, a topic which I am 
very much an expert on, and I had attempted to add factual 
accuracies to the article.  Indeed, to this day I have 
contributed more to that article than anyone else - and I 
have been banned for 2 years!  Nobody else who has more 
expertise on that topic has ever edited Wikipedia! 
 Indeed, whilst banned a number of administrators have 
sought my advice for improvements to the article.

If you want to see my version of the article, it is 
currently located on Wikinfo, and is the version that I 
submitted to Citizendium:

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Port_Arthur_massacre

Some things that you might notice is that I have stated, 
and proven, that the massacre lasted for 3 days, not 1. 
 Wikipedia's article falsely claims right at the front 
that it was a single day mass murder, something that is 
factually false, and is easily proven to be false.  If 
Wikipedia can't even get that right, then how can they be 
trusted with regards to that article?  There are over a 
dozen different factual inaccuracies with that article, 
which sadly some people refuse to change to be accurate. 
 Times, court proceedings, witnesses, police findings, 
photographic evidence, other kinds of evidence - all 
presented falsely on Wikipedia.  And the sad part is that 
in the April 2006 10 year anniversary a number of 
prominent Australian news reports used that false 
Wikipedia article as a source.  That Wikipedia article has 
subsequently used a number of these reports as sources for 
their own inaccurate comments.  So it becomes a circular 
example, where Wikipedia has, in that example, presented 
false things as fact, and they have subsequently become 
accepted as fact.  This is history-changing, and is very 
dangerous.

Also, with regards to something else (I won't go in to the 
whole rest of the absurd arguments raised by various 
people on this thread), I am the owner of Wikipedia 
Review, hence I am not really banned, and can't really be 
banned from the place.  They simply changed my passwords, 
as a power play.  It is a little cumbersome to get them 
back, and at this stage I am letting it slide.  And the 
reason why should be well known to people on this list - I 
reported to a number of people that Wikipedia Review 
member Kato was creating a drama on Wikipedia in relation 
to Private Musings and Robert Black, by presenting false 
information.  Some people on Wikipedia Review felt that I 
was betraying secrets and betraying their members, so they 
changed my passwords.  It is a really simple thing.

My point in mentioning everything was pretty clear for 
anyone who can think clearly.  YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO CITE 
A SOURCE.  How many people read through things that David 
Gerard wrote and took them at face value?  How many people 
even bothered to click on the links to check things out? 
 How many people just assumed that I was really banned 
from Citizendium?  How many people just assumed that I am 
really banned from Wikipedia Review?  How many people 
refused to read anything else on the basis that I had 
stated that at various times I was banned from a number of 
other sites?

The point I was trying to make is that people quite often 
don't check their facts, and they make assumptions.  You 
all proved my point very well, by having very few people 
reading this list bothering to check their facts.

If you do that on an encyclopaedia, how accurate is it 
going to be?  There exist right now a number of articles 
which have quality references, but whose content does not 
match what the references say.  Again, using the Port 
Arthur massacre article as an example, there was a time a 
year or so ago where one of the references said that 
Martin Bryant was diagnosed as not being fit to stand 
trial, yet in quoting the reference the Wikipedia article 
said that the reference said that he was diagnosed as 
being fit to stand trial = the exact opposite of what the 
reference actually said.  

We need to be vigilant in checking facts, and not jumping 
to conclusions.

And remember that if someone is banned, the only thing 
that you can say for sure is that someone banned them. 
 Unless you are prepared to look at the actual case, you 
can't make an assumption that they were legitimately 
banned, or anything else.  I am sure that most bans are 
legitimate, because most bans are merely banning sock 
puppets or serial spammers and the like.  But for any bans 
which have had some discussion about them, you can't 
honestly say that it is clear cut.

And why should someone be forced to apologise for things 
that they didn't actually do?

Adrian

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:51:58 +0000
>  "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm <adrianm at octa4.net.au> 
>>wrote:

>>
>>I suspect this would prove problematic in practice, c.f. 
>>these texts of yours:
>>
>>http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!717.entry
>>http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!718.entry
>>
>>While I don't doubt your good intentions, I suspect that 
>>anyone who
>>can get kicked off both Wikipedia and Citizendium for the 
>>same thing,
>>and then suggests the two are conspiring, is unlikely to 
>>be able to
>>work well with others.
>>
>>
>>- d.
>>