I have been searching the site with a few keywords, to get an idea on
unsourced and potentially libellous things. For example, 'embezzled' gets
120 or so hits, with a small percentage of some concern.
Some findings:
Embezzler: [[Lawrence King]] was uncategorised, serious allegations not
sourced
Embezzled
-[[Mary Manin Morrissey]] - poor writing
-[[Miami-Dade County Public Schools]] - unsourced story
- [[Megatech]], [[Anwar Ibrahim]] unsourced about Indonesian corruption
-[[Jonathan Moyo]]
Nothing was ever proved: [[La Costa]] had a massive copyvio
Nothing was ever proven: [[Know Talent]]
Uncategorised: [[Teamstergate]] had no category.
Charles
Here's something interesting: a blogger did some detective work and put
two and two together to come up with a possible reason for the bogus
"wiki pedophile" press release]. See here:
http://www.ridingsun.com/posts/1134805044.shtml
It might (emphasis on ''might'') be some petty revenge for the QuakeAID
scandal early this year that was exposed to the public, thanks to
Wikipedia! (See the Wikipedia entry on QuakeAID for more information
about that.)
--
The High Weirdness Project
http://www.modemac.com
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase
"deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries. He has blocked me in the past
for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I
did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use
of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it
is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_b…).
I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change my
behavior; he, however, has not done so. He simply dismisses it as "bullshit"
and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes the claim (which
lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that should he provide a valid
refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.
I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument
rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument is
wrong, then show me why. If not, then do the right thing and unblock me.
That's all I ask.
--
Kurt Weber
<kmw(a)armory.com>
Someone has made this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_People_suggested_to_have_been_involved…
Some choice quotes from this :
"The two persons at the top of the list of suspects have always been
Fidel Castro and President Lyndon B. Johnson. " and "There are even a
few people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had something to do with
it."
It then gives a big list of names, including J. Edgar Hoover,
I think the article should be speedily deleted, and the author banned
for being clearly insane. However, I'm not sure whether present
policy would allow me to unilaterally do that - and I'm pretty sure
I'd get a lot of hassle out of doing that. So I'm bringing this to
your attention.
We need to be able to summarily ban crazies.
--
Abi
Going through some of the recent emails on WikiEN, I noticed an email
discussing how to respond to a lawyer's letter to the help desk, asking that the
biography of an actress (Maria Ford) be taken down because it contained
inaccurate material. In the event that you receive such emails from lawyers claiming
to represent living individuals, I ask that you do NOT answer. Instead, send
them to the OTRS queue. Alternately, send the email to me at
_danny(a)wikia.com_ (mailto:danny@wikia.com) . I will then be able to handle it immediately or
forward it to the appropriate people.
Danny
Magnus Manske wrote:
> I would like to announce that I have begun a complete rewrite of the
> validation function. The new one is hereby called "Review feature" and
> is implemented as an extension. Eventually, I will remove the
> SpecialValidation.php file and all related code from the phase3 module.
> The sole technical purpose of this rewrite is to give Brion peace of
> mind :-)
OK ... any idea on time for this one?
*sigh*
(and avoiding the XSS vulnerabilities of the last one?)
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de>
Date: Dec 17, 2005 10:30 PM
Subject: [Wikinews-l] Collaborative reporting: QuakeAID and the "class
action lawsuit"
To: wikinews-l(a)wikimedia.org
(I would appreciate it if someone could forward this to wikipedia-l,
since I am no longer subscribed there.)
You may have heard about the "class action lawsuit" against Wikipedia
(http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org - .com is a parody). You may also
have heard that this "lawsuit" is linked to [[QuakeAID]], an alleged
charity soliciting donations for earthquake victims. You may know that
Wikipedians have raised many doubts about the legitimacy of this
charity, and have linked it to a convicted fraudster, Greg Lloyd Smith.
Finally, you may be aware that "QuakeAID" is publishing, through its
associated BAOU.com / OfficialWire site (currently still indexed by
Google News), one article after the other against Wikipedia. A recent
one has described Wikipedia as a breeding ground for pedophiles, and is
linked to another recently created campaign website, Wikipedophilia.com.
(You probably do not know that the same news wire also publishes stories
endorsing Holocaust deniers Zündel and Faurisson.)
More is probably to come. BAOU.com, "QuakeAID"'s parent company, seems
to be trying to do everything possible to discredit Wikipedia, after
Wikipedia has discredited QuakeAID. I think it's time for them to learn
that wikis have teeth.
This is a very, very serious issue and not just some troll setting up
anti-wiki websites. QuakeAID has been, for some time, listed in major
charity directories, and people wanting to donate money for the 2004
tsunami victims were sent there. I don't know how much money they
received, but it must be substantial.
_If_ this charity is a fraud (and that part is _not_ certain at this
point), it's a large scale operation (registered with the IRS), and the
person running it should be put behind bars. So if you've ever fancied
yourself a private detective or investigative reporter, this is your chance:
Wikinews is conducting a full and thorough investigation into all
matters related to QuakeAID and BOAU.com. I have tried to accumulate all
the information in Wikipedia and elsewhere in one place, but I will not
have time to commit myself beyond this. So this will either sink or swim
with your involvement. If the evidence is solid, we can publish this
story, and send a nice dossier to the FBI. If we don't do anything,
BAOU.com will continue its anti-wiki campaign, or disappear quietly.
If you do want to join the effort of researching this, please visit:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Story_preparation/Wikipedia_class…
If this URL breaks, use:
http://tinyurl.com/bh9m2
This is a historic chance for the Wikinews, Wikipedia and blog
communities to work together. Let's not screw it up.
Erik