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@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, u/n - adrianm adrianm@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.