At 01:21 PM 5/8/2008, you wrote:

In a message dated 5/8/2008 7:06:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, abd@lomaxdesign.com writes:

The article had been, over a long period, carefully crafted to (1) present all the propaganda points and spin developed by an advocacy organization, and (2) to exclude all criticism.

It's not relevant here. I'm (1) not trying to make a point about the article and (2) not trying to solicit attention to the article or promote my POV. I'm far more concerned about Wikipedia structure and process than I am in fixing one article.

But I do have a POV, of course. I became, before becoming involved, more or less an expert on the topic, and became even more so in doing the research involved for Wikipedia. Now, to recognize the spin takes some expertise. How many words would I have to write to expose this spin to a naive audience? I'm simply reporting my experience.

And many other experts in many other controversial fields have said similar things. Wikipedia articles can become warped by editors who sit on them for a long time, and unless the article (and the readership) is lucky enough to have someone attend to the article who is sufficiently sophisticated in the field to recognize spin, it can last for a long time. Most experts, in fact, don't have the time. Nor do most understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it can be pretty arcane (even though the basics are what I'd call common-law and common sense, the details can present an insuperable obstacle to someone not a Wikipedia hound. Looking back over the article History, I could see where ordinary editors would pop up, add something to the article or improve the language, and they would be promptly reverted by someone clearly familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, quoting the acronyms and the rest. Wikilawyering, really. Selectively.

Used to be that the political organization's web site was the source for many statements throughout the field on Wikipedia. Eventually I realized this and went through them and removed them, replacing the sources with RS where possible. An advocacy organization isn't an RS except for arguments (if they are notable, which this one is. It has it's own article, as it should. A nice article, that doesn't mention any of the controversy around it. And the Executive Director I've mentioned,running the abusive IP edits, also has his own nice article. And I wouldn't touch either of them. Even though I'm not formally COI, I drew my own personal line there.)

Often the organization was simply quoting material available elsewhere, but perhaps more difficult to find. So what was the harm? Well, when you followed the link, the material would be framed, helpfully, so that the reader would properly "understand" it. It fooled me for a couple of years! The spin was subtle and easily deniable. Essentially, put together by experts in spin, everything had been interpreted into a framework of desired conclusions. Outside, I've seen the Director at work. Arguments which, he must know, are spurious, having been repeatedly debunked in open public fora for many years, based on what he knows to be knee-jerk impressions that people will form -- and he does engage in those debates, occasionally, disappearing when the arguments get pointed -- are repeated as if the counter-arguments and contrary facts just don't exist. He knows that being accurate seldom matters politically, what matters is what impressions you can leave in the minds of readers. It's become a science, the science of propaganda, of manipulating public opinion based on how the mind works. It's formally studied and taught in places, and a lot of money and effort goes into it. Spinmasters make fortunes.... This one isn't rich, and I think he is, in his goals, sincere. But he's utterly unethical about how he goes about getting there, he will lie. He lied to me about his involvement with Wikipedia, and he apparently didn't realize that I could look at the email he sent me and see his actual IP address. I didn't need checkuser, I had it from him. And, though it was variable IP, I was able to obtain a copy of a mail he'd sent during a period where the IP was stable. It was him. Period.

If anyone really wants to know the name of the article, write me privately and tell me why you need to know, and I'll consider it. It's not like it would be hard to find out. I am a known user, after all.