On 11/13/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/rcurry_20061113.html
Why? Wikipedia appears to have taken the facts and ignored the opinions so I don't see a problem.
geni wrote:
On 11/13/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/rcurry_20061113.html
Why? Wikipedia appears to have taken the facts and ignored the opinions so I don't see a problem.
If that is the case, then fine. That's why I wanted people to look into it.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the history of this topic and Rex Curry. My concern is that he has managed somehow to push his POV and original research agenda into Wikipedia, and that he is using his success in doing so to bolster his own cause.
On 13/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 11/13/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/rcurry_20061113.html
Why? Wikipedia appears to have taken the facts and ignored the opinions so I don't see a problem.
If that is the case, then fine. That's why I wanted people to look into it.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the history of this topic and Rex Curry. My concern is that he has managed somehow to push his POV and original research agenda into Wikipedia, and that he is using his success in doing so to bolster his own cause.
Oh, god, *him*. Fascist-salute guy.
Summary for those unaware: RC thinks he has a conclusive theory that the Pledge of Allegiance is irretrievably linked to the Nazi salute, and the Nazis were godless commies, or something like that. (My eyes tend to screw up after the first few paras of inpenetrable prose) He spams places wildly with it. (My personal favourite: he will review vaguely-related books on Amazon, saying "interesting, but has failed to notice recent research that [...textdump...]"
He's spammed us before, but I thought we were shot of him. Gah.
As to Geni's "keep the facts, junk the opinion", I have a strong suspicion that his "facts" aren't even remotely facts - if we're citing this guy *anywhere* in any of our articles I'd advise taking an extremely prejudiced chainsaw to those.
On 11/13/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
As to Geni's "keep the facts, junk the opinion", I have a strong suspicion that his "facts" aren't even remotely facts - if we're citing this guy *anywhere* in any of our articles I'd advise taking an extremely prejudiced chainsaw to those.
Well one example would be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
he bosts about this but it doesn't cite him and I don't see a problem with the article.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If that is the case, then fine. That's why I wanted people to look into it.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the history of this topic and Rex Curry. My concern is that he has managed somehow to push his POV and original research agenda into Wikipedia, and that he is using his success in doing so to bolster his own cause.
One section he references -- [[Swastika#Russia]] -- has been deleted as unsourced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swastika&diff=87574917&old...
-- Matt
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Jimmy Wales wrote:
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/rcurry_20061113.html
Looking at the article above, I'm no whiz at this ip address stuff but maybe someone who is can look at these ip accounts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=6...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=6...
The first three sets of the four numbers are identical, they have only edited the articles linked to by the editorial Jimmy mentions, and they have pushed external links into the articles which are by the author of the editorial above, see the internet archive link below
http://web.archive.org/web/20060528124014/http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1....
which was inserted in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Bellamy&diff=prev&o...
That said, I don't see that any of the claims this bloke makes are true. He's spinning the facts to make his own role in them more important. We don't appear to reference him at all in the Bellamy salute article regarding doctored photos of Charles Lindbergh, we reference A. Scott Berg who Curry declares agrees with him. The info on the Lindbergh photos was added by User:Shield2, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=S...
Don't know if that user is related to the above accounts, or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=6... and whether the contributions of those two accounts need investigating?
Just my quick thoughts on what may be happening.
Steve block