Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander Israel News Agency, Israel - 23 minutes ago ... So what does this have to do with Wikipedia? Wikipedia describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Thousands ...

It's an interesting rant but clearly not written by a professional journalist. I had a look at the top domain,
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/
and it doesn't look much like a news agency, more like someone's home page.

One thing that strikes me about the article is that it is written in a very passionate tone. Even when I wrote my recent blog entries about Wikipedia over at http://spaces.msn.com/therealadrian/blog/ I maintained some form of neutral tone. Sure, not totally neutral (because that's impossible) but it wasn't all "me me me". And this is the other thing - where are the links? He says a lot of things that he could link to, such as Wikitruth's apparent comment about being banned lots of times and yet still being administrators. While I have a feeling that that is right, I can also recall Wikitruth writing about banned users deserving to be banned, so I'd be interested in seeing the quote.

The Israel News Agency, however, doesn't label itself as a true newspaper. It is an "online" newspaper. There are several of these about. Some are equally as good in quality as regular ones, while others are little more than blogs. I am not about to determine the overall quality of this online newspaper, at this stage. But it does not look to me like a personal homepage.

It was good, just the same, to see another news entry writing about the culture of Wikipedia. We have seen an increase in this kind of writing in the past month or so. Previously, journalists were not remotely interested in writing about petty little fights. But now I think that they can see that that is a big part of the whole picture. Whilst being banned in itself doesn't really matter - its a private entity and they can ban whoever they like for any reason, and they can even lie about the reason - the problem is that people are being banned so as to push falsehoods in the articles. This is the problem.

That I was banned from Wikipedia is no news story. But that the Port Arthur massacre article is ridiculous inaccurate and that I was banned for trying to fix it up is a news story. That Sgrayban was banned from Wikipedia is not a news story - but that the Cuba article is grossly inaccurate and that he was banned for trying to fix it up is. Similar deal with List of British Jews and a number of other articles. That this guy was banned from Wikipedia is not a news story. But the circumstances surrounding it is.

Finally the mass media is getting it, that Wikipedia has the power to change history. Being banned from Wikipedia is not the same kind of thing as being banned from Livejournal or some chat room. It can have real consequences about the accuracy and integrity of articles. If you are banned so as to have your point of view suppressed, such as HerschelleKrutofsky and the LaRouche movement, then that is really bad.

A lot more serious than the so-called scandals that Wikitruth exposes.

Oh, and I wrote to this guy to invite him to comment here too.

If a user proclaims on the internet their ownership of a wiki username they have become public domain.

A dozen or more search engines will pick it up and some other site will store it. Such is life. But to get banned for having the same information on wiki ? Uhh now exactly what purpose does that server?

In this case woggly just so happens to be a translator in Tel Aviv and being one there names are often if not hundred of times mentioned as translating something.

There are probably thousand's of wiki users that freely proclaim there exsistance on wikipedia as if its some presidential honour and make sure to tell everyone what there wiki name is. Will wikipedia also ban each and everyone of those users for mentioning that fact?

Just another well-thought-out policy that wiki just doesn't grasp yet.




To quote The Israel News Agency was the first Israel Government Press Office accredited on-line news organization to disseminate news from Israel back in 1995.

Which just so happens to be true and is often mentioned on CNN, FOX and other new agencies. Calling it a homepage seems to be a bit harsh. They are a online news agency not paper one.

What separates CNN.com and israelnewsagency.com ? Some spiffty html with frames and some javascript mixed with some videos? Seems hardly enough to call it a homepage look alike.

It's from http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...Calls_Us_A_Hoax

Honestly I didn't read it very carefully, but it all seems to be written by one person. If I call my home page an online newspaper, does that make it not a personal homepage? I don't think any newspaper or news agency with any reputation at all would print such a rant.

The more people come to this board and contribute, the better, and he obviously has something to say, so it's good that you invited him. One of the reasons people become frustrated and freak out when they encounter the problems in Wikipedia (like I did, and like this person seems to have done) is that they don't realise that the problems they have in Wikipedia are part of a larger pattern of behaviour that characterizes the project. I hope that by contributing here, I can contribute to some kind of larger discussion of Wikipedia and its problems. About this board, though, I have to say that there are one or two people who very clearly deserved to be banned from Wikipedia.

There's more than one person that writes there, but that guy is the main writer, and the owner of it. If you looked at the main page, and clicked on the various articles, they are written by different people. He also explains that he is a bonafide journalist and besides that online newspaper he also works in the field as his day job. The online newspaper is a hobby, however.

First off, thank you for inviting me to come here to comment.
The security and accountability to post in this forum is something that Wikipedia can learn from.

Yes, I am a professional. Which means I do get paid to write from time to time.
And yes, I expect different people to take different takes on my writing style.
Brits see American writing as "passionate" or "dramatic" while we Yanks see the Brits as ... rather dry. ;>

Passion defines good writing, for effective sentences will evoke laughs and tears.
Dry copy is the domain for attorneys and advocates.

I do apologize for the packaging of the Israel News Agency - what you are looking at is a Web page created back in 1995. It's the substance that counts. Never judge a book by its cover. But your well intended feedback has caused me to call a graphic artist today :>

Words hurt.
Especially when there is no substance behind them.
Wikipedia hurts people. When it's supposed intention is to add fruit to our lives.

Wikipedia defines the essence of mediocrity.
For this reason it has risen to a high ranking on the Net's search engines.
No less than how many governmental officials secure top positions.

This forum was created because you good, kind and enlightened souls will not embrace mediocrity.
Nor should you.

When people start to believe all which is written on Wikipedia as an absolute - we will be in deep trouble as a society. When two people - Jimbo and Danny - can overide the consensus of a community, then it is time for brave and wise men and women to be counted.

This forum deserves credit.
You will find a link to this forum on the above stated Israel News Agency / Google News story.
With with the four remaining stories for which I plan to write re: the abuses of Wikipedia.
If anyone here has been hurt by Wikipedia, tell me your story.
Write to jlwiki@gmail.com

Lastly, do take Wikipedia seriously.
It is a threat to free speech.
But again, don't lose any sleep over Wiki - as it will pass.
As all circuses come and go.

Best wishes,
Joel

I have always maintained that my interest lay not in inserting the POV of the LaRouche movement, but rather in excluding material by editors such as Adam Carr and Cberlet that was libelous, speculative, and Original Research. I thought I made an effective case for this here, but it was disregarded by the ArbCom.

What is LaRouche anyways?

I'm sorry I said something else. Perhaps my point is that the article you posted doesn't seem like something which could be published in a conventional newspaper.

Hope it doesn't cost too much.

Since most of the participants here haven't met each other, I suppose it is only words, words on computers, that we are complaining about.

That's rather a nice quote.

Thank you.
With your kind encouragement I have just inserted that quote into the news story.<P>
In response to "Perhaps my point is that the article you posted doesn't seem like something which could be published in a conventional newspaper." Thank god, we can publish most of what we wish in almost any newspaper as long as we do not commit libel or slander - something for which Wikipedia appears to promote.<BR>
I think that the Village Voice was far more aggressive in its attack against Wikipedia than anything stated by the Israel News Agency.

A controversial politician/philosopher. See this website for starters.

basically a women-hating Nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_vie...en_and_feminism

That's a pretty good example of what I was referring to as "material by editors such as Adam Carr and Cberlet that was libelous, speculative, and Original Research."

Interestingly enough the article on Joel along with the article on the Israel news agency have speedy deleted by User:Danny and Joel has been banned for legal threats. User page Joel_Leyden Israel_news_agency

link

But does the Signpost have INA's latest news story?

The Wikipedia Signpost featured the Israel News Agency's first story on Wikipedia. It was a relevant news site to them then, as one can see the INA has now had a speedy delete by Danny Wool. It would appear that [url=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bar Sandy Bar] is more relevant to Wikipedia than a news service that reaches over 60 million readers. The above story is only now gaining momentum as hundreds of blogs are now picking up on it. Wikipedia, which allowed personal attacks against me and my family, can run but they can't hide. They can censor me and others in their small Web site but in the end that will bring them down like a stone falling off a cliff. Google is still a bit more potent than Wikipedia. Words hurt. Libel and slander at Wikipedia should not be tolerated. I am now working on my second story, or torpedo, as one may view it. If anyone here wants to contribute any negative experiences for which they suffered at Wikipedia and can document them - please write me at jlwiki@gmail.com.
If I can address Iran, Hamas and Islamic Jihad .... I can also do magic with Wikipedia. They should pick their battles more carefully. And Danny, as I know that you are reading this, stock up on coffee and start looking for employment at another dot.com. For Jimbo - to have allowed Danny to do your "PR" was a disastrous move. Wikpedia needed friends in the media, not enemies ;>

Good idea. And link to all of your old stories when you write your new one. Also note that Wikitruth has a huge expose on you, which you should use in your article.

I am not convinced that Danny reads this forum though. But Slim Virgin, Raul654, Grace Note, Ta bu shi da yu and occasionally Jimbo do.