Will wonders never cease.

Last week, I came here to bitch about Wikipedia's handling of the article about Matt Sanchez, the latest right-wing sex hypocrite. Along the way, I learned that one of the administrators who banned me, WJBscribe, had previously joined Jimbo Wales in publicly defending Ryan Jordan, the Wikipedia insider who had lied to The New Yorker about his identity.

Now I learn through a link in this thread that Elonka Dunin, the first editor who drove me crazy with her dishonesty in the editing process, has quite a track record of her own at Wikipedia. I'm far from the first person she's hounded out of Wikipedia by flouting each and every one of the organizations purported "pillars" and "principles," and this wasn't the first time that WJBscribe toadied on her behalf.

You know, this Sanchez article is a small thing -- or maybe not, given that the guy is now rising in right-wing circles -- but it's nevertheless a great example of how a fundamentally flawed and operationally corrupt, yet influential and far-reaching, enterprise published a lie about a liar because a liar and her enabler made it happen.

Somehow, it all reminds me of this lovely poster, one of my favorites.

Elonka Dunin has a ton of vanity articles in Wikipedia (herself, father, mother), but other than that I have found her to be relatively fair minded. Just my opinion.

So, is it "fair minded" to stomp all over Wikipedia's COI "principle" on behalf of her family? Is that something that you think their administrators ought to do? Don't you think that just maybe someone who turns Wikipedia into an exercise in neopotism might have some other tricks up her sleeve? As for "fair minded," Dunin was anything but "fair minded" in her editing of the Sanchez article.

The only one of those articles which is valid is the cyrillic projector because it is in the CIA building and the history of it, and because of the Da Vinci code. Maybe her, but that's debatable her name should be on the Cyrillic code piece, but I dont think she should have her own article. Not every local NPR personality has a page, and they shouldn't. But her husband? No way. He's accomplished, to be sure, but doesnt merit a page in the least sense of the word.




That might reflect her own political orientation.

Having said that, I don't understand your obsession with the guy. I looked at the website you are pointing to, and it is quite extreme. He's a military guy whos being touted as a hero by the Pubs, who used to turn tricks. That's hypocritical, but hardly the worst hypocrisy ever perpetrated, especially by them. Why are you hounding him as you are doing? He's been found out. Ok, well, he's maybe gay, or been gay, or was gay as a prostitute, and that is in contravention of military rules now. But so what? Proportionally, he's just one person. Period.

I don't understand your obsession with Wikipedia. I have looked at Wikipedia Review, and it's quite extreme. Wikipedia is an online info source touted as an encyclopedia, but it regards the truth as negotiatiable and therefore it can never be reliable. That's hypocritical, but hardly the worst hypocrisy ever perpetrated. But so what? Proportionally, it's just one website. Period.

Now, to be serious, you have called cplsanchez.info "quite extreme." So, I want to know exactly what is "quite extreme" about cplsanchez.info. That it exists? That it is careful and thorough? I do realize that being careful and thorough is something that's deeply uncool (and therefore "quite extreme") among anyone who's in the Wikipedia crowd. Should I aspire to be cool and get involved in "extreme sports," like power skateboarding? Would that be cool with you?

Could it be that I'm not mellow, i.e., that I don't affect a "laid back" attitude and/or a desire to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya? If that means I'm an obsessive, I plead guilty. By the way, I filed an FOIA request in that Sanchez case, and it looks like I'm going to get a copy of the USMC's investigative report in a few weeks. It ought to make for some interesting reading.

When I get it, I'm going to post photocopies of it on my attack site. At that point, let's see how Wikipedia deals with it. On the one hand, they won't have a leg to stand on with respect to ruling out a source. On the other hand, to cite it they're going to have to link to my site because of their "no original research" rule. This ought to be fun!


Is she a christian wingnut?

The problem is that it isn't just one website. It has manipulated itself to the top of internet search engines, not to mention the numerous mirror sites that peddle WP content to sell advertising. It has become the most viewed source of information for people under the age of 25. Ahead of libraries, academic texts and other traditional forms of information gathering. And yet it is inherently unreliable.

This is a serious problem. WP is driven by a naive political philosophy, and has the potential to cause significant harm to innocent individuals, and society at large. We have evidence that this is the case already.

That view might sound extreme now, but it is becoming apparent to more and more people.

Kato, I was being sarcastic.

Ooops. Sorry. I only read your last post - not reading the previous entries - and took it at face value.

Nevermind. It gave me an excuse to riff on WP's flaws again.

Well, I guess you are above reproach, and don't feel a need to answer my question. As for me, I know why I object to Wikipedia. It is dirty and it has hurt many, many people. And it is the 10th most visited site on the web, and most people don't realize yet that its full of beans. It got a guy arrested entering the US a few months ago. His bio called him a terrorist, and it was wrong, but US customs told him to make sure it was fixed or he'd get stopped again. Courts have been known to use it as a reference.

I couldnt care less about your being cool. Do you think I'm 17 now, because I informed you that most Wikipedians are that? I'm closer to your age, and I don't care if you have a fly haircut or baggy jeans that show your underwear (very gangsta, or so I'm told). I just wonder why you are upset about this guy to the extent that you are.
Wikipedia is an abusive site in many, many ways, and this site is about the only one where there's a consistent dialogue about what's wrong with it. The media falls in and out of love with Wikipedia, and they still haven't "broken up" with Jimbo yet. So Wikipedia serves a bigger goal of awareness raising.

If your main reason for upset is hypocrisy, from Pubs who oppose homosexuality, and the get caught for having played at it somehow (he claims it was a working relationship with the orientation) and to me this is just another example of hypocrisy. If its worse to you because it is military, then my goodness, this is hardly a first. As for the right wing pulling some clown out of a hat to make a hero of, then this again isn't the first time.

For me, the case of Senator Craig (caught trying the nasty with a cop in an airport bathroom) is worse than M. Sanchez. A guy who's been voting down gay rights, same sex marriage, planned parenthood, and every other thing that is related to what he really, really likes to do in anonymous bathrooms secret. This guy had REAL power. M. Sanchez is/was the flavor of the month for a month. He's a nobody really. So why get so intense about it?

Yeah, but it is pretty intense. He never did anything to you directly, and Wikipedia has done a lot to the people here, some directly, some indirectly. I was a part of it and it made me sick. That's my schtick. I'm atoning for my past.

This is the only problem with Wikipedia, at heart. That people use it as a WP:RS.

If people understood that it was nonsense, then it would be pretty much an amusing experiment.

I think the textfiles guy made an audio presentation about this, saying that it would be ok if it were called "Jimbo's big bag of trivia". Perhaps someone would be kind enough to link?

ETA: Pwok gave a pretty convincing explanation as to why he created a website about Matt Sanchez during the recent database blip, during which I called him on it (both of our posts disappared). Without further evidence I wouldn't read into it.

Here's the writeup on the Senator:

US Senator Denies Misconduct in Airport Arrest, By VOA News, 28 August 2007



Compare that with his voting record



He consistently voted down gays rights for years, while being secretly gay or bi. So the message is, you can't have a normal life as a gay man (or woman) and have legal protections, including the ability to work, but if you are, you should hide it, attack gays, and have anonymous gay sex in airport bathrooms. He pled guilty to it, as he was probably in shock, and now he'd backtracking and saying he should have waited for a lawyer. What a wuss.

I would personally be more steamed at Craig's hypocrisy than Matt Sanchez-s hypocrisy (if I chose to get steamed about it, which I don't). It is bothersome, however.

The only way it could be more hypocritical would be if he'd voted down public sex. That isn't a Senatorial purview legally. I guess he made a personal vote, though anonymously.

Read this section of the site.


Again, read this section of the site. I created it before Larry Craig's name hit the news. Besides, why does it matter whether Larry Craig is "worse?" What obligation do I have to go after who you or even I think is the "worst?"


So what? I don't feel any obligation to be mellow. I didn't live in L.A. long enough to be a Californian.


If no one can criticize anyone who hasn't done anything to them directly, then all kinds of criticism would be off-limits. George W. Bush never did anything to me directly, either.