Okay, kiddies, here it is: the way to get your bio off of WP forever. However, this only works if you haven't bitched before and if you can prove that you're either written or have expanded on your own page. Here's how it works.

1. Make an edit to your article which proves that it's you (the sujbect of the article) that's done it. If you haven't edited the article before rewrite the whole thing, preferably over several months.

2. Start a sockpuppet account and edit for several weeks, preferable concentrating on COI issues and the like. Nominate several articles on garage bands/wannabe porn stars etc for deletion. Make friends with at least one admin and discuss these COI issues at length.

3. Nominate your own article for deletion, listing the "telltale" edit as proof of the COI, and ask your "pet" admin for help. If you're worried that it's not going to pass, send an email to JzG telling him about this horrible self-promotion. Sit back and watch your article be deleted.

That's all there is to it, kiddies....

Okay I had to read this a few times to really understand it.

So let's apply this in practise, and pretend that Daniel Brandt, Don Murphy et al have yet to edit Wikipedia.

So User:Daniel Brandt edits Daniel Brandt article to say "Actually, I am not Chinese, I was just born in China, I am a United States citizen" etc and then makes other changes, politely, without making any demands at all, and continues to post links to his own web site.

Then Daniel Brandt creates User:Wilberthegiant, who edits Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and WP:COI/N to talk about policy, as well as nominating various garage bands for deletion.

Then User:Wilberthegiant complains to his friend User:JzG that Daniel Brandt is a vanity article created by User:Daniel Brandt and it will be deleted?

It is an interesting thought, but is it practical?

It's a variant of the reverse-psychology ploy I've long suggested would probably work... if you want an article deleted, act like you're trying to get it kept for vanity purposes, and if you want an article kept, make a stink about how you want it deleted. Wikipedians have a strong tendency to dislike being pushed around by outsiders, so they're inclined to do the opposite of what they think the pushy person wants.

I've always noticed that people who really want their article deleted never get it done. I'm sure people voted for Daniel Brandt for the hell of it, to spite him; the WP:LAME page once said that he "ranted" about it on his website. I've always thought that Angela Beesley made a huge mistake in asking whether it was an April Fool's joke when her article was first created, which of course meant that the first AFD attempt outright failed.

That sounds very complicated, a huge waste of time, and depends on so much to get it to work.


Why not just sue? No legal threats, just go right to a lawsuit!

Did Daniel try that? It didn't really seem that effective to me. What Mr. Murphy is going through doesn't seem terribly effective either.

Once you complain, it's too late. This won't work.

What I'm saying in essence is that the only way to do anything on WP is to accept that it is indeed a roleplaying game and then create a role which is going to accomplish what you want.

You could also do the same thing to insert information into articles. It's just that you wouldn't want to reveal anything about yourself (you might actually want to create a role that has the opposite POV of yours....and then "include the information for the sake of fairness".)

I thought Mr. Brandt only threatened.

I only threatened. Here's what you need to sue Wikipedia:

1. You have to be able to show damages. If you are defamed, or if you are a private person and your privacy is threatened, and you are inclined to sue Wikipedia, you should be on the lookout for evidence that will convince a jury that you've sustained damage. For example, if a Human Resources person at a company that received your job application decided to google you, and tossed your application in the trash after reading your Wikipedia bio, you should try to get written evidence that this happened. (Someone like Jeff Merkey has a much easier time when it comes to showing damages, because he invested a chunk of money and all he needs to do is show that Wikimedia Foundation has made false claims about itself.)

2. If the lawsuit is based on defamation or invasion of privacy, you really need an attorney who is eager to pursue the case in federal court. But first you have to file in a state court. This should be Florida, where the Foundation and its servers are located. A judge in another state will look at the complex legal issues involved, get a headache, and most likely throw it out claiming a lack of jurisdiction.

3. As soon as the state judge allows the case, the Foundation is expected to argue that they have Section 230 immunity under federal law. At that point, the judge may throw it out and you have to pursue this in federal court. So far, you need an attorney who is a member of the Florida bar, and completely familiar with Section 230, and on a holy mission to argue that Section 230 does not apply to an entity such as the Foundation, because of the fact that the Foundation is closer to a publisher than it is to a service provider.

4. This Magic Lawyer that you've found should be prepared to endure assaults from the cyber cowboys at Electronic Frontier Foundation, Harvard's Berkman Center, the ACLU, and the entire blogosphere. The first three will file "friend of the court" briefs for the Foundation, and the blogosphere will denounce you and your lawyer around the clock as an enemy of freedom and democracy. Google will rank these denunciations at the top of its searches.

5. Any federal district court decision will get appealed to the circuit court, because it will necessarily involve esoteric points of law, or at least points of law that are intermingled with questions of fact, where the division between the two is debatable.

6. After that, you're looking at the Supreme Court.

7. Of course, your lawyer and the huge law firm behind him are doing all of this pro bono, because they believe in your cause. There's no way you can afford this sort of stuff at $100 per billable hour.

8. Let's assume that someday you win in the Supreme Court — it's now five years later. Meanwhile, the law was probably clarified by Congress, so now there's nothing at stake except in a retroactive sense, and all that effort was wasted. Will Wikipedia even be here five years from now?

Everyone should threaten. It's good for your mental health to threaten, because there isn't anything else to do. Then after you threaten, look at what's involved in bringing the Foundation and its teenagers to justice. By then you will be so exhausted that you'll feel a bit less angry.

It sounds like a piece of cake! Thank you, Daniel. (As he laughs with a slight but sure head nodding motion.)

Assuming that anyone who threatens isnt serious is a good start. if you can afford those $100 an hour bills go talk to your lawyer, if you cant I guess threatening is a pale second best, SqueakBox

Speaking of the Berkman Center and its "fellows"... Fellows have included David Weinberger; Ethan Zuckerman; Dave Winer; Jimmy Wales, who is the sole flounder of Wikipedia; Rebecca MacKinnon; John Perry Barlow; Wendy Seltzer; James F. Moore; John Clippinger and Doc Searls.

Faculty have included Charles Nesson, Lawrence Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain, William "Terry" Fisher, John Palfrey, and Yochai Benkler.

I was invited last autumn to participate in a tele-conference with Jonathan Zittrain's Harvard Law class. Much more recently, I contacted Zittrain to ask if Jimmy Wales went through the rather rigorous process of "study" at the Berkman Center to become a Fellow, or whether he was just appointed said title as an honorific.

Zittrain declined to specify exactly how Wales (or any of the Berkman Fellows) came to their titles.

That's enough of an answer for me, of course.

Greg

What about how you demand they remove your bio and they refuse? Not that people can edit it, but that wikipedia itself refuses to remove it?

You need a reason to challenge First Amendment rights (free speech, freedom of the press) in America. Defamation and invasion of privacy are acceptable reasons in Florida, within certain parameters established by the Florida legislature and Florida courts. Federal laws (such as the U.S. Constitution, or Section 230 of the CDA) overrule state laws.

This is being sent to my dear friend, Frank.

http://www.Musiclaw1.com

Maybe the foundation has sufficient funds to play with us in Chicago.
I certainly would not want to try anything in Aruba. The courts there might want me to leave the pool and make an appearance. lols.

BTW, $100.00 per hour is a bargain for legal services. In Chitown, the billing time for para-legals is higher than that rate at many firms.

I'd think Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia board's refusal to remove it would cancel section 230 as they're the owners. section 230 might protect them from the content inside but not from the fact that the stuff continues to exist.

If it costs too much, well eventually people can do a class action lawsuit if enough people are upset.