"...when your biography is open for anyone with a grudge to add disparaging content, and the attacks are subsequently propagated to many other sites which legally repackage Wikipedia's content. Whereas leading member of the Wikimedia Foundation, Angela Beesley, has her biography deleted after Beesley herself admitted that it had become filled with 'lies and nonsense' "

"...when we announce your death though you're still very much alive"

"...when I want to radically change the meaning of term Original Research so it discounts the use of Superior Court judgements on a particular article."

"...when you begin contributing to my website in good faith using your real name, fall foul of some arbitrary policy procedure or corrupt administrator, and my website carries a template to say you "have been abusive", which may appear at the top of a google search on your name for the rest of your life."

"...we state that you are a child molester and you have to remove the lie from my website yourself. And when you complain bitterly about this, a teenager at my site simply calls you a 'a fucking jerk who will say shit about anyone.'"

"...when more than 100 judicial rulings in the U.S. have relied on evidence from my inherently unreliable website, beginning in 2004, including 13 from U.S. circuit courts of appeal."

"...When the NASWUT Teachers Union in the U.K. is forced to make public statements warning against the use of my website in schools and colleges. And then finds itself the victim of scurrilous claims on my website."

..."when we falsely announce that you have been implicated in the Kennedy assassination, which is carried to numerous other websites and mirrors. In fact, that's your fault."

..."when teachers complain about constant misinformation cited by naive pupils who have been fooled into believing that my website is a "trustworthy encyclopedia". These teachers are just "bad educators". New editing and checking procedures have made Wikipedia more trustworthy. Whaddya mean what new checking procedures? I just said it didn't I?"


"...when the U.K. representative of my foundation regularly tells people to "fuck off" in writing."

"...when top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power. The mailing list wasn't secret, it was private. Nothing to see here."

"...when the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation are clearly using Wikimedia properties such as Wikipedia to personally benefit financially at Wikia, Inc. All your hard work collecting the "sum of all human knowledge" is to fill my pockets with dollars. You get nothing."

"...when Pre-Teens in the United States agree that using my proven unreliable website for school work is on the rise."

"...when a Turkish historian is detained by Canadian authorities basing their decision on information found on my website which claimed he was a terrorist."

"...when my 'elite' administrators decide to take sides on the topic of the health of US financial markets, and block any dissenters who object to this, and anyone who lives in the neighbourhood of any dissenters who object to this. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. I'm not kidding"

"...when my latest appointee to Wikia and the Wikipedia Arbitration commitee turns out to be a 24 years old drop-out with no qualifications who lied. "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."

"...when other people confirm that I wasn't the sole founder of Wikipedia . It is my website and I can say what I like."

"...when we block a public figure for correcting details on a biography about himself due to a "conflict of interest", and slap a large template on their user page informing the world of this."

"...when my encyclopedia falsely states that you abused drugs, alcohol and your family. You can't sue me, you need to find who wrote that yourself. My biography on the other hand is protected from such random edits by a piece of software I added, and is closely monitored. See that little image of a lock in the corner? Yours doesn't have it. People can add what they like about you and it can stay attached to your name for weeks. We don't protect you. That's just not the way we work."

AWESOME and Awe inspiring!

Now that is something for Don to take to his meeting with Jimmy!

Thank you; well written.

I knew Alexei Sayle was behind this whole shebang somewhere …

Jonny

Kato for President!

Wait a minute, I actually like Kato, so the US Presidency wouldn't really be something I'd wish on him... Maybe we should just give him a Nobel prize...?

I have a coupon for 50% off the rental of a tux, if that'll help.

Jonny

Another magnificent post!

By the way, its been a while since anyone wrote a blog post. Something like this, and your top 10 post, could be added to the blog too.

As much as I like the blue background and white hat, I think Kato's banner would look great on the forum's header!

Make him president of the British Red Cross?

Bah... already got a Nobel prize for my work in theology and canon law.

Simply phenomenal. I am otherwise speechless.

How did I miss this post? Nice job Kato.

When I checked just now, the Beesley article was not protected from editing.

Here's the article's last prophylaxis, but I don't know the significance of the <no-include>.

I get this message when I try to <view source> —


Jonny

It's been semi-protected for "libel concerns" since June 18.

It certainly has a long and storied history of protection!

So, what's your point, Dan? Are we arguing about the semantic nature of the word "has"? I agree it would be more accurate for Kato to say "has repeatedly had". But, THAT'S what you're going to take away from his monograph?

Beesley's page is indeed currently protected from editing by unregistered users, which is a protection not accorded to many thousands of other living persons like Charlie Rose, Dr. Alain Carpentier, and Adam Gopnik, to name three that I checked at random. Funny how Jimbo and Angela get the protection, but the "common folk" don't.

Sorry if I'm overly snippy in reaction to your "finding", Dan. I don't really mean you any criticism personally. We lovers of the US-1 "red" signs need to stick together.

Greg

Setting aside Mr. Tremens habitual spewage of wikipettifoggering quibbles, the point is more than abundantly well-established that the Wikipediot Elite (no, the other WE) accords itself special protections that the wikipeon and the wikipissed-on Public alike do not get.

Can you spell C-O-I ???

As if we needed any more examples of the wikiprivvied classes, we could always find them lol-a-gagging in this un-out-house.

Jonny

The article has survived six AfDs:

Cool Sarcasm!LOL!

KATO IS THE BOMB! MOVE OVER OBAMA AND MCCAIN! I AM WRITING YOU IN THE BALLOT!

THOMAS:)