He's crossed over the line, AGAIN.



So, now the party line is that I've harassed Jonathan Hochman?

I guess I have to repeat what I recently said, once again:



You see, I'm fine with online or in-person debate that is civil and thoughtful and stays on point. I have best friends with whom I adamantly disagree on major issues. What I don't tolerate so well is when someone resorts to fabrications about me personally to enhance their position in the argument. When they do that, if I report on their deceit, that doesn't constitute harassment, Guy Chapman.

I used to think you were just an idiot, JzG. Now I have come to rather realize that you are a deceitful politician who will twist and spin any little factoid or even bald-faced lie, so that it seems to the novice reader that you know what you're talking about, while your critics seem off-base. This really is approaching the point of a libel suit if it continues.

Dan Tobias is absolutely spot-on in his frequent debates with you.

I can't imagine how your children will feel about you one day, Guy Chapman, when they learn how many people have pointed out your lies and your shortcomings. I'm sure you've already prepared some pompous speech that you think will cover your tracks for them, but I'm thinking they'll see through your garbage.

Greg

Easily the biggest liar on Wikipedia, and that's really saying something.

And I know I keep repeating this, but if the world's biggest encyclopedia is going to redefine the word "harassment" to mean one e-mail to someone asking for evidence of a patently false and probably libelous claim, then society is in for a world of hurt. Not only that, people who are subject to real harassment are going to be more likely to be ignored by those who might otherwise do something about it.

I realize JzG has lost his sanity and all that, but when are they going to do something about him? Is this really the sort of thing Wikipedia wants - blatant, malicious liars representing them in public forums that could potentially be read by the media?

Lying has become a Way Of Life (WOL) for Wikipedia Admins.

I guess we have to keep letting them be all they can be, and keep on tracking it, until with luck the Gingrich Effect kicks in.

Jon Awbrey

Is there a reliable way to distinguish the articulation of a delusional belief from a deliberate deception?

I don't think it matters, if coming from a position of authority and presumed credibility. We only need look to the current White House to see the awful consequences of someone who honestly believes his mantras. In fact, a deliberate deception is often easier to cope with than the delusional. Maybe the best way to treat this is to presume (and reiterate) that JzG is delusional and wait for the public to lose faith, as it has with George W. Bush.

Thank you.

Greg

Experimental Epistemology dates back to Socrates and the Maieutic Method.

Of course, Socrates was viewed by many as an obnoxious gadfly who harassed his subjects with inconvenient questions.

Impossible questions are the bread and butter of the intrepid researcher, and the bane of arrogant bureaucrats.

Perhaps if we elevated the Paradox of Wikipedia to the level of a curiously perplexing meme, we could provide a useful service to those who still deign to think their way through life's large and little dilemmas.

Hmmm... we must remember that there are emotional delusions and psychological delusions. The problem seems to be that JzG has worked himself up into such a negatively emotional frenzy over BADSITES that he can't think straight - and has lost all sense of proportion.

It's a classic case of "Defender of the Wiki" syndrome, if you ask me. The exact same thing happened to MONGO, and probably lots of others who I'd just as soon not bring up... but at least with MONGO, you could feel some degree of sympathy for him because of what he was putatively defending against - i.e., conspiracy theorists. JzG is defending WP from phantoms that simply don't exist, and making up a tissue of lies to convince others of the existence of those phantoms. It's blatantly self-serving, is what it is.

I mean, if I were a conspiracy nut myself, I'd say the whole link-removal controversy over there was set up deliberately to distract us from actual abusive content manipulation that's been occuring on WP since Day One. In retrospect, I could hardly think of a better plan - I myself have gotten caught up in it, particularly in the last few days, when I normally just wouldn't care all that much. After all, our traffic numbers are up, even without all those links.

But what really convinced me that he's gone off the rails was the "WikiAbuse episode." I mean, it was quite obvious what was going on - Rootology just wanted to show them that they were making a mistake by banning him and screwing him over, and wanted payback against JayJG in particular, his #1 enemy. It was a fine idea from the anti-WP perspective, of course, but none of the WP hard-core loyalists should ever have fallen for it - and they didn't, not even MONGO, King of All Trolls (though of course he did show up, at least). All except for JzG - he totally fell for it, hook line and sinker. He still calls it a "noble effort," on a public list for cryin' out loud! And why? Because his sole purpose on WP is to attack others, get revenge, make people look and feel like shit, all while touting the same old moronic self-righteous folderol that only a completely brainwashed idiot would believe for even a nanosecond. But anything that makes his job easier is a "noble effort," as far as he's concerned.

Here is my initial framing of the paradox...

Given the official rejection of any kind of original research, those of us who are accustomed to validating our haphazard hypotheses before posting them as God's Truth are at a disadvantage on Wikipedia. We do our research openly and above board, which makes us easy targets for WP:NOR.

But those who form haphazard delusional beliefs without the benefit of a validation phase easily escape the appearance of doing the (forbidden) research necessary to support their theories. And so they survive and become the dominant paradigm on Wikipedia.

Thus arises the paradox -- Wikipedia becomes a haven for those who are wont to construct erratic beliefs and arrogantly publish them without the benefit of independent scientific validation. And those of us who question such erratic beliefs are reckoned as obnoxious gadflies who rudely disrupt the emotional serenity of those who prefer to blithely operate under their imaginative flights of fancy.

Partly, partly, but don't make the misteak of thinking that Wikipediots follow any kind of NP:Policy of NP:(No Original Research).

It wasn't this way 2 years ago, but as of this writing WP:NOR is one of the most fantastic pieces of NP:(Creative Wrotting) to be found anywhere.

And those of us who tried to stop — in the name of love — those Metaphormazes of Slimackulate Conceit are now walking around with Ironic Brands on our chests.

Jonny

Perhaps a better view would emerge if everyone sported their own very special Starlet Letter, so that we could itemize all the wonderful ways that a contributor can go awry and be shunted aside.

I would say you hit the nail on the head with this realization.

And they honestly believe that they're the good guys.

Zealots usually do. That's what's most frightening about them.

JzG is someone who lives in a fantasy world where what is important musically is defined by "those composers on my Ipod" and where making sexist, homophobic, anti-Catholic and generally JzG-esque statements are seen as "fighting the good fight". All you have to do to make this fantasy world disappear is to point out to him that it's there.

That's why he completely lost it during the Wiki-abuse episode and why he's continuing to lost it over BADSITES. He needs the illusion and we keep taking his toys away.

It's pathetic. I feel sorry for his wife and kids, myself...

I would be very interested to see how that would turn out.

Edit: If i remember correctly libel suits are very easy to win in the UK. Of course I would rather JzG simply stopped making stuff up (MONGO suffers from that problem too - accusing all and sundry of harassing him) because lawsuits are messy and there is other family members of Guys involved. However a cease and desist letter might get him to fly straight.

Can you imagine having such a delusional individual as a parent? His kids are going to turn out more warped than cheap linoleum that is improperly installed.

I am confused about timing and time, when it comes to the internet.

How does anyone have any time for the bicycle, children, wife, or real job, if so much time and effort is spent typing on a keyboard?

The addiction to this is so powerful, is it not? It seems to be destroying many lives, including the one JzG used to have. I also feel sorry for his wife and family. I can imagine his critical outbursts toward his children when he is sooooo into his literary expository prose. (???)

I walk away from this for a couple of weeks, go into the studio with amazing people; none of whom have the slightest notion as to why anyone would be spending even an hour on Wikipedia...

when I return, JzG is back again...this time he is re-creating the nightmare that he was leaving only a short time past.

I am grateful that I never got started at WP, knowing how I fall victim to nearly any addictive behavior. I love music, the sun, blue water, and white sand too much. I guess I also share the boob thing with JzG, but traversing the web is not where I like to go for that love.

Now that's more like what I'd call a "Clarion Call of Wisdom"!

The hard-core WP'ers have a thing for claiming that anonymous editors' lives are "ruined" because someone identified them, posted their name on some obscure website, and a few people discussed their biases and abuses in unflattering terms. Of course, the lives of some people are actually enhanced by this, as they cleverly manage to turn their WP notoriety into real-world expert power that could, quite possibly, lead to speaker's fees and increased consulting revenue - not that I personally begrudge that to them, you understand!

But to me, the real ruination of lives occurs when people become divorced from reality, stop breathing fresh air, and lose their perspective on what's really important - families, friends, career advancement, even just the day-to-day things like keeping the house clean and the lawn trimmed. That's something we, I should hope, are fighting against - whereas the WP hard-liners are doing everything in their power to suck more people in, and once they're in, suck the life right out of them. Misery loves company, after all.

Icky!

Brilliant; well put.

http://www.pr-inside.com/dutch-justice-min...rom-r306241.htm


I see my friends in Holland are going to take the right course of action and simply ban the use
of WP, altogether. This is a positive step toward illustrating that WP is on an even keel with MySpace and Facebook.


Not enough work being done if everyone is addicted to editing WP.

I totally agree, and I wish more people saw it that way. If I meet one more student that says "It was on Wikipedia!" when I ask "Where did you get that information from?" I'm going to shoot myself. I even know several medical students that base their entire clinical presentations solely on what they read on Wikipedia. It's madness!

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/...-killer-in-one/

Well.....speak of the devil!

Psychosis vs. "Being a Dick"


Well, even then, he supposedly (reportedly) started drinking again, so even if that is no excuse, it sure made it easier.

I'm not clear that any of the above mentioned parties have even that reason (though it is not an excuse).


I wouldnt call that a good politician. I would call it being a sociopath. Not all good politicians are sociopaths, though quite a few are.

That's a waste. Shoot them instead.