WIKIPEDIA SCANDAL COVER UP.
(what else is new)
Durova Falsely Accuses Congressman' Press Officer. He loses his job. ((link) [/color].
Full Version: DUROVAGATE ON WIKIPEDIA - Durova's false accusations get a Congressman's Press Officer Fired
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Tue 4th December 2007, 4:59pm) 
WIKIPEDIA SCANDAL COVER UP.
(what else is new)
Durova Falsely Accuses Congressman' Press Officer. He loses his job. ((link) Watch the Scandal Unfold as Wikipedia Ruling Clique tries to cover-up Durova's latest mistake.[/color]
The IP that was writing about how Durova's (predictably) bad sleuthing got a Congressman's Press Officer fired. This is really disgusting.
Ryulong blocked the editor. (no surprise there).
Editor is secretly communicating with Giano
Here's the link to the Ani discussion, archived... Can somebody webcite this??
this one could be BIG...
I've found some very good information about this (the entire story, from a Wikipedia point of view, with the points of conflict, actions and COI clearly laid out), including diffs which I've copied here. This needs to be webcited as well.
This gets back to the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause.
Sometimes, only the person or someone close to them has the knowledge to recognize false and defamatory content.
But it is apparently common practice on Wikipedia to automatically assume bad faith on anyone who tries to remove false and defamatory content from an article.
To my mind, that is not a sustainable policy, and should be carefully examined by ArbCom on general principles, without regard to any individual case.
Sometimes, only the person or someone close to them has the knowledge to recognize false and defamatory content.
But it is apparently common practice on Wikipedia to automatically assume bad faith on anyone who tries to remove false and defamatory content from an article.
To my mind, that is not a sustainable policy, and should be carefully examined by ArbCom on general principles, without regard to any individual case.
SV offers her support for her "friend" <ahem> :
QUOTE
I think the anon is making some fair points. I don't like the idea of Wikipedia admins going to the media with stories about IP edits, or any account's edits, in a way that makes the editor traceable, and I hate the idea of someone losing their job because of edits they made to Wikipedia. We have a communications committee to answer queries from journalists if the latter find anything on WP they want to write about. We should consider adding something about this to the COI guideline, and also warning new editors, as the anon suggests. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 4th December 2007, 4:17pm)
This gets back to the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause.
Sometimes, only the person or someone close to them has the knowledge to recognize false and defamatory content.
But it is apparently common practice on Wikipedia to automatically assume bad faith on anyone who tries to remove false and defamatory content from an article.
To my mind, that is not a sustainable policy, and should be carefully examined by ArbCom on general principles, without regard to any individual case.
Yes, I was caught out by WP:BLP which tells us that "contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,"
After repeatedly removing contentious material, I was cited for 3RR... even though (A) WP:BLP is a justifiable exception, and (B.) At least one Admin agreed with my edits. I subsequently received a 24-hour block, which is continually used against me as disruptive behavior.
What is the best way to get this exposed to the media?
QUOTE(Cynick @ Tue 4th December 2007, 11:27am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 4th December 2007, 4:17pm)
This gets back to the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause.
Sometimes, only the person or someone close to them has the knowledge to recognize false and defamatory content.
But it is apparently common practice on Wikipedia to automatically assume bad faith on anyone who tries to remove false and defamatory content from an article.
To my mind, that is not a sustainable policy, and should be carefully examined by ArbCom on general principles, without regard to any individual case.
Sometimes, only the person or someone close to them has the knowledge to recognize false and defamatory content.
But it is apparently common practice on Wikipedia to automatically assume bad faith on anyone who tries to remove false and defamatory content from an article.
To my mind, that is not a sustainable policy, and should be carefully examined by ArbCom on general principles, without regard to any individual case.
Yes, I was caught out by WP:BLP which tells us that "contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,"
After repeatedly removing contentious material, I was cited for 3RR... even though (A) WP:BLP is a justifiable exception, and (B.) At least one Admin agreed with my edits. I subsequently received a 24-hour block, which is continually used against me as disruptive behavior.
I had a virtually identical experience. It occurs to me that 3RR is systematically being abused in the case of WP:BLP cases.
I have asked ArbCom to review the alleged abuses that arose in my case.
You could contact Steve Doocy of Fox & friends on the FOX Channel.
He had a small wiki-scandal of his own, where they wrote outrageous things about him on his bio.
'Fox and Friends' Discusses Wikipedia's Flaws Did you know that "Fox and Friends" co-host Steve Doocy is a 61-year-old stripper who tragically died today? No, he is not, but according to a Wikipedia edit today he is. Apparently, Steve Doocy died in a car accident today, is 61, and a stripper.
Steve Doocy - The Huffington Post
But co-host Steve Doocy agreed that the "mainstream media" would have been far ... 'Fox and Friends' Discusses Wikipedia's Flaws. 5 days ago on Newsbusters ...
And he's probably Republican, which is the party of the Congressman's office that got caught up in the latest episode of "BAD NANCY DREW"
He had a small wiki-scandal of his own, where they wrote outrageous things about him on his bio.
QUOTE
'Fox and Friends' Discusses Wikipedia's Flaws Did you know that "Fox and Friends" co-host Steve Doocy is a 61-year-old stripper who tragically died today? No, he is not, but according to a Wikipedia edit today he is. Apparently, Steve Doocy died in a car accident today, is 61, and a stripper.
Steve Doocy - The Huffington Post
But co-host Steve Doocy agreed that the "mainstream media" would have been far ... 'Fox and Friends' Discusses Wikipedia's Flaws. 5 days ago on Newsbusters ...
And he's probably Republican, which is the party of the Congressman's office that got caught up in the latest episode of "BAD NANCY DREW"
QUOTE(Fox @ Tue 4th December 2007, 11:37am)
What is the best way to get this exposed to the media?
I dunno if it's the best way, but I took the advice of some of the editors who looked in on my case, and began with the college press.
The bit about the seekrit mailing list Review article has been slashdotted by PrivateMusings- someone could also contact them about this latest Durova scandal, although I don't know if they do much until it is already written up in another paper/somewhere else.
Between one and two blog posts somewhere, somehow are being written about Durova, every hour now. There's no stopping this meme now, Jimbo.
Greg
Greg
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 4th December 2007, 7:24pm)
Between one and two blog posts somewhere, somehow are being written about Durova, every hour now. There's no stopping this meme now, Jimbo.
Greg
The truth about corruption, like Letha Weapons's weapons, just wants to pop out and be free.
This needs to get out in the media, then using online references from online media links, someone can then create an Wikipedia "notable" article 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.