Looks like FT2 is working hard to defend NLP promoters (and boot anti-pedophile editors)

Here is FT2’s and Fainites’ work. As we know, Fainites works with a company called Comaze.com on keeping the NLP article’s science view as obscured as possible:

http://www.nlpconnections.com/members/comaze.html
http://www.nlpconnections.com/members/fainites.html

Fainites (a Lucinda Davis) has also been working with admin FT2 to keep NLP sanitized on other articles:

On this article Fainites is trying to remove NLP associations with pseudoscientific aspects of attachment therapy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=114357153

There was a huge war going on there, and eventually, arbitration. So of course, for the sake of impartiality, FT2 turns up to put the boot in

DPeterson seems to have been quite strongly anti-pedophile and got good support from other perhaps reasonable admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...n_from_Fainites


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...r_the_candidate


I have to admit that Dpeterson and alleged socks do seem to have pushed a bit of a unvalidated therapy, but then again it does have some limited support. Certainly though the others have a COI motive to beat him up and kick him out.

DPeterson then was banned, much to the delight of the pedophiles
http://www.boychat.org/messages/1088517.htm

Interestingly, at around that time, FT2 added this to the NPOV article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=147447534

It places in primary position the notion that verifiability etc can be abused. Why is that given priority? It seems so because FT2 is not keen at all on verifiability, and would like to use that excuse to boot editors who use perfectly verifiable facts (and boot the facts). As we all know FT2 is rather keen on promoting fringe practices (such as bestiality) over the normal majority reaction.

Bestiality promotion, booting anti-pedophile editors, working with NLP promoters of pseudoscience…. It looks pretty much like a WP fringe, crank, perv fest, all with admin backing.

Big big shame!

That's INCREDIBLE. What is even more incredible that hardly anyone else seems to be picking up on this. Oh well.

A tip - if you already aren't, take screenshots of this stuff - especially the off-wiki things like the paedophile message board thing, which I have already copied. They can soon be taken down. Even the on-wiki stuff can.

You may have noticed my post earlier about FT2's missing edits. I was offered, as if it was a big favour, to take my complaints to 'Jimbo' himself. They challenged me to produce edits that supported my claims. I sent some, and they were promptly deleted. Luckily I have a whole stash more that they don't know about, but I'm keeping those safe, and I now have screenshots of the lot.

OH, PS. Look at who just got banned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GigiButterfly

Look at the last entry on this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...r_the_candidate

Now there's a nice snapshot.

I'm completely baffled why everyone seems to be accepting this.

Also noticed this from the paedophile board

www.boychat.org/messages/1088535.htm



Hundreds of implications. One of them: the poster is clearly hinting that there are off-the-fence arbitrators.

I think what we have here is an unbelievable situation, that is actually explainable by the sorts of comments and propositions that have been displayed here. WPedians are promoted via lackeying. That comes from the top. The most incriminating stuff is covered up (stuff about really embarrasing situations) other stuff e.g. Essjay, are made examples of for PR etc. Its still backfires.

WP is clearly unreliable in both theory and practice. The opportunities for misinformation are too numerous to mention. The power the higher echelons have for pushing their own agendas, and for simply behaving like bullies, is enormous. The stress is showing on all who cannot quite cope. There are those who obviously are dissonant. They cannot deal with their own misdeeds and they are inconsistent in their own accusations. There are those who try, but consistently fail to present facts without them being twisted or obscured by those who don't like them. And there are clearly those who simply feel happy to wield the power they have regardless of fact, ethics, public opinion, or anything related to the real world. Those wishing to make a beneficial difference are generally beaten black and blue by the system, and whoever wants to have a go at them, including administrators who like to present their own fetish as if it were a lifestyle choice you might peruse in Cosmopolitan.

Its all baffling in part because, some journalists are taken in, and partly because WP do put a concerted front on the facade.

I have to admit to liking it though. I think Wikipedia is not about fact at all. Its about truth. Its fairly easy to see the truth when you read between the lines and the diffs. And with a few printscreens, its easy enough to see the sort of stuff that needs to be ushered out of view. Thats all about truth (and hiding it) as far as I can tell.

If you are into truth, then all that needs to be done is collect a few diffs. One could say they are only human. Which side of human? You have to work the truth out for yourself. Most of the time its really obvious. WP = a collection of the sum of human knowledge? NO! WP = ??? So far a poor show.

WP in my mind (and for my purposes) seems to be just a method of exposing the truth about power hungry individuals who want to paint the world in their own particular variety of shit. Those who are good at climbing the ladder, get to drop more influential lumps on any collection of info that is in the splatter path.

In this case it seems to be exposing the truth about pervs and cranks.

It's about verifiability, actually, but that should amount to truth, eventually. I think the NPOV is a pretty good policy (before FT2 got his hands on it), and it should in theory work, except for the obvious weakness that offline fringe and whacko groups have a strong vested interest in getting their POV across, and generally do, whereas other people don't.

If only the scientific community got more involved, this sort of thing would not be happening. In practice they don't, because they think WP is some kind of joke. But it's not, because a lot of school students use it.

Also, I have experience of a couple of professional academics who I managed to persuade to come on board, but were either put off by the teenage trolling, or who were actually told by the department not to do stuff for WP.

I'm a veteran of the scientific community, with 20 years as a science educator at the Boston Museum of Science. I originally did take WP seriously, and discovered it was worse than a bad joke. There is a good reason academics do not allow their students to cite Wikipedia.

I was put off partly by the adolescent trolling, but more by the sheer corruption and dysfunctionality of the dominance hierarchy, which has oriented the site into a competitive MMPORG rather than a collegial enterprise to construct an authoritatively written encyclopedia.

In a way, I am with you there Moulton. But my belief is that the best way to cope with WP is to get the highlighter out. Add facts, or wait till others do, and highlight what happens as a result. So far from what I have seen, the highlighting only really shows a dubious hierarchy of interested parties, and lots and lots of idiocy, negligence, and abused contributors. If WP is curable in any way, then the highlighter pen is the way forward. Its most likely incurable though. The sort of incisions needed to cut the crap will involve a total dismemberment of the carcass.

Actually, I did once have an idea that WP was simply erected in order to elicit information on marketing trends. But alas I think its just a fuckup.

At this point, Wikipedia may well be incurable and incorrigible. The cancer is embedded way too deep, and has metastasized throughout the body.

As I've noted before, a fish rots from the head down.

Here's another I found. (Warning, paedophile message board, do not link from work).

www.boychat.org/messages/1071772.htm

"the reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us."