http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...th:Introduction

says at the bottom

"If you find the wikitruth.info site is down, please contact David Gerard at Wikipedia, who has seen fit to download a copy of the entire Wikitruth site through his DSL line to serve as an official Mirror. Thank you, David!"

Doesn't that mean David is *not* part of wikitruth? It seems like they are taunting him with the knowledge that he has visited their site?

I don't think so, I think it says exactly what is written, David Gerard helps archiving a mirror of Wikitruth.info

David Gerard and Gracenotes are likely both members of wikitruth.info
garce note once called David Gerard a dedicated editor.

Fair call. Lane is likely David Gerard.

Its a pity. Wiki Truth is a decent endeavour.

However, too much humour in there. Makes it more readable, but yeah, just reminds me of something.

There's a reason why I don't like Encyclopaedia Dramatica though. Its because it is based on LJ Drama. And they encourage cyber stalking.

The bit about David Gerard was added by Nibbler though:

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...prev&oldid=2434

So, let's see.

Out of 12 editors, they got a high ranking Wikipedia administrator and media spokesman, David Gerard, to write there.

That doesn't sound very legitimate to me.

Mind you, I couldn't find anything on David Gerard's user page about it, so sapp might be right. I hope so.

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

The wiki truth site though seems to be run by Seek.

And check this out. Press Reports history has been wiped. No more mention of Lane's edits:

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...&action=history

I wonder who Lane is then:

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...tributions/Lane

They've also locked the Press Reports page from editing.

Only 12 editors, and already they have to lock it? Hrm.

Yeah I agree it is difficult to be sure, but the phrasing of it especially "who has seen fit" seems as though David did his work without the knowledge or approval of Nibbler at least. And why mention his DSL line? Almost seems as if they are saying how they know - seem bit of technical knowledge maybe?

Bizarre - Nibbler wanted to create an article on Wikipedia Review, but Seek didn't want him to:

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...next&oldid=2452

I am a bit confused. They seem to be fighting over us.

And he went ahead and stole our graphic too, all ready to make an article:

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...prev&oldid=2450

Trying to find out who these guys might be, the closest I could find was this:

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

And the user isn't even banned!

I am not convinced that David Gerard would want to be involved in something like that though. It makes sense in that it is making fun of things, but it doesn't make sense when you consider that it is criticising the fundamentals of Wikipedia. I can't imagine David Gerard doing that.

You know, I honestly feel that these guys have a good reason for hiding their identities. It probably isn't a good idea to try and ferret that information out. The Wikipediaphiles probably aren't too happy with some of them.

David Gerard has downloaded a copy of the site, which can be used as a mirror if the need arises, but I don' believe he is involved to any greater extent than that.

I have my own suspicions as to who some of these editors are, but they do have good reason for wanting to remain anonymous.

Has David Gerard really downloaded a copy of the site?

And why did he do it? So that Wikipedia could sue them if needed? Or is he actively a part of it?

"<DavidGerard> it [Wikipedia Review] was started by either Daniel Brandt or the QUAKEaid parasites"
LOL LOL LOL ~chokes~

..And Wikipedia was started by Jack Thompson...

David Gerard is not a member. I have this from a very good source, who would prefer not to be identified.

Good. That's good enough for me.

From http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/st...1752257,00.html :





I don't know how we missed this.

12 Wikipedia administrators.

Wikitruth is Wikipedia administrators!

That's all very interesting. Somehow we didn't notice that bit.

So which good administrators are trying to do something positive by making such a site? Whoever they are, well done! That adds a new dimension to it.

Not that we necessarily agree with what they are doing, but to go from adminhood to that stage, you have done well.

Don't forget that Soylent Green is People!

I definitely noticed that bit, sorry I didn't point it out more clearly.

I am not sure we missed it so much as it is at odds with the fact there are only three active contributors to the site. And yes I know they say people are contributing via proxy using email. But still "a dozen" is probably just usual inaccurate journalism.

Are we sure that there isn't a bit of journalistic confusion and they don't mean editors rather than administrators?

http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=David_Gerard

Yes, um, that's them saying "stop talking about us!"

And check out the history:

http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Davi...&action=history
http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Davi...2510&oldid=2507



So they really do love David Gerard? And that's really Ta Bu Shi Da Yu writing? TBSDY is Nibbler?

Um, no. That's really them reading this and telling us to piss off.

Looks like Chuck Norris changed his name to David Gerard: Chuck Norris

now why would gerard call it the best wiki ever even though he usully bashes any site that criticizes wikipedia


http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Fo...=20060417081822

That is starting to look like proof to me.

Also note this:

http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Us...ev&oldid=690655

Its also on his Wikipedia userpage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=48617709
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=48797382 (TBSDY)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=48804665
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=48809781
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=48810036 (bizarre - David Gerard seems to think that Lir was banned from Wikipedia Review. Or does he mean from Encyclopaedia Dramatica?)

So, to put it simply, David Gerard is trying to say it is Lir that is doing it, because he got banned from Encyclopaedia Dramatica (I think that's what he means - his doublespeak is sometimes hard to interpret).

Did Lir get banned from ED? And why would Lir want to make Wikitruth? I don't think so.

Lir doesn't even have an ED userpage tho: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index...Lir&action=edit

Bizarre logic.

Perhaps he meant Malber or Grace Note, who were going to be banned from Wikipedia, but were saved thanks to their criticism of Wikipedia Review, where they got banned.

And by the way, where is the slashdot article about wikitruth? I'd like to see it.

By the way, "Ignorant Aardvark" has the e-mail of cydeweys@gmail.com . I think its safe to say that that is our good friend Cyde.

Oh and he probably made the username "Ignorant Aardvark" as an attack on "Blu Aardvark" here. How rude!

This bit was interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art.../Wikitruth.info



So wikitruth.info was created by former Wikipedia administrator and banned user Wik.

That sounds believable.

Now, what other wikipedia admins were banned, or at least desysopped?

In passing, I also noticed that Wikipedia Watch might get deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...28second_nom%29

Currently looks 50/50. But a good shot. Perhaps Brandt is on the way to being wiped off Wikipedia.

I also noticed this user that I hadn't noticed before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky

Amazing how many critics there are of Wikipedia, all being censored or banned.

Ignorant Aardvark (632408)
User ids are in the 900,000s now. It isn't a recent account, and you cannot change your name. (http://slashdot.org/faq/accounts.shtml#ac100)
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48534&cid=4927509
comment from late 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...et=Blu_Aardvark
Blu Aardvark's first contribs in mid 2005

I think you are mistaken.

I also noticed more than one mention of "Wikipedia Review" in votes for deletion. It seems that some people think that Wikipedia Review deserves its own Wikipedia article.

I think that's a good idea, and I think that this site is sufficiently notable to warrant it. It might not have a lot of contributors, but there's other ways to be considered to be notable than mere number of contributors.

And then, whatever they said about it, it wouldn't matter, because it'd be constantly edited and changed around, and I'm sure in the end it'd either end up being sort of accurate, or else it'd be so off the show that we could use it as an example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. And the thing is that we could act as a kind of peer review of that.

Just a coincidence that he used that name then? Maybe he and Blu have something in common then - somewhere.

Wow, we've (sort of) been slashdotted:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183271&cid=15139690

And omg it takes so long to read the whole of a Slashdot post. And I bet there's dozens per day, too. That gave me a headache reading all of that. And I didn't even click on the "replies beneath this threshhold" bit.

Looks like its only a matter of time before this site gets slashdotted. We should prepare the welcoming party.

Oh, and some people are suggesting we should do something as well. Are they not aware of wikimediasucks wiki?

But we have had thoughts of other things. A blog I think was one of them. What else? Not sure what else we could do.

I dunno, I just about fell out of my chair laughing at The Grim Sweeper.

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...Calls_Us_A_Hoax
http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=David_Gerard

If some wikitruth person reads this: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...:Hammertime.jpg change "OK" to "Touch this" and grey out the box.

I can verify that the user in question is a Wikipedia admin. He contacted me by email using Special:Emailuser/Blu_Aardvark (T-H-L-K-D), so I can verify that he is who he says he is, at least in regards to his Wikipedia name. I'd rather not say more.

I suppose it is possible that he is not being honest, but he is almost certainly involved in the site in some way.

Ohmigosh! My secret revealed. Curse you, you Wikipedia Review commentators!

TBSDY

Is that quote the only reason people say you're involved? Apparently some people take it for granted that you're involved, but as evidence goes that alone is awfully weak. They could have been impersonating you, trying to get you in trouble, or making a joke amongst themselves.

Seemed obvious to me it was a little joke. As I said in another thread, there are 800 admins who could get pissed at Wikipedia. Not need for us to get fixated on just a few of them.

No, that quote is not the reason. Let's have a look at something a bit more obvious. Try this:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...44&oldid=337976

Of course, on top of that, there are all of his protests on Talk: Wikitruth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50188226
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50194022
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50200199
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50363280

That's it, you got me! I am Nibbler, of Wikitruth.info! But Blissy, you traitor, you revealed my secret! After all, only another Wikitruth administrator could possibly know that I was the culprit. Cruse you, Seek!

No, you're not Nibbler. Snowspinner is Nibbler. And I am not Seek. Raul654 is Seek. And Grace Note is Lane. We haven't figured out which Wikitruth username you use yet.

lol