So, having been the target myself of libel in the Wikipedia article about me, I've been trying to protect an article about a fellow activist here in Ottawa, Denis Rancourt. Over the last couple of months, a bunch of rabid right-wingers (two of whom appear to be one-purpose accounts started specifically for the purpose of doing a hatchet-job on Rancourt) have removed 90%+ of the original content of the article after having failed to get the article deleted, and replaced it with material designed to make Rancourt look like a nutcase. For instance, after Rancourt was banned from entering his lab at the university, they added a statement out of the blue to his article that the lab contains radiactive materials, the implication being that Rancourt is dangerous and violent and likely to do something with access to such material.

Now the tactic they're using is to paint Rancourt as an anti-semite because he objects to Israeli nationalism. This is rather a big deal, because in Canada it is a criminal offence to make hate speech, and the Wikipedia article now effectively accuses him of commission of a crime. When repeated reverts of this material did nothing, I (foolishly) posted an article on the BLP noticeboard asking for assistance. The result is now *more* people adding the material to the article, and JoshuaZ threatening to ban me for reverting it.

Enough is enough. If no one here can suggest a better solution, I think I'm going to call Rancourt and see if I can convince him to file a claim against WMF.

Yeah, that is one ugly hunk of BLP abuse.

Sad to tell you, going to the WMF might be the only way to change it.

Now that JoshuaZ is involved, I can guarantee that "bio" will stay--
and get steadily more awful with time. He's a walking poison.

The only ways I've seen to make a change STICK,
if you attract this kind of BLP craziness, are:

a) get a couple of more-honest admins to revert and protect the article
(there are a few here who might be willing--ask them very nicely--
and even this isn't foolproof, if another admin decides to make trouble)

or

b) make bad publicity for Wikipedia. Embarrass them.

I suppose there's always c), threaten to withhold a large donation to the WMF,
but that's a lot more costly.

PS--I have to feel sorry for Rancourt. When an idiot toad like James Inhofe uses his
statements as a tool to "prove" Inhofe's demented anti-climate-change opinions,
that's embarrassing.

I suggest next time you bring attention to a problem article or editor in Wikipedia by posting here first. That way, editors and observers here with a lot of experience with Wikipedia's bizarre culture will be able to give you some advice on how to go about addressing the problem without running afoul of Wikipedia's administration or can help you out personally.

There is no solution within the Wikipediot System. Once they make it a matter of principle to Spin It Any Way We Wanna (WP:SIAW³), there is no hope but to force them to take down the article. That can take a couple of years, and it will happen only if you keep maintaining the external pressure on every front. Ask Daniel Brandt.

Jon

Jon is right about the futility of internal Wikipedian wankery. Smearing people as antisemitic has a long and sordid history on Wikipedia. It has included such obviously non-antisemitic people as Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter. Litigation is worth a try. So is some kind of direct action. If he opts for either please keep us closely posted.

Just a quick update, I spoke to Prof. Rancourt and we had a long chat. He hadn't been following his Wikipedia article, so he wasn't aware what they were doing to it. We've come up with a strategy, and he's going to start with a registered letter to WMF indicating his specific objections and concerns so that there's a paper trail. Is there anything else we should be doing for preliminaries?

(Edit: Rancourt and I have argued about his climate change science in the past. While I agree with him that the global warming phenomenon is being used by the State for a power grab -- any time the State agrees with ANYTHING, it's time to step back and have a long, hard, cold look at it -- it doesn't mean the underlying science is necessarily wrong or bad. But hey, as Adlai Stevenson said, "Freedom rings where opinions clash.")

All the more credit that you can support without complete agreement. I took a brief look at the discussion page for Rancourt's article yesterday. Did I understand correctly that some of the allegations about antisemitism were based (or "sourced" as my betters like to say) on letters to the editor? I'm not an expert at "encyclopedic" editorial standards (unlike many fifteen year olds and LiveJournal refugees) but that doesn't seem like it should meet any kind of standard. Not that standards really have much to do with it.

I'm glad you understand about Rebellion In Service Of Regime (RISOR) — alias The Clockwork Orange — so many Wiki-Populists are suckers for that, but the long-term answers are not so easy as wrangling a transient fix out of an article that you'll eventually have to hire a service to watch for the rest of your life.

No, that won't quite do at all.

Adlai Stevenson was the Most Beautiful Loser, but he spoke before the time of the Kabal Klone Kult — who could imagine the e-pression of that?

Jon

Well, he made the Globe and Mail.....

Update:

The newspaper whose article was being used in the Denis Rancourt article as "proof" of his anti-Jewish comments just printed a full apology and retraction.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11668697/La-Roto...-2-fevrier-2009

When newspapers print lies which accuse people of criminal acts (anti-semitic hate speech is a criminal offence in Canada), they either apologize and retract in a very public way, or they get sued. Generally successfully. Why is Wikipedia different? How come they now get to quietly remove the libellous material (which they threatened to ban me for removing) and pretend it never happened?

We ended up discussing this on another thread - in the Biographies forum (it is hidden from google to protect the names of the article victims)

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23055

I immediately smelt a rat when I looked at the sources. He'd been misquoted. And the paper had effectively put words in his mouth:



The fact that Wikipedia editors tried to propagate this mistruth, and edit warred to do so utilizing Wikipedia's problematic "Reliable Sources" provisions, is further evidence of the massive problems that beset WP biographies.

These kinds of episodes are all over Wikipedia. A disgrace.

Well child, are your lessons done?

Ja Ja Ja

One of the reasons WR has this "Notable editors" forum is because, if I understand right, when it comes to wiki abuse the same names seem to pop up all the time. Wikipedia doesn't have an effective, expedient process to deal with "vested" or "established" participants who continually cause trouble and seem unable to stop.