Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,720
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 92:
Line 92: + + + + + + + + + + +
→Brandt / Berlet feud: WikiTruth
''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nations oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nations oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
[[Image:400px-Having a Bad Horn Day.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From [[WikiTruth]], the inscription reads,<br>
''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}
Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official declaration removing Brandt's status as any sort of expert critic on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) it added '''undue weight''' ('''WP:UNDUE''')<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> to criticism of Brandt when placed within the Wikipedia entry on Brandt, another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitiable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain the article simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. Brandt began demanding accountability from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own backgraound which would deny him inclusion as a source on any subject other than himself.
Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official declaration removing Brandt's status as any sort of expert critic on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) it added '''undue weight''' ('''WP:UNDUE''')<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> to criticism of Brandt when placed within the Wikipedia entry on Brandt, another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitiable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain the article simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. Brandt began demanding accountability from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own backgraound which would deny him inclusion as a source on any subject other than himself.
Brandt is now known as the scourage of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Bogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.
Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.
Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}
=== Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extremist sources ===
=== Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extremist sources ===