read this

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

A false Wikipedia 'biography'
By John Seigenthaler
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
— Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. There was more:

"John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984," Wikipedia said. "He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative said about me. I was wrong. One sentence in the biography was true. I was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler, journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com.

I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge — and sometimes by people with malice.

At my request, executives of the three websites now have removed the false content about me. But they don't know, and can't find out, who wrote the toxic sentences.

Anonymous author

I phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and asked, "Do you ... have any way to know who wrote that?"

"No, we don't," he said. Representatives of the other two websites said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual.

Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.

But searching cyberspace for the identity of people who post spurious information can be frustrating. I found on Wikipedia the registered IP (Internet Protocol) number of my "biographer"- 65-81-97-208. I traced it to a customer of BellSouth Internet. That company advertises a phone number to report "Abuse Issues." An electronic voice said all complaints must be e-mailed. My two e-mails were answered by identical form letters, advising me that the company would conduct an investigation but might not tell me the results. It was signed "Abuse Team."

Wales, Wikipedia's founder, told me that BellSouth would not be helpful. "We have trouble with people posting abusive things over and over and over," he said. "We block their IP numbers, and they sneak in another way. So we contact the service providers, and they are not very responsive."

After three weeks, hearing nothing further about the Abuse Team investigation, I phoned BellSouth's Atlanta corporate headquarters, which led to conversations between my lawyer and BellSouth's counsel. My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my "biographer." Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name.

Little legal recourse

Federal law also protects online corporations — BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. — from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.

Recent low-profile court decisions document that Congress effectively has barred defamation in cyberspace. Wikipedia's website acknowledges that it is not responsible for inaccurate information, but Wales, in a recent C-Span interview with Brian Lamb, insisted that his website is accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors (he said he has only one paid employee) corrects mistakes within minutes.

My experience refutes that. My "biography" was posted May 26. On May 29, one of Wales' volunteers "edited" it only by correcting the misspelling of the word "early." For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin before Wales erased it from his website's history Oct. 5. The falsehoods remained on Answers.com and Reference.com for three more weeks.

In the C-Span interview, Wales said Wikipedia has "millions" of daily global visitors and is one of the world's busiest websites. His volunteer community runs the Wikipedia operation, he said. He funds his website through a non-profit foundation and estimated a 2006 budget of "about a million dollars."

And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them.

When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."

For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia.

John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist, founded The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. He also is a former editorial page editor at USA TODAY.

Wikipedia is pretty good at editing out stuff the Jews don't like, so I wonder why they can't seem to edit out factually incorrect biographies. HMMM. Maybe those things are 2 sides of the same coin?

Did you read about the "Swift Boat" entry in Wikipedia?
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Wikipedia_gets_Swift_Boated_1129.html
The upside of an open-source encyclopedia is that anyone can provide detailed information. The downside of an open-source encyclopedia is that anyone can provide detailed information.

This became readily apparent when a aquiline-eyed reader noticed that Swift Boating was defined as "accurate and truthful," and that Cindy Sheehan was dubbed a "left wing moonbat."
http://rawstory.com/other/swift.jpg

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/jan04/siegbig0119.jpg
This guy was an open promoter of 'desegration' and 'race-mixing' and now heads a nasty corporate PR firm. (http://www.seigenthalerpr.com/) Somebody did a number on him on Wikipedia, and he cries like the s**t that he is. He can dish out dolled-up 'niggers be human' BS for decades, but he can't take his own medicine and wants to sic lawyers on those who hit back with their own BS. It's not so fun when you don't call the shots, is it shabbes goy? Or is he a chosenite?

From his current wikipedia entry:
...Remaining focused on the cause of civil rights, Seigenthaler supported Tennessee Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop) Joseph Aloysius Durick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Aloysius_Durick) in 1969 during the latter's contentious focus on ending segregation, a stance that outraged many in the community who still believed in the concept....

Wikipedia is pretty good at editing out stuff the Jews don't like
Kosher Patrol keeps their interests well protected on Wik. Just check the Holocaust entry.

Wikipedia is pretty good at editing out stuff the Jews don't like,

Also good at adding things the Jews do like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno_music

Derrick May is often quoted as comparing techno to "George Clinton and Kraftwerk stuck in an elevator". For various reasons, techno is seen by the American mainstream, even among African-Americans, as "white" music, even though many of its originators and producers are black. The historical similarities between techno, jazz, and rock and roll, from a racial standpoint, are a point of contention among fans and musicians alike. Derrick May, in particular, has been outspoken in his criticism of the co-opting of the genre and of the misconceptions held by people of all races with regard to techno.

Even an entry for something as innocuous as instrumental electronic music cannot be free of racial Judenspeak. Reverent upper-case "A" for "African-Americans", without quotation marks. Lower case "w" for White, with quotation marks. A lower case "b" for black (gasp)...but no quotation marks.

And that's not even taking into account the substance of this "argument" about the origins of techno, which isn't exactly difficult to refute. The point is that Wikipedia chose to include it in this entry.

As I recall, traditional encyclopedias were free of racial value statements.

They love to say 'rock n roll is black' - perhaps true in 1955 - without noting its similarity to the white folk songs and ditties that came before it.
Rap is undeniably black, but its roots are in the uberwhite electronica of Kraftwerk.
Wikipedia is good, but anything less than mud-leaningly impartial will be called into question by nonwhites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kashmir_conflict

Incidentally, notice this entry on Taiwanese abbos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_aborigine

Now, Japan and Taiwan (at the very least) have non-Chinese/Japanese aboriginal populations. What are the chances of their feeling guilty? What are the chances of their granting the aborigines a certain autonomy (viz. US & Canada, Australia, New Zealand)? Ozzies and enzedders should drive their aborigines into the sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25s :

'in the News: President Omar Bongo, in office since 1967, wins the Gabonese presidential election for another 7-year term.
-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bongo

Bongo was born in Lewai — currently Bongoville; he was elected as vice president in March 1967.

Or is he a chosenite?


I don't think that I have ever seen anyone with a name ending in -thal or -thaler who was not a Jew. It's as big a giveaway as being named after a German or Polish city.

I don't think that I have ever seen anyone with a name ending in -thal or -thaler who was not a Jew. It's as big a giveaway as being named after a German or Polish city.

A friend tells me almost all people in Russia with German names are Jews. Or at least a higher proportion compared to the USA, where some German named people are Jews and some are not.

I agree that names ending or -thal or -thaler are often Jewish or perhaps usually. But not exclusive. I do personally know one fellow who has this ending and he comes from German Catholics. I read that "tal" means valley in German, hence "rosenthal" suggests to me, valley for roses. Similar to, rosenbaum, rose bush or tree.

Oncet a gal told me, she though if a name ended in "berg" it was Jew, "burg" was gentile. I said, well, berg means mountain and burg means castle. So you have plenty of Jew Rosenbergs in the USA but there was also the famous Nazi named Rosenberg.

I am no philologist and you folks probably have made these observations as well, but I think it's good to reprise them for readers from time to time.

"This is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids that adds up to something far less than the sum of its parts," he wrote.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/

WikiPedia is not for serious use. It's not a real encyclopedia, but a popularity contest dominated by scene queens.

I happen to have the latest digital version of Encyclopaedia Britannica installed on my hard drive (in my Windows partition) and have done some informal comparisons of EB with wikipedia. Info about ancient cultures and history is generally better in EB, but the online links at the end of the wikipedia articles can be quite helpful in many cases. For more recent info, wikipedia usually has more info on a given topic, and with more cross-references as well, and is more likely to have separate entries for proper names that in EB are not separate but are buried deep inside very long articles on other subjects. For technological info, wikipedia is the hands down winner. For the jewish question, neither EB nor wikipedia are a great resource, but wikipedia has info not in EB and vice versa.
WikiPedia is not for serious use. It's not a real encyclopedia, but a popularity contest dominated by scene queens. This is not generally true in my experience. EB is best on obscure people, places, and topics. However, much of EB content is written at a level that is difficult to comprehend for the nonspecialist. Wikipedia seems to suffer less in this way. Often the best way to find info appropriate to what you need is to just use google, but it can be very time consuming (even after narrowing your search with more precise terms).

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Americans
Another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Subscriber_Line

I have been using a lot because it is free and loads fast. For basic stuff it gives you a decent intro. Which is what you want from an encyclopedia anyhow ,right? Just and intro?

speak of the devil lookee what popped up off ap

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_rules



SAN FRANCISCO - Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows anyone to contribute articles, is tightening its rules for submitting entries following the disclosure that it ran a piece falsely implicating a man in the Kennedy assassinations.

ADVERTISEMENT


Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site, said Monday.

The change comes less than a week after John Seigenthaler Sr., who was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s, wrote an op-ed article revealing that Wikipedia had run a biography claiming Seigenthaler had been suspected in the assassinations of the former Attorney General and his brother, President John F. Kennedy.

Wikipedia, which on Monday offered more than 850,000 articles in English, has grown into a storehouse of pieces on topics ranging from medieval art to nano technology. The volume of content is possible because the site relies on volunteers, including many experts in their fields, to submit entries and edit previously submitted articles.

The Web site hopes that the registration requirement will limit the number of stories being created, Wales said.

"What we're hopeful to see is that by slowing that down to 1,500 a day from several thousand, the people who are monitoring this will have more ability to improve the quality," Wales said Monday. "In many cases the types of things we see going on are impulse vandalism."

Wikipedia visitors will still be able to edit content already posted without registering. It takes 15 to 20 seconds to create an account on the Web site, and an e-mail address is not required.

Seigenthaler, a former newspaper editor at the Tennessean in Nashville, Tenn., and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, said that following his op-ed piece in USA Today the biography of him was changed to remove the false accusations.

But Seigenthaler said the current entry on Monday still got some facts wrong, apparently because volunteers are confusing him with his son, John Seigenthaler Jr., a journalist with NBC News.

Also disturbing is a section of his biography that tracks changes made to the article, Seigenthaler, Sr. said. Entries in that history section label him a "Nazi" and say other "really vicious, venomous, salacious homophobic things about me," he said.

Wales said those comments would be removed.

For 132 days, Seigenthaler said the biography of him falsely claimed that "for a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby."

The biography also falsely stated that he had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984.

Seigenthaler said he wasn't convinced the new registration requirement would stop the practice of vandals posting content that is slanderous or knowingly incorrect. Wikipedia will either have to fix the problem or will lose whatever credibility it still has, he said.

"The marketplace of ideas ultimately will take care of the problem," Seigenthaler said. "In the meantime, what happens to people like me?"

I've used EB for a couple of years and I think that Wikipedia is better. Naturally, Wikipedia allows boffins and geeks in their little niche-hobbies to give us pages of info on the most obscure things that are certainly not found on Britannica. For example, Wiki has databases on many contemporary philosophers (unlike EB), stuff on heavy metal and its crazy offshoots (it is therefore more comprehensive on music history), the weirdest scientific information (brewing whiskey), incredibly obscure neologisms, etc, etc. It's the next best thing to going out and finding the primary sources for oneself.

Example (kike philosopher):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripkenstein

You can also link to tidbits on individual works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_of_Spirit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Philosophical_Sciences

EB is better for detailed bibliographies, though.

...say other "really vicious, venomous, salacious homophobic things about me," he said....Whenever I hear a person object that 'homophobic' remarks were made about so and so, I immediately sense that someone is about to be 'outed' that doesn't want to be.
EB is better for detailed bibliographies, though. Agreed.

Here the Jew forces an apology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_fake_bio

A man who posted false information on an online encyclopedia linking a prominent journalist to the Kennedy assassinations says he was playing a trick on a co-worker.

Brian Chase, 38, ended up resigning from his job and apologizing to John Seigenthaler Sr., the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today.

"I knew from the news that Mr. Seigenthaler was looking for who did it, and I did it, so I needed to let him know in particular that it wasn't anyone out to get him, that it was done as a joke that went horribly, horribly wrong," Chase was quoted as saying in Sunday editions of The Tennessean.

Seigenthaler said he doesn't plan to pursue legal action against Chase.

He also said he doesn't support more regulations of the Internet (yeah right!), but he said that he fears "Wikipedia is inviting it by its allowing irresponsible vandals to write anything they want about anybody."

Chase said he created the fake online biography in May as a gag to shock a co-worker who was familiar with the Seigenthaler family. He resigned as an operations manager at a Nashville delivery company as a result of the debacle.

The [jews] don't mind however when lies are written about for instance David Irving. When someone corrects those lies, he is banned.

Wikipedia is a 100% [jews] pack of lies, paid for by the goyim.