Readers of this blog post might know I have a rather long-term issue with the fact that a number of Wikipedia editors are actively and "tautologically" engaged in their own pseudo-scholarly personal agenda bias-driven campaigns to delete significant facts that do not fit those personal fact-deleting agendas. (e.g here and here and here). And, best of the lot: Here.
This video shows us one of these petty martinet-types being consensually caught in a video net of his own silly making. An aggrieved maker of his own YouTube video, which captures this Wikipedia editor's video that depicts the "editor's" apparently weirdly self-satisfied celebration of his undereducated, proudly inexpert, arrogant and illogical ne'erdowell self, is rightfully aggrieved in my opinion. The Wikipedia editor in question also reveals in his video that Wikipedia is effectively a weird cult with a labyrinthine set of unintuitive rules, which include - apparently - denying Americans their constitutional rights to assert their rights to seek redress when those rights are being denied.
Stick with the whole thing. You might need a stiff drink to endure it to the bitter end, but I think it is well worth watching and thinking about - if only for the next, or first, time you wonder why someone weirdly deleted your own significant and evidence-based veracious entry on a Wikipedia page.
WARNING: In my opinion, this video of a Wikipedia, daft as a brush, woolly-headed, crack-pot who can't think straight, editor, is toe-curlingly excruciating. Click to view it Here.
The same aggrieved YouTube video maker "Gary" has more fact-based evidence of Wikipediapropaganda for us. WARNING: Gary asserts his constitutional right to use the obscene four letter female genitalia "C" word in his video. My link to it does not represent approval of such language to abuse others. In fact, my opinion is that I greatly disapprove of such language being used in such a way. But, just like Gary, I hate brute censorship based on mere opinions. So here it is. Right: Here.
If you wish to see Gary's website that Wikipedia editors deleted the Wikipedia link to. It is here.
Wikipedia on Patrick Matthew
Currently, despite it being a100 per cent proven fact, published in two peer reviewed journal articles (Sutton 2014,and Sutton 2016), that Charles Darwin lied about the prior readership of the original ideas Matthew's book, Wikipedia editors systematically delete that fact whenever anyone tries to add it to the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia. Just look at the editing history page to see what the fact deleting Wikipedia Editor Clowns have been getting up to.
Wikipedia is deliberately misleading its readers by telling them Anni's murder was an accident, despite it being proven in multiple courts to have been a premeditated murder for hire. Wikipedia adminions have blocked attempts to correct the article on the basis that it could get Wikipedia in "legal hot water" with...wait for it...the man accused of masterminding the murder!
If Wikipedia is afraid of telling the truth in an article, maybe that's an article they simply shouldn't publish in the first place. Surely that's a better alternative than knowingly printing lies?
It looks in this case - at least it does on the face of it to the uninitiated - like Wikipedia has bent over backwards to convey a great deal of detail and to report what the courts said in the appeal cases to dismiss the earlier convictions.
Could you please tell us what veracious text are they deleting that you think should be in the article?
October 7, 2016 at 2:15 pm
Mike, this proves my point. Clearly you have been misled by the Wikipedia article. No conviction has ever been overturned (or successfully appealed) in this case.
The court record is straightforward. Five people were implicated in the murder conspiracy. Four confessed and/or were convicted at trial. Charges against one- Shrien Dewani, Anni's husband and the one alleged to have ordered the murder- were dismissed when a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to tie him to the conspiracy.
So multiple courts have ruled that it is a proven fact that Anni's killing was a murder for hire. No court has ever ruled that is wasn't. And yet Wikipedia insists on essentially telling its readers that it wasn't. So, in effect, Wikipedia has overruled the findings of the legitimate courts of South Africa.
(P.S. I don't think I see a way for me to be notified by email when a new comment is posted. Which would be a nice feature to have).
This is obviously a dreadful crime.And justice should be done,
I am aware of the case but not of all the details.
You say four men were convicted of murdering Anni.
Her husband was arrested for hiring these men to kill her.
But her husband was not tried for that crime because it was deemed that there is insufficient evidence he did so,
You say that it is a proven fact that Anni's killers were hired to kill Anni. (1) Where is this proven? In a court? (2) Is anyone proven to have hired them?
October 10, 2016 at 4:47 pm
Yes, that's right, Mike. Be aware I have chosen my words carefully. It is indeed a PROVEN FACT, as found by the legitimate "triers of fact": the duly authorized High Court of South Africa. I quote from the guilty verdict of one Mr. XM, who was convicted of being the actual trigger man in the murder conspiracy. The judge writes:
"The case against the accused is overwhelming...I find the accused, together with the persons mentioned in the evidence, formed a common purpose to murder Anni Dewani after they had conspired to do so. I find that the accused made himself available at a price...of 15,000 Rand...to execute the deceased. In the process a plan was devised in which it would appear that the vehicle in which the deceased [was a passenger] was hijacked".
Shrien Dewani, Anni's husband, WAS tried for being the one who hired the killers. However at his trial he was not convicted. So it has not yet been proven, from a legal point of view, who ordered Anni's murder.
It's only been proven that it is a fact that somebody did, and that Anni's killing was premeditated, planned, and deliberate. Yet despite this, Wikipedia insists on lying to its readers by telling them Anni's killing was an accident.
October 7, 2016 at 2:32 pm
As to which text Wikipedia is deleting, the following neutral summary has been suggested (and endorsed by dozens of people on the Wikipedia talk page) for the lead paragraph for the article. However it's straightforward, truthful, and to the point. Three characteristics Wikipedia seems unable to abide in this article...
Anni Ninna Dewani (née Hindocha; 12 March 1982 – 13 November 2010) was a Swedish woman of Indian origin who, while on her honeymoon in South Africa, was murdered in Gugulethu township near Cape Town. Three South African men were convicted for their roles in a murder-for-hire plot that was staged to appear as a random carjacking. A fourth South African man admitted involvement in arranging the contract killing and was granted immunity from prosecution in return for his cooperation. A fifth man, Briton Shrien Dewani- Anni's husband- was accused of being the mastermind behind the murder plot. He was acquitted at trial when a judge ruled the evidence presented in court was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
I see they use the word accident on the Wiki page but it is written there as "accidental" and is there only once. And it is there only in relation to describing a BBC documentary. Here the WIKI editors are including other versions of events given outside the judicial system. Even though the BBC documentary case might be preposterous - they are allowing the inclusion of the fact that the documentary made these claims. We should not deny the BBC made these claims, whatever we think about them.
The write or else allow to be written the following:
An episode of the BBCPanorama documentary television series in March 2012 reported that the original South African post-mortem report showed the single bullet that killed Anni Dewani had passed through her left hand, followed by her chest, and that the wound on her neck was an exit wound. The report said the bullet left "an irregular gunshot exit wound", which suggested there had been a struggle. A second Panorama programme broadcast in September 2013 revisited the case and highlighted numerous inconsistencies between the physical evidence, witness testimony, and the South African prosecutors' purported version of events. In particular it said the forensic evidence was not properly collected, and that it indicated an accidental discharge in a struggle rather than a deliberate killing. In addition, while Tongo's supposed cut of the fee for the killing was between a half and a third of his usual monthly salary, the two gunmen made substantially more from the theft of the Dewanis' belongings than the value of the alleged contract. The programme also showed CCTV evidence that supported the idea that a surprise helicopter flight for Anni was being arranged between the taxi driver and the intermediary on behalf of Shrien; this being the reason for the money he changed on the morning of the murder. Adopting some sympathy with the Prosecution of Dewani, Panorama then played two CCTV extracts from the Cape Grace Hotel to which they attached suggestions for a dark interpretation of his body language. For example, although the same two-handed pointing gesture was used regularly by a world-famous figure skater in the 1990s, as a sort of flirtation with fans, now it was seen as a portent of gunfire. The documentary has been viewed more than 430,000 times on YouTube.
October 12, 2016 at 3:12 pm
No, Mike. They are not "allowing other versions of events given outside the judicial system". They are allowing ONLY versions of events given outside the judicial system. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia is allowing only versions which are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the judicial version. The facts as proven in court has been whitewashed from the article.
Anni Hindocha's murder was a contract killing that was STAGED to appear as a random carjacking. This has been repeatedly proven and explicitly affirmed in court. Despite this, Wikipedia suggests to its readers- in the very first sentence of the article, no less- that it was an actual, rather than staged, carjacking. They do this so that readers will be mislead into assuming Anni was killed as the unintended collateral damage of a carjacking rather than the deliberate target of a contract killing.
But there was no carjacking. One was merely feigned to provide a cover story for the planned murder. The owner of the car drove to the designated spot, where, as planned, he turned his car over to the hit men he had hired to murder Anni. Who then drove down the road, shot Anni and abandoned the car- fleeing with a large wad of cash that Shrien Dewani had secretly passed to them.
What I would object to as clear agenda editor "fact denial" behaviour is what Wikipedia editors have written under the photograph of Anni. The word "Disappeared" should say murdered given the proven fact that she was murdered.
Anni Ninna Hindocha 12 March 1982 Mariestad, Sweden
Not sure why you admit that it was proven that Anni was murdered, but deny that it was a contract killing. Those two conclusions both rely on the same evidence. Which the judge quite rightfully described as "overwhelming".
If you're advocating that people shouldn't be selective in the facts they accept, you shouldn't be selective yourself.
I remember my own conversation with a Wikipedia Senior Editor who, when I challenged his entry that BestThinking.com "was not a credible source," he explained this was a valid position because "BestThinking.com was primarily publishing the work of PhDs." I was dumbfounded. It was a long exchange because I was sure that we were having some kind of misunderstanding, but in the end the editor made it clear he personally didn't like or trust PhDs and his decision was final.
Believing this was a clearly irrational position that would be quickly overturned as soon as I got to someone else in authority at Wikipedia. However, all I was able to accomplish was to learn that this particular editor had a lot of clout at Wikipedia, that I had no recourse, and his views would stand.
It reminded me of the famous line in George Orwell's 1945 critical essay on egalitarianism "Animal Farm" where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." At Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, all editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others.
I was an early and often financial supporter of Wikipedia, but that sure ended after that experience. It's only gone down hill from there.
Wikipedia has sunk to a real low in recent years, because it has been taken over from the inside by a weird cabal of of editors that greatly resembles the cut of Scientology, not least in the way it has a set of daft rules that are completely wacked-out, labyrinthine, convoluted, open to complete biased interpretation and weirdly obtuse.Moreover, they award themselves a plethora of childish badges that signify editorial seniority within their cult - like some kind of quasi-boy scout movement for adults.
Only the most authoritarian ne'erdowell control freak is going to be filtered to the top in such a daft set-up. And that is exactly what has happened. The proof of that is not just in our observations of these Wikipedia editors, rather it is in what those gleefully undereducated ne'erdowells write so proudly about, publishing their weirdly illogical and biased personal hobby-horse decision making on their own site- as though it has any significant meaning to anyone other than another cult member or a potential recruit. What they apparently lack is the brains to comprehend that so much of what they write about their thinking and delusional decision making on Wikipedia has no more meaning than a yogic flyer claiming that he is levitating, rather than hopping around ignorantly on his backside.
To think Wikipedia has the neck to beg for money from the general public to sustain this clown show of an encyclopedia. They won't get a cent out of me. And I encourage everyone else to follow suit.
I have no interest in re-engaging with Wikipedia editors as their final position in any discussion – in the rare incidence of admitting an editorial or policy error – is seemingly always, well it might have been wrong, but in crowd sourcing information the sheer volume of contributors either offsets the wrongness or it eventually gets corrected.
As your reply above shows, Wikipedia's own edit history and editor bio validates the essential elements of my contention that a senior Wikipedia editor took the position that BestThinking is not a reliable source and thereby can't be listed as a source for a published work and the Wikipedia editor "DreamGuy's" own Wikipedia bio strongly exhibits his overt contempt for experts with years of training, education and experience.
Repeated from a link in your reply above:
"The rationale for plagiarizing experts – by passing off their work as the work of Wikipedia - is twofold. Rationale One can be found behind the scenes on Wikipedia’s edits page (here ) as: “bestthinking.com does not count as a reliable source” (note: scroll down to 26th January 2013 to find it)
And the second reason: Rationale Two for plagiarizing my work is to be found in that master editor Wikipedians profile. Apparently it is because as an expert I am scum.