Talk:Edwin Black

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

[edit] Questions Resolved by Updated Neutral Entry

This entry appears to be a PR piece on behalf of Edwin Black. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.79.90.62 (talk • contribs).

Apparently it was just a copy of his own web page. I have reverted it to the previous version. --Grouse 14:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the discussion on this page. I'm not sure why they want to suppress it, but I think the original poster makes a valid point. The article is unscholarly, has no references ("Newsweek said..." is not a reference), and contains dozens of peacock words. I'm sure Mr. Black is capable of tooting his own horn. If he's an important writer, I'd like to hear impartial evidence of that.ubiquity 15:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)ubiquity.

This article as it now stands is accurate, updated to include the activities since 2001, and before, and does not rely upon copyrighted information or superlatives. It is drawn from public sources, including the third-party interviews and Q-As archived on his sites but also reachable independently by anyone on the web. It has been supplemented by materials discovered at the JTA, C-SPAN, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors. He has written about more than IBM, so why not include that. 21:03 2 July, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.182.17 (talk • contribs).

The current revision, while not as egregious a copyright violation as previous revisions, is still a copyvio of Edwin Black's web biography. Sections have quite clearly been lifted wholesale from that page. Some sentences have been rephrased to hide their origin (although I still find it pretty obvious) while others have not. Additionally, while the tone has improved and is somewhat more encyclopedic, it is still not quite there yet. For example, while I think awards and nominations are notable and encyclopedic, small out-of-context quotations from reviews in popular magazines are not. --Grouse 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is incorrect. There is zero copyright violation in the updated entry. The article as updated is derivative, but rephrased as requested above, and new material added. The few sentences lifted for precision and accuracy constitute "fair use" by any measure, which uses a standard of percent of original to percent of new use. There are only so many ways to rephrase a summary statement. Some material in the new updated entry does not even appear in the web bio. Moreover, the web bio, as all such author bios on the web from official sites, is **intended** to be cloned, copied, become the basis for derivative citation and so forth. Once again, no copyright infringement because the material is knowingly not being protected and intended to be reused. In fact, you will find bits and pieces of that bio scattered throughout the web by organizations that host the author's events. A comment above asked for "impartial evidence" which is provided in awards by distinguished organizations, such as World Affairs Council, American Society of Journalists and Aurthors; and also by reviews by noted publications such as Newsweek. That said, Kirkus Reviews is hardly a "popular magazine." It is an elite almost obscure subscription-only librarian's literary review source that is respected in publishing circles. Once again, for "impartial evidence" one can quote the historians, the awards, or the reviews, which was done. The prior entry that was updated contained opionated, charged language such as "bitterly" and that was removed. For some reason the earlier entry also refused to include in any data since 2001, namely the work on eugenics, Iraq, and Ford. An article on "Jupiter" or "nylon" can draw from numerous sources. But bios of living authors that are web-verifiable, non-libelous and non-infringing, and are accurate, are often derived from the official bio and supplemented with additional information. That was done using a variety of sources short of a live interview with the author. Therefore, the entry stands as minimalist, non-pr, accurate, encyclopedic, and reflective of independent sources. 6:33 3 July, 2006.

This article is improving. I am still concerned about the extent to which it aggrandizes Mr. Black, citing only raves (is Mr. Black's work totally uncontroversial? Are there NO responsible journals whose reviews were less than laudatory?) and NOT citing any references. Again, this is the difference between a scholarly article and PR flack. If the NYT said "chilling", why is there no reference to the issue and page on which they said it? With a reference, I can, if I wish, verify that not only did they call the book chilling, but that they meant it in a good way (for instance, how do I know that the NYT didn't say "this book had a chilling effect on my digestion"?) There are at least six magazine articles mentioned in this article, it should be simple to add the references. On a more sinister level, I am wondering how the author of this article knew certain things, such as who nominated Mr. Black for the Pulitzer. Was it in a press release? If so, a reference would help. Or was it in Mr. Black's website? Again, a reference would still help -- I need to know whether the author has done research on his own, or is just accepting Mr. Black's word for things. Please add references where you can. If you don't know how to do this in wikipedia i will be glad to help. And please keep toning down the article. Things like "Undoubtedly, Black is known most for..." still sound like PR, not neutral research.ubiquity 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very few people know the norms and standards of Wikipedia. I am among the millions who do not understand your moving and evolving standards. This is all being made up along the way indeed all of it is very new, according to Wiki's own materials. The notion that adding the word "undoubtedly" he is best known for IBM is not pr, it is a scholarly qualification. It seems Black's various other books all says, "by the author of IBM..." As do his author blurbs on the JTA and in newspapers. I believe every sentence of the entry is now reasonably third-party sourced. Undoubtedly there are instance of negative reviews as in every author's work, but from the dozens shown, the cited ones seem a representative sample. It is always easy to prop up an unrepresentative review, but that is intellectually dishonest and a feature of the kind of bias supposedly being avoided. I suppose if someone were willing to go chapter and verse, they could add the exact page of the review in Newsweek. Perhaps that can be done. As for the difference between PR flack and academic content, this comment is hardly rooted in academic persepctive. There is no way an unverified, constantly evolving community-sculpted information article could be considered in the least way "academic." To do this, on say the subject of Saturn, you would need an actual excerpt from a true academic piece with footnotes and the entry author's identification. For an author bio, an interview is required. Maybe you should just list his titles and nothing more. Make it a five line entry. But if you want to rise about skeletal information that seems wrong in some places, the inmformation provided has depth. This matter should now be closed as every line is sourced and the issue of each publication will be added. If you want to beat a dead horse, that is always possible as well. 11:37 3 July 1996.

Further to the above: A reflection of the situation is shown by Wikipedia's own recent announcement: "Wikipedia has been a subject of media coverage recently over a complaint in USA Today by retired journalist John Seigenthaler, who discovered insinuations in his Wikipedia biography that he had been involved in the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy. Seigenthaler contacted Jimmy Wales about the situation two months ago and this version of the article was immediately removed from the site. The article has since been rewritten. Like many of the problematic contributions to Wikipedia, the offending version of the Seigenthaler article was written by an unregistered user. Wikipedia volunteers patrol a large volume of contributions in an effort to catch such problems." For this reason, it makes sense to base author bios on "established, vetted sources." The Seigenthaler debacle--just months ago--just underscores earlier remarks about the necessity of relying upon vetted sources in the absence of an interview. Indeed, it can be said that in the case of a living author, or a news topic such as September 11, the skills of a seasoned journalist not an academic are needed. 12:41 3 July, 2006.

To the question: "I am wondering how the author of this article knew certain things, such as who nominated Mr. Black for the Pulitzer. Was it in a press release?" It is on the author's website and confirmed with some actual nominators, which anyone can do. 13:08 3 July 2006

I also think the editing and writing rules of Wikipedia are being made up as we go along. Who decides, who knows, everybody all at once? When is enough enough? This entry now seems very well cited, quite neutral, instructive and useful. It should stand as is, case-closed unless someone can do the intelligent thing and interview the author. That, however, would require a journalist. Assuming that does not happen, further discussion to me seems to be much ado about nothing and completely arbitrary with an agenda. VictorP 13:27 3 July 2006

I disagree that the rules are being made up as we go along. Please see Wikipedia:Citing Sources for information about citing sources. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for information about neutrality. I am sure that the author is trying to be helpful when he "adds sources", but so far all he has done is dropped names. A reference is a citation -- who said it, when did they say it, where did it appear. Please do not continue to remove the "unreferenced" tag when it is absolutely clear that there are no citations AT ALL in this article -- except the one that I supplied as an example. And please do not remove that citation either -- it comprises one small step towards making the article more neutral.ubiquity 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)ubiquity

How does this work, Ubiquity? Who decides? Do you decide by yourself imperially? You are an IBM programmer on Websphere with an obvious agenda on IBM and the Holocaust. Each of the publications such as Newsweek and Esquire are cited by specific edition EXACTLY as you requested. The attribution and organizations are cited by name often with web citations as they would be in any proper report. You asked for sources precisely in that fashion. When they are given, they are not enough. It is never enough for a publication with a very very short track record as encyclopedias go. Britannica 1911 was excellent. Did Wikipedia exist in 2002? Maybe you can't be satisfied? So since nothing will satisfy you, let us reduce the whole thing down to the barest entry as someone previously suggested. Let us know if that will satisfy you. Oh, and yes, of course the rules. IMHO, are indeed being made up en route. What kind of an encyclopedia uses unsigned, unvetted material that anyone can anonymously modify at the flick of a wrist, right or wrong. Wikipedia is a relatively new invention that most people do not know how to use although all are invited to use it. I admit I do not know how to use it since I cannot grasp your rules. The project received a major change in editorial policy just months ago after libelling the USA Today reporter. amd thisd announced by a press release. Apparently, your project cannot even agree on the founder of the project, based on a cursory reading. Wikipedia does not have years of track record so some of us are understandably confused. I am among them. We thought that factual information was enough. Tell us, are you the editor in chief? The boss? Fine if you are Ubiquity. Just tell us. If so, then you have the final decision. We can accept that. But let us know so we know the ground rules. In the meantime, I am reducing this entry to an indisputable fraction. Then no references will be needed and you will not have to worry about too many words and facts cluttered up the entry. 16:45 3 July, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.182.17 (talk • contribs).

The 1911 Britannica was excellent but it didn't have an entry on Edwin Black, so it's obviously imperfect. ;) Please remember to assume good faith, anon user. I'm sorry you are finding the changing nature of Wikipedia's rules frustrating. Personally I think the newer rules only serve to make Wikipedia better. The new version of the page is also an improvement. While I would prefer a longer article, I think it's more important that what is there is NPOV and verifiable. --Grouse 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us the ground rules. "Ubiquity says: I disagree that the rules are being made up as we go along." You say, "I'm sorry you are finding the changing nature of Wikipedia's rules frustrating." Do you, Grouse, or Ubiquity or IBM have the deciding vote on censorship or editing or determining what makes a factual and neutral story. No one knows. I don't. Who is charge? That would help people befopre they spend the time in good faith to help improve as page only to discover someone claims they have a governing right. Just tell us. 18:30 3 July, 2006.

Further to the above, Wikipedia policy on neutrality POV asserts: "There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition." So reasonable people can disagree. The question that some of us do not understand is what is the hierarchy of decisionmaking? Is it you, or IBM? I did notice that "corporate bias" is not permitted. Does that include IBM? Moreover, posters are simultaneously told NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH in the policy, and then as above chastised "I need to know whether the author has done research on his own." The rules for posting as so vague and fluctuating as to permit a wide spectrum of posts or objections to posts. Who came up with these rules and what legitimizes it? For centuries, since the first reed impressions near Babylon, experts, scholars and later journalists have been sharing their research, experiences, and findings to create a body of knowledge. Wikipedia does not permit original research. Academic standards are requested by non-academics. So it is all just unverified, unvetted, and susceptible to the type of libel published against Seigenthaler from USA Today. Right about now, I think this is not the place for serious contemporary biography or scholarship. I guess I made a mistake in trying to help, a mistake I freely admit to. Ubiquity and IBM can make this entry read anyway they choose, and censor any facts or remarks. 17:12 3 July, 2006.

I tend to agree that the prior article by anonymous user was a usable reference. I agree with the objections to Grouse and ubiquity. I don't understand the ground rules either - who has the right to overrule who, especially when the article was as well-cited as the one just deleted. 19:35 - 3, July 2006 (cinquaterra)

It seems like "ubiquity" and "Grouse" seem to to have censorhip rights and are the determining factor on what is and what is not factual and neutral. Not a shining example of Wikipedia should stand for,especially since IBM is involved. July 3, 2006 Alley Cat

First, I'd like to make clear that I never changed a single word of this article, so I'm not sure how I can be accused of censorship. I merely asked, repeatedly, that the article conform to accepted Wikipedia standards of citation and neutrality. I believe that Wikipedia can be a powerful information source if we all stick to the rules. I also believe that there is much information that does not belong in Wikipedia. This is not the same as censorship (and again, let me stress that I never altered a word of the text, or asked the author to remove any piece of information). I believe that Wikipedia is a place for neutral, objective, well-documented facts. I only asked the author to provide this. Did I mention that I never altered a word of the article? I did add a fact of my own, with a proper citation. In fact, 69.251.182.17 removed my fact when he reduced the article, so I'm wondering who, technically, is guilty of censorship here. (In keeping with wikipedia traditions, I will assume that the removal was done in good faith to reduce the size of the article, and not simply because 69.251.182.17 found my contribution uncomfortable).

Second, I would like to say a word about my association with IBM. It is true that I am an IBM employee; I announce that in my User page so that people may know that I might not be a neutral source when it comes to IBM. I am also Jewish, so I have strong feelings about the holocaust. However, neither of these associations has anything to do with my desire to see this piece become a useful, conformant, fully-cited article. I will point out that 69.251.182.17 appears here anonymously, with nothing at all to spell out his potential biases or associations.

By the way, the ground rules are here: Wikipedia:Five pillars. Please notice that I did not make them up.

ubiquity 12:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. Ubiquity, pls understand that you are anonymous, no one knows your first and last name or location or whether you have even read any of the works you are writing about or instructing others about. Wikipedia encourages anonymity and states that people with registered psuedonyms such as yourself have more anonymity than the others posting here who are clearly identified by IP forever. Look at the statement at the top of this box. Everyone on this page is anonymous to a degree because the very nature of your project is so disorderly and chaotic and self-admitted as such. For my part, I thought that I could make a small contribution on a dozen narrow topics from Latin America to the American Indians, to Europe and also including this one bio. I see I made a mistake. I cannot retrain my mind to ignore documented facts, nor should anyone. Everything here is third hand and changes by the moment, an intellectual free-for-all that does not advance knowledge but serves mainly as an exercise that I have no time for. An example of the Internet malfunctioning. Nor do you need my contributions. You say you did not censor, but it sounded like you were giving me and others orders and instructions from on high and imposing characterizations on well-grounded, well-established information that was fair and balanced. That is how it felt to me and obviously others who commented. Fair and Balanced it seems are not part of the Wikiopedia mandate. You refused to answer" who decides? You? IBM? Anyone? By the way, when you state as you did above, "the ground rules are here: Wikipedia:Five pillars," please check out Rule 5: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." That rule 5 links to a further explanation: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." Sounds like intellectual anarchy to me. Or should I say a vainglorious attempt at intellectual utopia. Just remember what the Greek word "Utopia" means.... it means a place that is nowhere. 9:51 4 July, 2006.

Could not help but share this as a flavor of the Wiki enterprise with respect to the issue of anarchic conduct, mentioned above. I guess the term "Wikistalking" has been invented to describe the kind of conflict which can be seen here. Be advised that Websters will not recognize "Wikistalking" as a new word unless 40 independent users can attest in writing that the word has been used. I guess prospects are good for Wikistalking to be admitted to the dictionary. I must admit I have today been amazed, and continue to ask whether this sort of intellectual brawling is good or bad for settled knowledge, and further wonder who was imbued with the right to establish this type of newthink for educated and informed thought. Now see the wikilinks below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-07-03/Arbitration_report and this one case which is hardly isolated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole#Statement_by_Netoholic

[edit] Updated Entry Fully Sourced

New External Link for Internal Combustion has been opened, and so was added.

This new external link seemed useful to me, I've explored the various sites and those sites create a good resource in and of them selves 11:53, 24, July cinquaterra

On whole this entry seems right because the problem comes in when people try to comment and color the history of his work, which involves IBM and genocide, eugenics, the history of Iraq, and his many investigations. That is too broad. Just look at the breadth of topics involved, Ford Foundation funding of hate groups, AIPAC, oil in the Middle East, the history of energy, all sorts of corporate corruption, alternative fuels, the Holocaust, forced sterilization, Arab nationalism, automotive history...you can see that so much spin from so many commentators can pack such an entry with wrong information so, once more, I think the entry is fine because the links lead to hundreds of additional resources. Just one more thing, I noticed that the latest link for Internal Combustion is, as of today, only beginning to build. It says the book is not coming out until September 15th. 10:12a29Jul06 VictorP

Since this latest book, Internal Combustion is now releasing, I have updated the sentence as a 2006 event. The first chapters are already up on the website [1], and according to a web search, the review copies are now out and libraries have the first copies. 10:09 July 31, 2006\

I agree that the article the Wiki article as it now areads is probably the best and least biased version. I found relevant information not only on the website www.internalcombustionbook.com but that referred me to an intersting rewiew in Publishers Weekly and a video on Your Tube. http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=robotjustin allycat August 6, 2006 2:56

Actually, the video has been updated. That old URL mentioned above is no longer active. The new URL is at >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9scQ6078TU. It appears the new video is about a half minute longer. 8:08 PM August 10, 2006

More than one launch date is given. The video says Sept15, but the tour page on the webiste says Sept10. 1:53 PM August 14, 2006

The new book Internal Combustion seems to be a new topic for Black who previously concentrated on genocide, oppression and various forms of misconduct. It appears the emphasis in the new work is corporate misconduct and collusion. 9:13 PM October 07, 2006

[edit] Just the Basics in the Entry

Someone here seems intent on misportraying the nature of the current entry. The current entry on Black lists the barest of information. Eseentially, most of the eight sentences merely cite the name of the book and year of publication. No awards are mentioned, no descriptive content or reviews. Nothing beyond the basic indisputable facts. Why someone would try to mislead anyone into thinking that was a PR Piece, and place that subtitle on the entry, is not clear. Perhaps ulterior motives related to the content of the books. But the entry itself is neutral in the extreme. It now appears the discussion is being recast and labelled to inject a lack of neutrality to counterbalance the decidedly neutral tone of the entry. The entry utself follows and I think it would be hard to make it more neutral or accurate.

Edwin Black is an American author and journalist. He has written 50 editions in 13 languages in 60 countries, and published a number of newspaper and magazine articles throughout the United States, Europe and Israel, according to Books in Print, Books out of Print, and the author's own websites. Black's first book, published in 1984 was The Transfer Agreement. In 1999, Black published a novel, Format C:. In 2001, he published IBM and the Holocaust. In 2003, Black published War Against the Weak. In 2004, Black's published Banking on Baghdad. In 2006, Black released Internal Combustion, How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Subverted the Alternatives.

Therefore, the entry stands. What cannot be achieved by biased entry writing, should not be achieved by biased discussion. October 9, 2006

I am not sure why Grouse or anyone else wants to mislead readers, and burying the latest updates at the bottom. Typically, the most recent post should be visible at the top, and show the oldest at the bottom. To do otherwise seems to violate neutral point of view and common sense. Apparently, what Grouse cannot achieve in the entry, solidly written in a neutral point of view, he wantsz to inject in the discussion.

Sorry, that is incorrect. It is a long-practiced custom at Wikipedia that new information on talk pages goes at the bottom, not at the top. You can see this on most talk pages. Also, if you start a new section with the + tab (located next to edit this page), it goes to the bottom as intended. Grouse 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an Edit feature next to the biased section head that was renamed PR Piece? That renaming was itself an edit of the original by Grouse. After Grouse used the Edit feature, I also just now used that same Edit feature. Wiki policies state that unless you wish to be mercilessly edited, do not submit. Is there an exemption for Grouse that prohibits making section head more precise, and closer to the principle of NPOV... or is the Edit feature a mistake? If one cannot improve it, why is the Edit feature there? All the the original misleading historical debate is untouched but the headline more informative and closer to NPOV, that is IMHO. Is that okay, Grouse? We totally respect your opinion and realize it has more weight than others. Let us know if we helped. 2 PM October 10, 2006

Glad you understand. --Grouse 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a guidance to the future, do you hold a formal position with Wikipedia, that is, are you an editor, foundation vice president, arbiter, censor, style chieftain? Are you the one who personally sets official policy and can override the other policies? If anyone disagrees with you, are they allowed to make a suggestion? Knowing this would help us use your guidance as a beacon to improving the content of Wikipedia, and essentially defer to your wisdom on any issue. 9 PM October 10

Anon user, please remember to assume good faith. Grouse is not doing anything untoward or claiming to be a policy maker. Policies are developed by consensus. Grouse is not trying to mislead others; quite the contrary, he is trying to prevent others from being confused. While you might find it somewhat confusing to have discussion added to the bottom, most Wikipedians are used to it that way and would find your convention confusing. Another convention---again, not decided by Grouse, nor by me, but by a rough consensus of Wikipedians---is that other users' comments on talk pages should generally not be edited. Talk pages should be civil, but they are not held to the NPOV standard that articles are. To make them so would be a lot of effort, limit useful discussion, and be virtually impossible to achieve anyway. It is therefore not necessary to change the headings, even if they no longer apply to the article. (They still apply to the discussion.)

I should also point out that, as you may notice from the dates, the "PR Piece?" discussion was based on an earlier revision of this article that most certainly was a PR piece (because it was copied directly from his homepage). I don't think anyone feels that way about the article as it now stands. I realize that you are only trying to help, but accusing other people who are also only trying to help is not the way to go about it. I hope you won't let this little misunderstanding keep you from contributing to Wikipedia in the future (and please consider registering.) Babomb 23:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Babomb for your gracious post. Some questions to help us understand what you wrote. 1) When Grouse left a Wiki warning to me that if I edited further, I might be labelled a "vandal" was that "assuming good faith" on Grouse's part. 2) Why is there a tabbed and line linked edit feature on discussion which Wiki policies encourage people to use if they are not to be used. 3) Who decides? Grouse. Is Grouse the boss? Does his decision outweigh everyone else's. If Grouse and a hypothetcial Poster Person disagree, does Grouse always decide. The aforesaid notwithstanding, Wikipedia is a new invention, with made up policies that very few people even cromprehend, including its users and posters. It is NOT an encyclopedia which requires learned and verified thought. Anyone can post or modify an article on the say... the history of Omaha, or IBM & the Nazis, or Aztec poetry... and validation can be nil or nonexistent and constantly evolve thgrough trial and error. This is not an encyclopedia, this is a learned discussion group. It is only by an accident of Google that Wikipedia has any currency at all. Apparently, the only real rule is change the rules (see above)as you see fit. Stalking and acrimony arose regularly (see above). And if the several people looking at this are correct, Grouse always decides. Anything here in error? 9:28 October 11, 2006

As a point of clarification, the warning at issue was left after repeated edits that had the effect of hiding the older conversations. At no point have I called User:68.33.193.207 a vandal. Grouse 13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to the first point as I don't know the details. As for your second point, there are multiple reasons. The first is that the same engine is used for all pages and it doesn't know when a discussion is finished. The second is that we'd then have to find a consensus on how to decide when a discussion is finished. Third, and perhaps most importantly, is that you can use those edit links to add to a discussion without changing or removing the comments of other users. As to your third point, Grouse does not decide. Ubiquity does not decide. 68.233.193.207 does not decide. As a group, we decide. You seem to be attempting to paint yourself as the victim of the cruel tyrant who has roughly the same power as about 2.5 million other registered users and only slightly more power than non-registered users like yourself. I don't buy it.Babomb 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Babomb... among those 25 million people are some who only visit once in a while such as me and others such as yourself who seem to be more frequent a contributor. If it is a constantly evolving discussion--over apparently at this point NOTHING--and if legitimate good intentioned additions to the discussion are called "vandalism" and considered efforts to "hide" the prior discussion (which are there for the entire world to see), then Wiki is really as anarchic as its system seems. 25 million cannot jointly decide on an editorial entry. When 25 million people shout different messages, none are heard. It is only through an accident of technology and Googling that Wiki has become a potent billboard of information. But so much of it is wrong, slanted, ommissive, no wonder that libel is so prominent a worry. That worry is not unwarranted. December 8

BTW your post was chronologically out of place, and this one of mine is next to yours but also above a prior one, so is all this vandalism in this technocracy without rules? Or just typing a message? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.193.207 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Sigh. Firstly, my post may be chronologically out of place, but it is not topically out of place. It was placed below the message to which it was replying, as is generally the custom on Wikipedia. While (again) this may be different from what you're used to, it's easier to understand this way once you get used to it. So, no, that is not vandalism. I'm sure that you had good intentions, but it was based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia conventions. I recognize that it can be confusing for newcomers (and we could probably do a better job with that), but just because the rules seem strange to you doesn't mean they don't exist or are applied haphazardly. Also, you have to understand that every day, people do intentionally vandalize Wikipedia in similar ways, so perhaps you can understand how people might think you were vandalizing. However, to my knowledge, nobody ever actually called you a vandal. The template messages left on your talk page are very carefully written to be polite and not actually accuse you of being a vandal or malicious. It merely asks you to please refrain from that behavior that could be considered vandalism. Please do not take it personally. Finally, if you have a beef with Wikipedia (and it seems to me that you do), this really isn't the place for it. Try the village pump. -Babomb 02:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened to assume good faith. Who knows all these rules. From what I see, you make up the rules as we go along. Your hyperlink was from October 10. Why is is the edit feature tabbed and linked if no editing is permitted? Answer that one? And more importantly, why should obsoleted, misleading information be left on discussion. Anyone could put anything in a discussion that then becomes misleading. It could be libelous, false, it could claim George Washington for sure for sure was born in Ireland or South Africa... editing means editing. What happened to "relentless editing." Are subheads above editing? Are you the boss of Wikipedia. You never answer that question Grouse. Moreover, since virtually no one knows these rules, should you have informed someone nicely or gone straight to threats of labelling someone a vandal? I assure you, Wiki edges closer and closer to defamatory conduct every day if a knowing eyes reviews the content. Since you keep changing additions, I wonder who the real vandal is? Who do you think? Bear in mind we are no longer talking about an article which is now NPOV, but your desire to taint that article in the discussion as a PR entry because it was taken from the web sites of the publisher and author as was sensible. Many people would not call that a PR entry, but a factual one. In any event, since your judgment prevails, our opinion does not count. BTW, who was the vandal again? 11:23 October 11, 2006