 [images
added by this website]
A London
landlady ordered my instant eviction by armed,
flak-jacketed police officers after she read the
British Wikipedia site entry about
me.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
To
all those concerned with historical
accuracy: What
is the staff of Wikipedia up to? IN MAY of 2007 I reviewed the
online
encyclopedia Wikipedia's
article 'Lee Harvey Oswald' and was
astounded by the lack of sources and deliberate
misquotations of Warren Commission witnesses. 31 of
its 38 footnotes erroneously linked to John
McAdams' personal website jfkassassination.net
whose Wikipedia screen name is Walloon.  David
Irving comments: I HAVE become
increasingly concerned about the readily
perceived bias in some Wikipedia
encyclopedia entries.
Let's make no
mistake: by far the largest number of
entries are an unusually useful resource
tool, providing data on lesser
personalities and events, written up by
real experts - the members of the
public.
But the temptations, and
the scope for the deliberate defamation of
a personality -- outside the ambit of the
laws of libel -- are vast.
Political or religious
groups with axes to grind can plant
spurious or skewed facts about a person,
in one country after another (because
Wikipedia has many different
language-versions) and their victim has
little or no scope for recourse.
He finds the malicious
and error-riddled Wikipedia dossier being
used relentlessly against him. I know from
my own experience: 
it turned out that the judge in the
Austrian court where I was sentenced to
three years' jail in 2005 had privately
looked up the German Wikipedia entry on me
(an entry which includes the web addresses
of all the hostile anti-Irving websites,
but specifically stated that it would not
provide a link to my website because of
legal difficulties);
the president of Ars Polona, the Warsaw
Book Fair company, ordered my immediate
removal from the exhibition after the
present Commandant of the Auschwitz Camp
sent him the Polish Wikipedia entry on me
(he has now agreed to pay full
compensation);
a London landlady ordered my instant
eviction by armed, flak-jacketed police
officers after she read the British
Wikipedia site entry about me (she now
faces a massive claim for damages in the
British courts, because such entries are
no lawful grounds for breach of contract);
and so on. I repeat: Wikipedia is a useful tool,
but it needs careful supervision to
prevent malicious evildoers &endash;
particularly those "nice folks next door"
- seizing control.  |
After I made only minor preliminary corrections,
the article reverted to its previous content less
than five minutes later.After entering the "Discussion" page to
elaborate on the article's errors all discussion
was deleted from the "Discussion" page by Wikipedia
Administrator Coelacan within the same time
frame of five minutes, and he blocked my IP address
from Wikipedia. After changing my IP address I
reentered the "Discussion" forum and again all
comments were promptly deleted by Coelacan, who
also deleted all postings for the past six months
and blocked all "Editing" and "Discussion" pages
for the article. Over the following
three weeks the exact same process repeated
itself for any of the many Wikipedia articles
even remotely related to the JFK
assassination. This exact same administrator does not only
censors assassination articles supporting the lone
assassin theory, but conspiracy articles as well in
order to create strawman criticism of the Warren
Commission. I asked Administrator Coelacan directly on his
message board why he was censoring all discussion
on an epoch of history so popular that book stores
have devoted entire sections to it? It violated
Wikipedia's policy which states: "Anyone
is welcome to add information, cross-references
or citations, as long as they do so within
Wikipedia's editing policies and to an
appropriate standard… Because Wikipedia is
an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody
can contribute, it differs from a paper-based
reference source in important ways." What was the point in even having articles on
the JFK assassination if they were only going to
link automatically to one individual's
homepage? On June 10, 2007 Administrator Coelacan
responded: "Shut the f[+++] up you
gook bastard! No one is interested in your
commie f[+++]ing lies! If you ever
spread your f[+++]ing lies here again I
will f[+++] your whole gook family in
front of your face!" Loudoun County Virginia law enforcement have
since been notified to determine if Coelacan's
racially charged threats of violence have broken
any laws. Wikipedia's deliberate censorship and abuse
should be deeply concerning to Wikipedia's many
contributors. Christopher (last
name known to us)
Leesburg, Virginia, USA We
invite our Readers' comments on the topic of
Wikipedia bias and errors 
Tom
H. comments,
Sunday, July 8, 2007: "I have tried on repeated
occasions to remove the loaded adjectives from
the David Irving page of Wikipedia. Those
changes, too, have been reversed and blocked
several times. The person in charge of the page
seems to be Jewish. The mediator seems to be
Jewish. It is unlikely that your page will ever
approximate neutrality! What amazes me is the
speed with which the neutral language is
reversed. It is as if these folks have nothing
to do all day but monitor and manage the
Wikipedia page. Since I do not have to "get a
life" yet, I have given up. It is cowardly, I
know, but I just do not have the time to battle
their continuous hostility toward the
"facts." 
|
![[]](../../std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
write to David
Irving