The International Campaign for Real History

Check out the new David Irving bookstore at Irvingbooks.com

Posted Sunday, July 8, 2007

[] Index to the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech
[] Alphabetical index (text)
AR-Online

Quick navigation

Wikipedia logo[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.

click for origin

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


 
mail 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."

 

Help to fund

The above item is reproduced without editing other than typographical

 Register your name and address to go on the Mailing List to receive

David Irving's ACTION REPORT

or to hear when and where he will next speak near you

© Focal Point 2007 F Irving write to David Irving