Post by blissyu2 on Jul 10, 2008 2:17:02 GMT -5
Thebainer has now been accepted onto Wikipedia's arbitration committee. This means that articles now will be perverted all over the place.
When I first used Wikipedia, in March 2005, I tested it out by trying to add in factual information about the Port Arthur massacre. I knew that it was going to happen a year before it did - in April 1995 - when the person who did the shootings, a guy called Rob, told me in great detail that he was going to do it, as the first day of a year long killing. I had warned people about it, I had reported it to police, and I had been hounded and had my life threatened over it. Attempts were made on my life because of it. Some of them were undoubtedly ASIO - Australia's secret service - or people who were convinced by ASIO to do it. Some of them probably were not. The people that tried to kill me often said that they were doing it because they were sure that I had done the Port Arthur massacre, or alternatively that I had predicted it therefore I should have stopped it (something that I do feel very guilty about). But some people simply said that because I was the victim therefore that I would then turn around and do something just as awful to someone else. Some of them didn't even say a thing, they just did it. If I were to guess, I would say it was half and half. The attempts on my life continued from shortly after the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996 until 2002, when Rob himself was shot down by what were probably ASIO agents. At least, from the newspaper reports I am convinced that the person who died was Rob.
I had read things on Wikipedia that were people's personal opinions, including comments on the Port Arthur massacre article, which at that point in time was wholly unreferenced. So I added in my personal opinions. That was what I thought that "the sum of human knowledge" meant. I am, after all, probably the world's leading expert on this case - I know more about it than anyone else. In many ways that case has become my life.
Yet for some reason my unreferenced comments were not allowed. Furthermore, when I used references, my comments still were not allowed. They had an entire article that was 100% unreferenced, but when I added things that were 100% sourced, they were wiped. Wikipedia eventually left my sources, but wrote the exact opposite of what the sources claimed.
The next year, in 2006, a number of Australian newspapers published reports that used that Wikipedia article as a reference, at the 10 year anniversary, because Wikipedia was the only internet reference that actually considered that the official story had any merit whatsoever. As a result of that, the Wikipedia article then changed its references to include what these newspapers said. In effect, that Wikipedia article is using as a reference its own article. Yet sourced truth and comments from an expert on the topic were banned.
Thebainer was heavily involved with this distortion of truth, including a section he labelled "Alternative theories". In it, he ignored all of the references that I had provided, and instead provided others that he himself found, fringe theories that were believed by hardly anyone, and had nothing to do with what I was trying to say. He then added copious amounts of comment about how ridiculous they were, making up stories that they were not believed by anyone. He used weasel words to make it all look false.
Thebainer clearly had an ulterior motive. I can't publicly say what that ulterior motive was, but suffice to say that while I am an expert on the topic because I know the truth and want the truth to be displayed, Thebainer is also something of an expert, because he knows the truth and he could risk going to jail if the truth was displayed. Thebainer has a vested personal interest in making sure that that article never has a hint of truth in it.
Now Thebainer has successfully managed to get that article to be perverted. He has managed to get the world's leading expert on that topic banned over it. He has managed to get himself pushed up to administrator over his abuse. And now he has gone all of the way, getting to arbitrator.
You might think that hey what's the difference with him being an arbitrator? But this now means that Thebainer can make sure that my ban is never heard.
Right now, SlimVirgin herself has forgiven me and wants my ban to be lifted. About the only person left who justifies it is Yamla, whose nonsense mass IP bans over false sock puppet accusations against all and sundry have put his status in dispute. (Yamla is the only person ever to call me a vandal).
But the ban won't be lifted while Thebainer remains.
If you don't care about me, my case, or about whether that particular article ever becomes truthful, or the political implications of that article being so false, then consider this:
Since Thebainer altered that article, the number of news reports, web pages, blogs and general opinion about that attack has altered. As at 2005, over 90% of the world disagreed with the official story. Now it is more like 75-80%. Most of the places that say it use Wikipedia as their sole or main reference. That Wikipedia lie has effectively been mirrored thousands of times over now.
What else does Thebainer have a vested interest in? What else does he want to have presented in a false way?
So what if having the Port Arthur massacre article being truthful doesn't matter. Martin Bryant may not have been primarily responsible, and he sure wasn't the shooter, but he was pretty obviously involved, and, given the number of people who were murdered, just being an assistant to the murder warrants a lifetime in jail. It is also in many ways too late to prosecute the other people who were involved - all of the evidence has likely gone stale now.
But what about other issues? What about other incidents that are out there?
People being banned or not banned from Wikipedia is annoying and socially wrong, but in terms of knowledge it doesn't really matter. A much, much bigger problem is truth changing.
Now we have Thebainer on ArbCom and truth changing will be more prevalent than ever before. Just you watch.
When I first used Wikipedia, in March 2005, I tested it out by trying to add in factual information about the Port Arthur massacre. I knew that it was going to happen a year before it did - in April 1995 - when the person who did the shootings, a guy called Rob, told me in great detail that he was going to do it, as the first day of a year long killing. I had warned people about it, I had reported it to police, and I had been hounded and had my life threatened over it. Attempts were made on my life because of it. Some of them were undoubtedly ASIO - Australia's secret service - or people who were convinced by ASIO to do it. Some of them probably were not. The people that tried to kill me often said that they were doing it because they were sure that I had done the Port Arthur massacre, or alternatively that I had predicted it therefore I should have stopped it (something that I do feel very guilty about). But some people simply said that because I was the victim therefore that I would then turn around and do something just as awful to someone else. Some of them didn't even say a thing, they just did it. If I were to guess, I would say it was half and half. The attempts on my life continued from shortly after the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996 until 2002, when Rob himself was shot down by what were probably ASIO agents. At least, from the newspaper reports I am convinced that the person who died was Rob.
I had read things on Wikipedia that were people's personal opinions, including comments on the Port Arthur massacre article, which at that point in time was wholly unreferenced. So I added in my personal opinions. That was what I thought that "the sum of human knowledge" meant. I am, after all, probably the world's leading expert on this case - I know more about it than anyone else. In many ways that case has become my life.
Yet for some reason my unreferenced comments were not allowed. Furthermore, when I used references, my comments still were not allowed. They had an entire article that was 100% unreferenced, but when I added things that were 100% sourced, they were wiped. Wikipedia eventually left my sources, but wrote the exact opposite of what the sources claimed.
The next year, in 2006, a number of Australian newspapers published reports that used that Wikipedia article as a reference, at the 10 year anniversary, because Wikipedia was the only internet reference that actually considered that the official story had any merit whatsoever. As a result of that, the Wikipedia article then changed its references to include what these newspapers said. In effect, that Wikipedia article is using as a reference its own article. Yet sourced truth and comments from an expert on the topic were banned.
Thebainer was heavily involved with this distortion of truth, including a section he labelled "Alternative theories". In it, he ignored all of the references that I had provided, and instead provided others that he himself found, fringe theories that were believed by hardly anyone, and had nothing to do with what I was trying to say. He then added copious amounts of comment about how ridiculous they were, making up stories that they were not believed by anyone. He used weasel words to make it all look false.
Thebainer clearly had an ulterior motive. I can't publicly say what that ulterior motive was, but suffice to say that while I am an expert on the topic because I know the truth and want the truth to be displayed, Thebainer is also something of an expert, because he knows the truth and he could risk going to jail if the truth was displayed. Thebainer has a vested personal interest in making sure that that article never has a hint of truth in it.
Now Thebainer has successfully managed to get that article to be perverted. He has managed to get the world's leading expert on that topic banned over it. He has managed to get himself pushed up to administrator over his abuse. And now he has gone all of the way, getting to arbitrator.
You might think that hey what's the difference with him being an arbitrator? But this now means that Thebainer can make sure that my ban is never heard.
Right now, SlimVirgin herself has forgiven me and wants my ban to be lifted. About the only person left who justifies it is Yamla, whose nonsense mass IP bans over false sock puppet accusations against all and sundry have put his status in dispute. (Yamla is the only person ever to call me a vandal).
But the ban won't be lifted while Thebainer remains.
If you don't care about me, my case, or about whether that particular article ever becomes truthful, or the political implications of that article being so false, then consider this:
Since Thebainer altered that article, the number of news reports, web pages, blogs and general opinion about that attack has altered. As at 2005, over 90% of the world disagreed with the official story. Now it is more like 75-80%. Most of the places that say it use Wikipedia as their sole or main reference. That Wikipedia lie has effectively been mirrored thousands of times over now.
What else does Thebainer have a vested interest in? What else does he want to have presented in a false way?
So what if having the Port Arthur massacre article being truthful doesn't matter. Martin Bryant may not have been primarily responsible, and he sure wasn't the shooter, but he was pretty obviously involved, and, given the number of people who were murdered, just being an assistant to the murder warrants a lifetime in jail. It is also in many ways too late to prosecute the other people who were involved - all of the evidence has likely gone stale now.
But what about other issues? What about other incidents that are out there?
People being banned or not banned from Wikipedia is annoying and socially wrong, but in terms of knowledge it doesn't really matter. A much, much bigger problem is truth changing.
Now we have Thebainer on ArbCom and truth changing will be more prevalent than ever before. Just you watch.