Don't bring it on
The ultimate irony here is that Jimmy Wales has long told the press that conflict of interest isn't tolerated at Wikipedia.
In January last year, Microsoft landed in Wikipedia's doghouse after it tried to pay a blogger to change certain articles on the site. "We were very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach," Jimmy Wales told The Associated Press.
Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales 2
That same week, The AP detailed Wikipedia's efforts to crack down on a fledgling company called MyWikiBiz, which offered to edit Wikipedia articles on behalf of others in exchange for cash. In speaking with The AP, Wales proclaimed that Wikipedia is no place for PR:
Wales agreed in an interview that companies and regular people likely are surreptitiously editing their own entries, doing in secret what MyWikiBiz was open about. But that doesn't mean the site should give up trying to prevent public-relations efforts, Wales said."
"It's one thing to acknowledge there's always going to be a little of this, but another to say, 'Bring it on,'" he said.
Yet Wales and the ruling clique have certainly said "Bring it on" to Jossi Fresco. The Wikipedia elite are well aware of his conflict. And by Wikipedia elite, we mean uber-admins other than Jossi Fresco.
At Wikipedia, all sorts of people end up controlling all sorts of articles. Jimmy Wales says as much in his conversation with The AP. But this case shows just how far the problem goes. Jossi Fresco may bear the most extreme conflict of interest in the history of Wikipedia - and he edits the policy that governs conflict of interest. ®
(1) Reproduced under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License.
(2) Reproduced under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
We are finding out who the unlaughing people are
I am being blocked from editing in wikipedia because my name being Rawat in Mumbai. Immediately jossi came and blocked me. Now I can just be editing own user discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prem_Rawat
(Visit there and you can leave a message or a worthwhile link, thanks)
I am researching how cults grab people and then some people spit them out. It is not allowed to be spitting out Mr Ji's ideas because they are so fixed. Maybe that is why he is getting book about himself written by a dog training person. Wikipedia is providing stong evidence of how cult holds its people and, I am proposing, makes them unhappy and unlaughing for their whole lives. But they are not wanting people to know how unhappy they are because they are programmed to be slaves and to make others too. How sad! People are telling me.
There are free spiritual portals where you can write your comments about gurus
There are free spiritual portals where you can write your comments about gurus with no editors and followers changing it.
As for example www.gurusfeet.com/guru and www.myspace.com and others.
Who cares about wikipedia when it comes to spirituality?
COI and vested interest
COI actually relates to a core issue with wikipedia. I was formerly a highly active contributor to this site, but I have found that negative aspects of many topics entailing issues of faith or patriotism or simple allegiance are totally uneditable for "civilian" contributors as they are controlled by vested-interest editors who purposely employ their administrative muscle to restrict criticism of such issues of faith. Anyone who has tried to contribute e.g. in the field of Israel-Palestine knows exactly what I am talking about, these articles are tightly controlled by a couple of zionists, and the article is essentially entirely locked down by these revert-monsters. Its also entirely natural for a brainwashed cult fanatic to attempt to control the exact topic plus the global policy on permissions to control such topics in spite of a COI. Aren't there enough editors around? Shouldn't any COI upon statement or discovery lead to the editor becoming immediately ENTIRELY barred from that topic/subject area? I have actually given up and withdrawn from making contributions. I vastly enjoyed the register article for pointing out just one instance of this problem; nonetheless, this is a systemic issue. Theres been a lot of busting parties with vested interests via IP, which led to good press. When in comes to wikipedia-internal vested interests, the same or even higher standards ought to be applied. COI should be a lot stricter. [also posted on the COI-N discussion page]