Gamaliel on Wikipedia is back at it

[Richard Booth]

Some may remember the Wikipedia editor "Gamaliel" and his whole sordid history of promoting John McAdams links on wikipedia and reverting edits, spending over 12 hours a day some days doing this, basically squatting on the Fletcher Prouty page and the Lee Harvey Oswald page.

An article was written about that, "Anatomy of an Online Atrocity"

Well, I heard the other day from the producer of the recent Ruth Paine documentary that "some Wikipedia editor named Gamaliel made a whole bunch of edits to the JFK assassination pages to remove any suspicions about Ruth Paine"

I linked him to the "Anatomy of an Online Atrocity" piece -- he wasn't aware that Gamaliel has been doing this for decades.

Here are screenshots of the posts about the Paine edits:

 

After I saw this I linked him to the "Anatomy of an Online Atrocity" piece that discusses Gamaliel and his history.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Richard Booth
added hyperlinks to article

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

Some may remember the Wikipedia editor "Gamaliel" and his whole sordid history of promoting John McAdams links on wikipedia and reverting edits, spending over 12 hours a day some days doing this, basically squatting on the Fletcher Prouty page and the Lee Harvey Oswald page.

An article was written about that, "Anatomy of an Online Atrocity"

Well, I heard the other day from the producer of the recent Ruth Paine documentary that "some Wikipedia editor named Gamaliel made a whole bunch of edits to the JFK assassination pages to remove any suspicions about Ruth Paine"

I linked him to the "Anatomy of an Online Atrocity" piece -- he wasn't aware that Gamaliel has been doing this for decades.

Here are screenshots of the posts about the Paine edits:

 

After I saw this I linked him to the "Anatomy of an Online Atrocity" piece that discusses Gamaliel and his history.

 

 

 

 

 

Some years back, a European scientist wrote up a wiki page on the Neutron Activation Analysis performed on JFK's cheek casts. It was several pages of material, using my website and the papers I'd obtained from the Harold Weisberg Archives as the primary source. The McAdams-appointed gatekeepers put it on hold, pending an investigation. They contacted me and asked me questions on a live chat. It was straight out of Kafka. They asked me why, if my chapter on the NAA was based on official evidence, there was stuff on the page that wasn't mentioned in the Warren Report or in Bugliosi's book. I explained that that was why I'd researched this area, and why the scientist had written the page--to fill in blanks that had previously been overlooked. They then asked why, if this was official evidence, there were no NARA numbers associated with the evidence. I explained that the papers obtained by Weisberg did not come from NARA, but were papers he'd obtained in a FOIA case against the AEC. I told them they could check with Hood Library to verify the existence of these papers, and verify that the papers discussed on my webpage were papers received by Weisberg in his court case. But they'd heard enough. One of them said something like "Aha! So you admit these papers have not been authenticated by NARA," or some such thing. Another one asked if I knew the European scientist who'd written the article. I said "No, I don't know him, but he emailed me once to ask me if it was okay if he created a wiki page on my research" or something equally innocuous. As I recall one of the gatekeepers pounced on this and said something like "So you admit you conspired in the creation of this wiki page?" or something equally Kafka-esque. Anyhow, they shot it down because it lacked support from the very people who'd refused to investigate it in the first place. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Wikipedia is trying to be the Ny TImes of the web on the JFK case.  And Gamamiel is their Anthony Lewis.

 

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/will-the-real-wikipedia-please-stand-up

Edited December 11, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Denny Zartman]

It's just funny that stuff like this still goes on, and some folks remain devoted to the Lone Nut theory.

[Matthew Koch]

Steve Kossor just mentioned on the David Lifton later day claims that someone just edited the Wiki for DSL, might be the same person. 

[Micah Mileto]

Your level of knowledge on a particular subject can be accurately measured by how upset you are at the Wikipeida article on it. And if somebody says they like Wikipedia in general, then they probably don't have a lot of knowledge on any subject.

[Matthew Koch]

4 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Your level of knowledge on a particular subject can be accurately measured by how upset you are at the Wikipeida article on it. And if somebody says they like Wikipedia in general, then they probably don't have a lot of knowledge on any subject.

Funny you say that, because I was literally thinking about that 30 minutes ago. I was like who cares (in stronger words) cause I only use wiki rarely and just as a basic reference point like a date or maybe someones early life section. But then I was like, Yeah.. it is kinda important if someone is editing things so that people don't look further into something like Ruth Paine for example. So I see both sides, it's not really a hill worth dying on but if they are editing it that is very Animal Farm 1984ish. 

[Richard Booth]

28 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Your level of knowledge on a particular subject can be accurately measured by how upset you are at the Wikipeida article on it. And if somebody says they like Wikipedia in general, then they probably don't have a lot of knowledge on any subject.

LOL

100%

[Richard Booth]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Kafka-esque. Anyhow, they shot it down because it lacked support from the very people who'd refused to investigate it in the first place. 

Absolutely stunning. Thank you for sharing that. 

[W. Niederhut]

Very important thread here.

It reminded me of an article that caught my eye back in 2007.*

It's one reason I have never considered Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information about military or intelligence ops, as I told David Lifton in a discussion he and I had earlier this year about 9/11.

*CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816

August 16, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.

The changes may violate Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.

The program, WikiScanner, was developed by Virgil Griffith of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and posted this month on a Web site that was quickly overwhelmed with searches.

The program allows users to track the source of computers used to make changes to the popular Internet encyclopedia where anyone can submit and edit entries.

WikiScanner revealed that CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was edited to add that many figures were estimated and were not broken down by class.

Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War rural pacification program that he headed.

Aerial and satellite images of the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were removed using a computer traced to the FBI, WikiScanner showed.

CIA spokesman George Little said he could not confirm whether CIA computers were used in the changes, adding that “the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly.”

The FBI did not have an immediate response.

Computers at numerous other organizations and companies were found to have been involved in editing articles related to them.

Griffith said he developed WikiScanner “to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike (and) to see what ‘interesting organizations’ (which I am neutral towards) are up to.”

It was not known whether changes were made by an official representative of an agency or company, Griffith said, but it was certain the change was made by someone with access to the organization’s network.

It violates Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia’s parent organization.

However, she said, “Wikipedia is self-correcting,” meaning misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor. She said Wikimedia welcomed the WikiScanner.

[Max Good]

FYI, when Vince Salandria died, I put in some effort to create a Wikipedia page for him.  Each time, it was attacked or removed for some reason or another (not "notable" enough, not enough mainstream sources, etc.).  So, as of today, there is no Wikipedia page for Vincent Salandria.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Max Good said:

FYI, when Vince Salandria died, I put in some effort to create a Wikipedia page for him.  Each time, it was attacked or removed for some reason or another (not "notable" enough, not enough mainstream sources, etc.).  So, as of today, there is no Wikipedia page for Vincent Salandria.

 

If you have a Wikipedia account, you can set up articles that are of interest to you to automatically notify you of any changes made by other people. And if somebody makes a change you disagree with, you can undo the change with a click of a mouse.

I once got into an edit war with someone who didn't like something I wrote. He kept removing it and I kept putting it back in. It almost went into arbitration before he gave up. (I don't recall if that happens automatically, or if I threatened the arbitration).

 

[James DiEugenio]

I would really like for there to be a page on VInce.

[Sandy Larsen]

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If you have a Wikipedia account, you can set up articles that are of interest to you to automatically notify you of any changes made by other people. And if somebody makes a change you disagree with, you can undo the change with a click of a mouse.

 

Unfortunately, the Vince Salandria article is a different situation than what I've done myself in Wikipedia and said is easy. In the articles I was involved in, I only made edits and additions. In the Vince Salandria case, the article was new and presumably the whole thing deleted.

 

[Michael DiGiovanni]

12 hours ago, Max Good said:

FYI, when Vince Salandria died, I put in some effort to create a Wikipedia page for him.  Each time, it was attacked or removed for some reason or another (not "notable" enough, not enough mainstream sources, etc.).  So, as of today, there is no Wikipedia page for Vincent Salandria.

Hey, but at least there’s a Wikipedia page for “Mr. Ed”!