What do you make of the Wikipedia kerfuffle?

by **banned** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:38 am

"Aynesworth describes Ferrie's ordination into the Old Catholic Curch of North America." I thought Ferrie was, well, a fairy, and that the Catholic Church frowned on sodomites. Tell us more!

by **banned** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:50 am

"Brandt has been a frequent critic of Wikipedia and started an anti-Wikipedia Web site in September after reading what he said was a false entry about himself." Well, isn't he a convenient one to "discover the truth." HA! "Using information in Seigenthaler's article and some online tools, Brandt traced the computer used to make the Wikipedia entry to the delivery company in Nashville. Brandt called the company and told employees about the Wikipedia problem but was not able to learn anything." Nice and vague. WHAT 'information'--and presumably it means the article ABOUT Seigenthaler--as written it sounds like Seigenthaler wrote it. "SOME ONLINE TOOLS?" Oh, come on. HE could trace the puter but the rich as hell Mr. Seigheiler and his team of lawyers couldn't? Ho-kay. "Brandt then sent an e-mail message to the company, asking for information about its courier services. A response bore the same Internet Protocol address that was left by the creator of the Wikipedia entry, offering further evidence of a connection." So this means he didn't get the IP address from his 'online tools.' Brandt is the tool, and he thinks we're all fools.

by **banned** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:00 am

...this gets curiouser and curiouser. Mr. Brandt seems to be a big fan of privacy, but he had no problem using unnamed 'tools' to smoke out the alleged "prankster." This guy smells like a honeypot, just like Seigenthaler with his purported dedication to the First Amendment (which vanishes like the morning fog the minute somebody pisses him off). Is it me, or are a lot of crypto-spooks/gatekeepers/mockingbirds suddenly breaking cover, at least for those of us who have eyes to see? Odd. Something's afoot.

by **Sweejak** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:31 am

Well this doesn't sound the THE Catholic church but rather some sort of splinter group. I'm too busy to really google at it. Looks like an interesting lead tho doesn't it. Damn, ok just a link to a google query <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cpeo2">tinyurl.com/cpeo2</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 12/13/05 1:50 am

by **banned** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:07 am

All I had to read was this: "Brandt...He was an anti-Vietnam War activist while at college at the University of Southern California (USC). According to the Daily Trojan (January 12, 1971) Brandt was the editor and creator of Prevert, a monthly student activist newspaper, and the de facto leader of the student activist movement at this university in the late 1960s. On October 4, 1968, he was one of three members of Students for a Democratic Society who burned their draft cards in front of television cameras following a speech by Senator Edmund Muskie at USC." Oh, yeah, SDS was full of spooks! Especially the ones who burned their draft cards on teevee. I got that off...Wikipedia of course <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> They have more to say about Mr. Brandt: "On 13 October 2005 [13], Brandt launched a new website criticizing Wikipedia called Wikipedia Watch. This was a direct response to his inability to modify or delete the article that was made about himself (this article), which he stated was an invasion of privacy [14], and subsequently the inability of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales to respond to his fax requesting for this article to be deleted [15], that he sent to Jimmy Wales on 16 October 2005. Brandt was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia on 9 November 2005 with the cited reasons being "repeated legal threats, sock-puppet use, bad-faith edits, trolling and other disruptive behavior" [16]; the content of <a href="http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html,">www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html,</a> especially the compilation of personal details about Wikipedia editors, was one of the major reasons cited for this block [17]." Wikipedia's version says: "Brandt found that the IP address used by the poster of the defamatory information was also used to host a website, <a href="http://65.81.97.208/">65.81.97.208/</a> , with the text, "Welcome to Rush Delivery." This is backwards from the other article that says he was onto the delivery firm first then got the IP addy. "There was also a company in Nashville known by that name, and the IP address on the email they sent back to Brandt matched that in the edit history of the Seigenthaler article. He made this information known to the media." And he got the IP addy in the edit how? Well, first check out these exchanges on Slashdot--obviously Brandt expected kudos but he got more kicks in the arse: <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170868&cid=14233678">slashdot.org/comments.pl?...d=14233678</a> Or maybe he knew the net-savvy people at Slashdot would ask questions and he was trying to forestall them? Anyway, on Slashdot he references his Wikipedia Watch page to tell how the self-dubbed "Mr. Cyber Sleuth" did it: "Chronology: 2005-12-04: I noticed that the culprit's IP address has a server on it. C<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> TEMP>curl -I <a href="http://65.81.97.208/">65.81.97.208/</a> <a href="HTTP/1.1">1</a> 200 OK Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 X-Powered-By: ASP.NET Content-Location: <a href="http://65.81.97.208/Default.htm">65.81.97.208/Default.htm</a> Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:53:13 GMT Content-Type: text/html Accept-Ranges: bytes Last-Modified: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:37:25 GMT ETag: "30544d85aadec31:383c" Content-Length: 24 The only thing it serves are these 24 bytes: Welcome to Rush Delivery 2005-12-04: Knowing that the IP geolocates to Nashville, I discover that there is a company in Nashville called Rush Delivery. 2005-12-05, 08:30: The fax below is sent. 2005-12-05, 11:15: I call Rush Delivery and the secretary says she didn't see any fax like this. She will watch for it and I resend it. 2005-12-05, 11:30: I call again and yes, the fax arrived. I am transferred to someone else. I explain the entire situation to her, and ask her to test their machines that are on the Internet to find out if any are on this BellSouth DSL IP address. I tell her how to do this. She says she will get back to me. 2005-12-05, 14:30: Having heard nothing, I fax the information to John Seigenthaler, Sr. in Nashville. I inform him that I'm inclined to post the fax below unless he feels it will hurt his interests. His office acknowledges the fax and says that he is grateful, and he will pursue it, and has no objections if I post it. I mentioned in the cover letter that if the <a href="http://65.81.97.208/">65.81.97.208/</a> entered in a browser address bar stops returning "Welcome to Rush Delivery," then this is suspicious because I haven't posted this information anywhere. 2005-12-05, sometime between 16:30 and 19:30: After working all yesterday and all day today, the connection suddenly starts timing out. It appears that the DSL modem is unplugged. I still haven't heard from Rush Delivery. 2005-12-05, 22:00: This whodunnit is posted. 2005-12-06, 09:45: The woman I spoke with yesterday left a message to say that the people she needs to speak with will not be back until tomorrow, and she will get back to me when she knows something. 2005-12-06, 09:50: The Welcome to Rush Delivery server is back online. 2005-12-06: I noticed that this IP address also has a Resin server on port 81. C<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> TEMP>curl -I <a href="http://65.81.97.208:81/">65.81.97.208:81/</a> <a href="HTTP/1.1">1</a> 404 Not Found Server: Resin/2.1.6 Cache-Control: no-cache Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT Content-Type: text/html Content-Length: 169 Connection: close Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:44:17 GMT 2005-12-06: Busted! Proof that the IP address is currently assigned to Rush Delivery was obtained by sending an inquiry using an alias email account. It was sent to the "info" email address listed on their website. The response was from the woman I spoke with, and the originating IP I was looking for is in the header. Now it's a matter of determining who was in the office on the morning of May 26, assuming that they had the same DSL connection at that time with the same IP address. Perhaps more than one machine is connected to the same DSL line. Received: from Maria ([65.81.97.208]) Subject: RE: Courier service inquiry Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:05:37 -0600" OK, now for the PUNCH LINE: you HAVE to go to the alleged "web site": <a href="http://65.81.97.208/">65.81.97.208/</a> Come ON! Who the hell puts up a web site like that, with just an IP number and not a .com you can trace via Whois? I'm serious. The world 'lame' doesn't cover it! Brandt himself admits on Slashdot: "There was one chance in 10,000 that there would be a server on that IP address, and that it would be up when I tried it on impulse (it timed out during nightime hours during all of last week)." This apparently explains why it took him so long to 'solve' the 'mystery'. I'm starting to think Brandt himself wrote the Seigenthaler article. Wonder what they threatened Chase with, or if he's a spook. Please note also that a company called "Rush Delivery" is quite convenient since if you google it with "Nashville" every frickin' web page that has the phrase 'rush delivery' on it pops up. Reminds me of the local band who called itself Free Beer, they always packed them in when people saw the ads. However, when you narrow it down to "Rush Delivery" on "Elm Tree Drive" you get exactly TWO listings, one on Citysearch (which lists no web page) and the other a web page that lets ANYONE "self enroll" their listing with Citysearch! No, really, check it out: <a href="https://selfenroll.citysearch.com:443/?entid=9279714&bsnm=">/selfenroll.citysearch.co...9714&bsnm=</a> Rush+Delivery&adr=1877+Elm+Tree+Dr&cty=Nashville&st= TN&zp=37210-3715&phn=(615)+874-2222&ulink= profile_10__1___selfenroll__1 So what's to stop Brandt himself for signing the fictitious Rush Delivery up on Citysearch? NOTHING. Particularly since the City Search listing has no details about the business beyond an address. The web page, however, does give you a map to that address, its STARTING POINT is only a few blocks from 18th Avenue South, the address given for Seigenthaler's First Amendment Forum. If you plug in the Rush Delivery addy, it's a 15 minute drive between the two places. Anyone live in Nashville or have contacts there who could go out and see if this place actually exists, or looks like a storefront that just got tossed up? And even if it's a real business, I would think a delivery firm would make a nice CIA front business. Hell, maybe they even 'rush delivery' of prisoners to Bumfuckistan to be tortured. As for Brian Chase (nice name huh, anagram for BRAIN CHASE?)...Yahoo Peoplesearch only lists two in the state of TN: one is in Germantown (near Memphis--heckuva long commute), the other in Carthage (50 miles east of Nashville.) Anybody want to call this guy and ask if he's the one who just lost his job? Brian Chase Carthage, TN (615) 735-6557 This really, truly and seriously stinks, people. If this is the best the spooks can do to try to compromise the Net, it's pretty GD easy to unravel. I'd say it was just Brandt, doing it to undermine Wikipedia for making him persona non grata, but he doesn't have enough power to get someone to take a fall for him, and they needed a scapegoat to get other people who aren't "spooky" to stop looking. I'll continue to track this and let you know what else I find. If "banned" suddenly disappears, you'll know I did too good a job of tracking this down <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("> .

by **Sweejak** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:48 am

Damn. My hat's off. LOL those slashdot folks. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Oh, yeah, SDS was full of spooks! Especially the ones who burned their draft cards on teevee.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> In the evening, I went up to the U. to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] convention. He said that at the convention, men from Business International Round Tables, the meeting sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government, tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the guys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They are the left wing of the ruling class. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered ESSO (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left. ---- James Kunen, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, pg. 116 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Young people have no conception of the conspiracy's strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below.... They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they're fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don't realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes... ---- Jerry Kirk, former Black Revolutionary in 1970 testifying before the House and Senate Internal Security panel. <hr></blockquote>

by **elsiecow** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:37 am

Wiki is a scapegoat for people who are invested in print media, which is having a hard time financially right now. Hell, the whole internet is a scapegoat. I work in the 'information industry' and let's just say there's a lot of paranoia in the print world about the digital world. A couple of years ago I was seeing stories about how the book was going to disappear, and people were going to get everything online. I haven't read much about this lately - if anything, reading about things online will make people want to seek out more books. It's still easier to read a book or magazine in hard copy form than it is to read it online. So that was just silly. However, I think the newspapers are a bit worried. It's so funny, because when I was doing grad classes, I did one in the History of Censorship in Europe. Well, I chose Victorian England as my topic, only to find myself frustrated because all of the really good literature on censorship and repression in Victorian times was about the U.S. There is a reactionary puritanical tendency in our culture that fears new media. THE reason the Victorian era had the character it did was because it was the beginning of the mass media age. The self-appointed 'masters' of culture and history just could not deal with the fact that books and newspapers were now being mass produced and were therefore more widely available than ever before. TO THIS DAY these folk have a problem with the 'lower classes' having access to education and information. They've been here for several centuries now and they HAVE NOT CHANGED. You and I may have been on the 'net since college, but it's only been in the past five to seven years that the internet has really become mainstream - my mother just went online last Christmas. This has a lot of these same maladjusted old farts and their isolated and utterly brainwashed children in a tizzy. The U.S. has a long, long history of vicious moral panics regarding new media - first newspapers and books, then films, then television and recorded music, and now this. It's really game over for the puritan class - about the only way they can handle the 'net is through extremist tactics - disinformation, cyberterrorism, harassment, etc. Any event from the past five years or so has to be viewed in light of the hard right's obsession with the internet - not only its informational possibilities, but its social ones.

by **rain** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:27 am

More Wikipedia Inaccuracy False information posted by volunteer gets Wales in more trouble by Jennifer Monroe NEW YORK, NY -- (OfficialWire) -- 12/11/05 -- Untrue information posted to Wikipedia, as fact, by an anonymous 'volunteer' (Brian Chase, 38, a resident of Nashville, TN was later exposed as the person behind the lie) suggesting that John Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy was eventually removed by Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, but only after more than four months anguish and hard work by Seigenthaler. "There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia, consider themselves responsible for the content," said Daniel Brandt, the man credited with helping to expose Chase. Brandt is a founder of Wikipedia-Watch and is a frequent critic of the online encyclopedia. Now another story suggesting that Wikipedia is out of control emerges. Some months ago, OfficialWire published an article about untrue postings on Wikipedia, by Christian Wirth also known as RaDMan. Shortly after the devastating earthquake and tsunamis on December 26, 2004 in the Indian Ocean, Wirth took upon himself to wage a war against QuakeAID Foundation, Inc. Wirth's arsenal consisted of untrue, libelous writings that he and Wikipedia published as fact. All attempts, by QuakeAID's founder, to correct the untrue comments were re-edited, blocked or labelled as 'untrue' by a group of volunteers, who hold themselves untouchable and above the law. John Seigenthaler and QuakeAID are not alone. Wikipedia cannot hold itself out as quintessential authority and deny responsibility and accountability. Likewise, to accept postings without vetting or cross-checking the material (not merely searching Google as Wikipedia's volunteers do) opens Wales and his 'Foundation' up to legal action, regardless of their published disclaimer. Indeed, to suggest that such a disclaimer affords any protection at all is nonsense. The first line of their disclaimer says it all: "General disclaimer – Use Wikipedia at your own risk". Until Seigenthaler learned of the untrue statements about him, he was not a user. As a direct result of the most recent debacle, Wikipedia has stopped "Anonymous" users from creating new articles. That's a start, but registration on the website can consist of providing an email address and false name, so they have a great deal of work to do before anyone should consider the content found on Wikipedia credible. In the meantime, QuakeAID has written once again to Jimbo Wales, demanding the untrue and libelous information be removed from Wikipedia, while a group of interested parties have joined together and plan to initiate legal proceedings against Wales and Wikipedia Foundation, Inc., and numerous others—the so-called anonymous 'volunteers'—who they believe should be held responsible for the content they publish. For more information, visit www.WikipediaClassAction.org. AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20675">news.baou.com/main.php?ac...&rid=20675</a> ---- (with thanx to <a href="http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20051212.htm">signs-of-the-times.org/si...051212.htm</a> for link)

by **Sweejak** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:18 pm

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuakeAID">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuakeAID</a>

What do you make of the Wikipedia kerfuffle?

Wha????

Yay Biggie! An honest man!

Re: the Counterpunch interview with Brandt...

Re: Wha????

Case closed, Brandt's a deep cover spook.

Re: Case closed, Brandt's a deep cover spook.

Re: The thing is, we are all Net wise...

quax attax

Re: quax attax

Who is online