Brett Kimberlin shows why Wikipedia should not be used as a reference

Readability

Brett Kimberlin shows why Wikipedia should not be used as a reference

As we hit Every­body Blog about Brett Kim­ber­lin day +2 Pat­terico dis­cov­ers that appar­ently if one can not have an arti­cle con­tain­ing “pos­i­tive attrib­utes” of Brett Kim­ber­lin on Wikipedia, you can’t have an arti­cle on Brett Kim­ber­lin on Wikipedia at all.

Hello. My name is Patrick Frey and I oper­ate a blog at pat​terico​.com. I am inter­est­ing in know­ing why you deleted the Wikipedia page on Brett Kim­ber­lin. I have seen the deleted page and it was quite well sourced, with links to TIME Mag­a­zine and other news publications.

There was an entire book about this indi­vid­ual writ­ten by Mark Singer, a New Yorker writer. There is sim­ply a wealth of reli­able infor­ma­tion out there about Kimberlin.

I read the rea­son­ing for the dele­tion and did not under­stand it. I won­der if you could enlighten me. Thanks very much.

Patrick Frey
Pat​terico​.com

Symonds responded (empha­sis mine):

Patrick,

I deleted the arti­cle back in Sep­tem­ber as a vol­un­teer, because it served as an attack page. It was sourced, but was also unduly neg­a­tive, and writ­ten by peo­ple who “had an axe to grind”. Although some of the facts were sourced, there was an under­tone of mali­cious­ness in the way that the arti­cle was written.

Mr Kim­ber­lin was not a paragon of virtue, but the arti­cle as it stood sim­ply painted him as a man with no pos­i­tive qual­i­ties at all, which is obvi­ously prob­lem­atic in a neu­tral encyclopedia.

The exchange goes on much far­ther read the entire thing and sim­ply mar­vel and the irony.

We remem­ber this week­end those who died for our rights, yet not only, as we’ve already dis­cussed an Amer­i­can reporter in Amer­ica and his fam­ily have found it nec­es­sary to leave their home and the state where they reside due to the results of his report­ing but the sub­ject that has caused Stacy McCain to go into hid­ing is not only sug­gest­ing he will be send­ing the law against blog­gers who dared to write about him, but Wikipedia, the sup­posed pub­lic ency­clo­pe­dia has decided that the entry of this con­victed bomber must be sup­pressed because of ani­mus by blog­gers on the right.

The irony over­load is astound­ing, how­ever I am pleased to say that although Wikipedia has decided to sup­press Kimberlin’s entry and the MSM has decided the whole story is not news­wor­thy we will take a dif­fer­ent view tomor­row as I inter­view Robert Stacy McCain on WCRN in the 6 a.m. hour.

You can lis­ten live at TuneIn or at wcrn​ra​dio​.com Maybe if Brett Kimberlin’s rich aunt can spare the time she can lis­ten too.

Update: The con­ser­va­tory is on it and per the new rules at Wikipedia I think we should con­sider mak­ing an edit to another entry that doesn’t have a lot of pos­i­tive spin to it:

not many peo­ple knew it, but the Führer was a ter­rific dancer…Hitler THERE was a painter! He could paint an entire apart­ment in one after­noon! TWO COATS! … Hitler was bet­ter look­ing than Churchill. He was a bet­ter dresser than Churchill. He had more hair! He told fun­nier jokes! And he could dance the PANTS off of Churchill!

Can’t be too bal­anced can we?

Update 2: What a coin­ci­dence after Erik Erick­son started writ­ing about Brett Kim­ber­lin and warned local police that he might become a tar­get of “SWAT­TING” because of it, guess what hap­pened?:

Luck­ily it was two sher­iffs deputies who knew me and I had already, last week, advised the Sheriff’s Depart­ment to be on the look out for some­thing like this.

Glenn Reynolds has also warned local police that this might hap­pen, since I’ll be talk­ing Kim­ber­lin on the radio tomor­row I guess I should let the Sher­iff & local police know it is a possibility.

I’m sure this is all a total coin­ci­dence of course.

Update 3:Stacy Opines

It’s no secret that I sharply crit­i­cized Erick­son dur­ing the 2012 pres­i­den­tial pri­mary cam­paign, but last week he men­tioned me in writ­ing about the Kim­ber­lin case, which was a gra­cious ges­ture. This sit­u­a­tion is more impor­tant than indi­vid­ual personalities.

UPDATE II: Instapun­dit: “Really, if the goal is to keep peo­ple from writ­ing about Brett Kim­ber­lin, this doesn’t seem like the way to do it.”

Indeed, given that Erick­son is a CNN con­trib­u­tor, this inci­dent cer­tainly should pro­vide the main­stream media a solid rea­son to stop ignor­ing the Kim­ber­lin case.

UPDATE III: Pat­terico: “Any­one else think CNN is going to talk about SWAT­ting now?”

and its all over Meme­o­ran­dum.

I have faith in the abil­ity of the MSM to skip this story, even CNN.

As we hit Everybody Blog about Brett Kimberlin day +2 Patterico discovers that apparently if one can not have an article containing “positive attributes” of Brett Kimberlin on Wikipedia, you can’t have an article on Brett Kimberlin on Wikipedia at all.

Hello. My name is Patrick Frey and I operate a blog at patterico.com. I am interesting in knowing why you deleted the Wikipedia page on Brett Kimberlin. I have seen the deleted page and it was quite well sourced, with links to TIME Magazine and other news publications.

There was an entire book about this individual written by Mark Singer, a New Yorker writer. There is simply a wealth of reliable information out there about Kimberlin.

I read the reasoning for the deletion and did not understand it. I wonder if you could enlighten me. Thanks very much.

Patrick Frey
Patterico.com

Symonds responded (emphasis mine):

Patrick,

I deleted the article back in September as a volunteer, because it served as an attack page. It was sourced, but was also unduly negative, and written by people who “had an axe to grind”. Although some of the facts were sourced, there was an undertone of maliciousness in the way that the article was written.

Mr Kimberlin was not a paragon of virtue, but the article as it stood simply painted him as a man with no positive qualities at all, which is obviously problematic in a neutral encyclopedia.

The exchange goes on much farther read the entire thing and simply marvel and the irony.

We remember this weekend those who died for our rights, yet not only, as we’ve already discussed an American reporter in America and his family have found it necessary to leave their home and the state where they reside due to the results of his reporting but the subject that has caused Stacy McCain to go into hiding is not only suggesting he will be sending the law against bloggers who dared to write about him, but Wikipedia, the supposed public encyclopedia has decided that the entry of this convicted bomber must be suppressed because of animus by bloggers on the right.

The irony overload is astounding, however I am pleased to say that although Wikipedia has decided to suppress Kimberlin’s entry and the MSM has decided the whole story is not newsworthy we will take a different view tomorrow as I interview Robert Stacy McCain on WCRN in the 6 a.m. hour.

You can listen live at TuneIn or at wcrnradio.com Maybe if Brett Kimberlin’s rich aunt can spare the time she can listen too.

Update: The conservatory is on it and per the new rules at Wikipedia I think we should consider making an edit to another entry that doesn’t have a lot of positive spin to it:

not many people knew it, but the Führer was a terrific dancer…Hitler THERE was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon! TWO COATS! … Hitler was better looking than Churchill. He was a better dresser than Churchill. He had more hair! He told funnier jokes! And he could dance the PANTS off of Churchill!

Can’t be too balanced can we?

Update 2: What a coincidence after Erik Erickson started writing about Brett Kimberlin and warned local police that he might become a target of “SWATTING” because of it, guess what happened?:

Luckily it was two sheriffs deputies who knew me and I had already, last week, advised the Sheriff’s Department to be on the look out for something like this.

Glenn Reynolds has also warned local police that this might happen, since I’ll be talking Kimberlin on the radio tomorrow I guess I should let the Sheriff & local police know it is a possibility.

I’m sure this is all a total coincidence of course.

Update 3:Stacy Opines

It’s no secret that I sharply criticized Erickson during the 2012 presidential primary campaign, but last week he mentioned me in writing about the Kimberlin case, which was a gracious gesture. This situation is more important than individual personalities.

UPDATE II: Instapundit: “Really, if the goal is to keep people from writing about Brett Kimberlin, this doesn’t seem like the way to do it.”

Indeed, given that Erickson is a CNN contributor, this incident certainly should provide the mainstream media a solid reason to stop ignoring the Kimberlin case.

UPDATE III: Patterico: “Anyone else think CNN is going to talk about SWATting now?”

and its all over Memeorandum.

I have faith in the ability of the MSM to skip this story, even CNN.