ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 02, 2017

The price of thought-policing

Is eternal vigilance. Fortunately, several intrepid Wikipedia admins are up to the task of patrolling the Wikipedia page devoted to me. It's rather amusing; first David Gerard, who is an admin and is so neutral on the subject that he cited Phil Sandifier as a reliable source, removed all references to Infogalactic and tried to deny my involvement with it.
  • (single source and that questionable; see talk page. it is entirely unclear this warrants mention *at all*, let alone two subsections. get consensus for inclusion first.)
  • (rm infogalactic - cut'n'paste of multiply-deleted article, closest it has to third-party coverage is one Breitbart article; not notable in mainstream or its field)
He even tried to justify his own patrolling of the page on the basis of his own bias.

I might note, I just today published a negative review of a Castalia book on Phil's site, so I hold the WSJ-certified typical opinion of Vox Day, but that I find doubles my caution and I'm second guessing myself - David Gerard (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

However, when editors kept putting mentions of Infogalactic on the page, he finally gave up, although he was careful to add an irrelevant detail concerning something we have not only never denied, but have repeatedly pointed out to others.

In 2016 Day launched an online encyclopedia called Infogalactic,[25] forking the content of Wikipedia.

This is how the Wikipedia admins police thought there, by constant nibbling away at the edges. Infogalaxians chronicles how two admins, David Gerard and Dragonfly Sixtyseven slash repeatedly away at the page over the course of a week in the interest of removing all the material they think they can justify removing.

The reason they do all this repeated nibbling and sausage slicing is because the editors eventually start to notice something isn't right.
  • Day published his recommendations in his blog, which is the primary source but in the article, this is now also documented through secondary sources, i.e. SF magazines. I think it's a good idea to include both, as it allows the reader to independently verify the information. The primary sources show that respected publications like Slate and the Guardian in this case are clearly unreliable. Pkeets (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm kind of appalled looking at some of these articles from sources that are usually considered reliable. It looks like they didn't even talk to Day when writing these articles about him. Kelly hi! 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Or, do any research about the subject. They seem to have worked off assumptions. That means identifying bias and reliability in the sources will be important in establishing a neutral POV info in the article. Pkeets (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm far from the only individual targeted in this way. Another tactic, which was previously utilized unsuccessfully against my page, is the "denial of notability". In this case, they use the fact that the mainstream media ignores massively successful self-published authors - in this case, one of the top 20 SF authors on Amazon - in order to claim that they are not notable and delete the page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. V. Larson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are considerably weaker in terms of policy and guidelines, and often add up to "but he's very commercially successful, so he must be notable". Well, not according to our inclusion guidelines, as Tokyogirl79 points out. Her thorough analysis of the available sources hasn't been seriously addressed by those wanting to keep the article, which also weakens their side of the argument.  Sandstein  17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Non notable author with no adequate references for notability. none of his books are held in more than 80 libraries a/c Worldcat; Technomancer has 79, and the others are fewer than 20. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete References now on page (Amazon.com, Audible.com) cannot support ntability. He gets a few press mentions, Here: [1],and here: [2], news google search on his name [3], but not enough to source a page or support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I found the same results: he's brought up occasionally as a WP:TRIVIAL mention, but sadly he has never received the type of coverage that Wikipedia would require to satisfy notability guidelines for authors. He's pretty much one of many authors whose works are self-published (either partially or entirely) or indie that has a fan following, but not one large enough to attract attention from places Wikipedia would consider reliable. Most of the sources I found were either WP:SPS or in places like SFFAudio, which are kind of squiffy as far as whether or not they'd pass Wikipedia's fairly strict verification guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is well-reasoned, but the sources still don't add up, from what I can see. Essentially, in the reliable sources (newspapers, mainly, and the one book) Larson is merely "name-checked" -- that is he is mentioned by name in sentences like: "...self-published writers including B.V. Larson and A.G. Riddle." And that's all. What we need is for there to be an article ABOUT him, or at least that goes into some depth, in such a source. That's what WP requires for notability. Sources that aren't neutral (like Kindle, which publishes him and therefore has a vested interest in making him look good), can't be used; nor can personal web sites and blogs. One of the sources starts out "Guess what! My cousin Brian is also a science fiction and fantasy author!" That's obviously not a neutral source. I agree with you that it's unfair that self-published authors don't get more attention, but until they start getting reviews in established sources, we have no reasoned way to separate wheat from chaff -- and, quite honestly, from the few self-published books I've opened up, there's a lot of chaff. LaMona (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I would think that going platinum as an author would be one adequate way to separate the wheat from the chaff; selling a million books is inherently notable. This is why Infogalactic is so important, and why it will be necessary for us to ruthlessly crack down on admins and editors who want to play the same shady game of shaping a particular narrative to suit themselves, regardless of what it is.

Labels: ,

55 Comments:

Anonymous Marvin Boggs January 02, 2017 1:42 PM  

So, they had a page on B. V. Larson, and decided to remove it, not because it was inaccurate, but because he was insufficiently notable. Sounds like a complete waste of resources. Leaving the page there costs essentially nothing. Deciding to remove it requires work to determine whether to do so.

Morons. That type of attitude might work when there's no competition. It will fail miserably in a competitive market. Forward Infogalactic.

Anonymous VFM#1819 January 02, 2017 1:42 PM  

As a member of the Burn Unit, I highly encourage everyone interested in Truth to donate time or money or both to this project. Preserving and increasing knowledge to pass on to the future generations of Men of the West is highly important. You wouldn't feed your children adulterated or poisoned food. Why would you allow them to ingest adulterated and poisoned information, lies specifically disguised as facts? Give to this project and let's see it through to the end.

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus January 02, 2017 1:50 PM  

compare & contrast-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Gough
20:46, 8 September 2016‎ Lauriewriter (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,134 bytes) (+155)‎ . . (I added recent articles written by Laurie Gough.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/12/30/fisking-the-huffpos-snooty-rant-about-self-publishing/
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-state-of-publishing-2017.html

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus January 02, 2017 1:59 PM  

This might have been the entriggerment-

(cur | prev) 15:20, 9 December 2016‎ ONUnicorn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,256 bytes) (+1,620)‎ . . (→‎Castalia House publishing: Merging info from Infogalactic, and making it a redirect.) (undo)

It might be an historic event, too. Henceforth and beginning on 12/9/16, when Wiki needs to find reliable information from a reputable source, they always turn to Infogalactic.com first.

Blogger Danby January 02, 2017 2:06 PM  

Marvin Boggs wrote:Sounds like a complete waste of resources. Leaving the page there costs essentially nothing. Deciding to remove it requires work to determine whether to do so.

They are protecting their precious EGOS, man! And the integrity of their data, but mostly egos. Some WP editors get a woody every time they successfully get a page deleted.
"Ha ha! I may be a nobody, but you're not even in Wikipedia anymore, Mr. Successful Science Fiction Writer!"

Anonymous Bob Just January 02, 2017 2:07 PM  

I didn't know who this Phil Sandifer is -
so a quick search revealed:

Is this the correct one:
Sep 12, 2015 - Phil Sandifer (sometimes known as Snowspinner) is very overweight, doesn't brush his teeth very much and is badly in need of dental work...

Phil Sandifer - Encyclopedia Dramatica
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Phil_Sandifer

@ VD - for sharing multiple Infogalactic links on Gab.ai (or other sites with character limits) it would be nice if there was a integrated shortened URL

For non-Infogalactic links - maybe a VFM or Ilk can create an El.OE (Evil Legion of Evil) or variant thereof URL shortener

Blogger Timmy3 January 02, 2017 2:08 PM  

Their arguments fall apart on the bias and editorial judgments on the story itself. And the fact that having any writeup won't cost them anything in bandwidth except for their own self respect. Perhaps it might be better for a total ban on Vox Day since any search results will go to infogalactic thus diverting traffic to the accurate source.

Blogger JDC January 02, 2017 2:09 PM  

Off topic...Prayers needed for the family and fiancé of a good friend who took his life new years day. His name was Fred, and I'll preside over his memorial service on Saturday.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 02, 2017 2:14 PM  

It's doing the same job Winston Smith does in Orwell's fiction; unpersoning people, just like the Stalin-era photo retouching. Unpersoning is intended to make someone not exist in the present, and therefore in a way to have never existed at all. The Wiki-feminists did that to Thomas Ball for obvious reasons.

Anonymous Thales January 02, 2017 2:16 PM  

...Wikipedia...

Wikiwho?

Blogger William Hudson January 02, 2017 2:21 PM  

@8 JDC, That's very sad. I will certainly honor your prayer request.

Blogger William Hudson January 02, 2017 2:28 PM  

@9 A Most Deplorable.....
I have been made an unperson at GatewayPundit for dissing the worthless bastard, Sinner John McCain, and from The Vagina Pirate, a.k.a. PilotOnline.com in NoFuck VA for dissing dindus, libs and fags.

By "unperson", I mean Every Single Post that I ever made on either site was totally deleted by their banning algorithms. I hope I never piss Vox off enough to get banned here.

Blogger tz January 02, 2017 2:30 PM  

Millipede, Centipede, Wikipede - all noxious bugs with too many legs.

We only have a few decades on this planet. I'm amazed SJWs value their lives - their time - so little to busy themselves with insuring their particular gossip is preserved. But GOSS/IP is the latest internet protocol.

OpenID frankluke January 02, 2017 2:30 PM  

I used to be an editor at a Christian publishing house. One of our authors was very noted in the Old Testament field (up until his death he was still being contracted as a translator). A few years ago, while on Wikipedia, I saw his entry was woefully short. Seeing that I had edited his biography and hotlinked several of his books for an electronic study edition, I used those sources to expand it with details of his notable works (including his thesis from Harvard regarding the unity of Isaiah), life as a teacher and theologian, and life before. While there, I added articles for some other renewal theologians, all of whom had been published in major, peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

A day later, I was on WP again. I had a notice that the other theologians were not important enough to warrant inclusion in WP. My sourced edits to Dr. Horton had also been trimmed. Shortly thereafter, none of my edits were visible.

If I still had the article I wrote, I would gladly add it to IG.

Blogger Bard January 02, 2017 2:32 PM  

@JDC
I will too. One of my close friends shot himself 26 Dec 15. Terrible. I spoke at his military memorial. It is tough.

Blogger Johnny January 02, 2017 2:35 PM  

I wonder if I could write a Wikipedia page to myself. I am so non notable that perhaps it would not be noticed. Or, I don't now, make up lies to be notable enough to get a presence, and then to avoid being noticed, delete the lies?

Blogger The Kurgan January 02, 2017 2:40 PM  

Use wayback machine

Blogger Danby January 02, 2017 2:46 PM  

Johnny wrote:I wonder if I could write a Wikipedia page to myself. I am so non notable that perhaps it would not be noticed.
You would never get past the deletebots. They are WP editors who sit on the new articles list, looking for articles to delete. Because they are IMPORTANT DAMNIT!!!

Anonymous Steve January 02, 2017 2:50 PM  

David Gerard

More.

Anonymous Silly but True January 02, 2017 2:56 PM  

@VD,
You know this of course, but the entirety of Wiki's reliable-source policy synergizing with liberal authorities stems entirely from the successful model of policy-based research which began in 60s and exploded with climate policy.

Set the policy (i.e. "narrative") first and then whore out a scientist to fill in the blanks in published study. Then you're golden, because that's just the air of legitimacy thatvcan swing the unknowing.

Blogger 1337kestrel January 02, 2017 2:58 PM  

Yesterday, I used infogalactic to research the Alien and Sedition Acts... I had to, to get accurate information.

Anonymous burgmeister January 02, 2017 3:01 PM  

That didn't take long.

Blogger Dave January 02, 2017 3:17 PM  

Bob Just wrote:I didn't know who this Phil Sandifer is -


Is this the same person responsible for granting VFM status to petitioners? I'm surprised you're not familiar with Phil Sandifer's long and sordid history with this blog. Search the blog and you'll learn more including Vox's debate with Phil.

Blogger Dave January 02, 2017 3:39 PM  

VFM#1819 wrote:As a member of the Burn Unit, I highly encourage everyone interested in Truth to donate time or money or both to this project.

Tired of being on the defensive and itching to do something about it? Join VFM#1819, myself, and many others in this ground floor opportunity to go on the offensive against the SJW thought police. Donate even a few dollars a month or 10x that and be part of turning back the tide. You'll be glad you did. https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Donations

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 02, 2017 3:59 PM  

On Wikipedia thought police----been there, experienced that!

Try to say Sparta is a true Republic. Constant attack. I post six different references, using references from Prof. Terrance Ball, a British prof who wrote a whole book on mixed government and then Prof. Paul A. Rahe, noted historian at Hillsdale College who categorically defines Sparta as a Republic and they deny all these references and noting atht Paul A. Rahe is NOT notable. I've stopped editing at Wikipedia. It is a constant war and when one provides copious references---doesn't matter--it is what a "consensus of majority scholars think"!

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus January 02, 2017 4:03 PM  

Steve wrote:David Gerard

Steve, that was cruel and thoughless of you, just plopping that down like that. How come you never put in an eyebleach warning?

Blogger Thucydides January 02, 2017 4:22 PM  

Vox is notable for living rent free in their heads....

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable January 02, 2017 4:27 PM  

@19. Glad to see you're still on the job, Steve. Gonna go gargle now.

Blogger Alfred Genesson January 02, 2017 4:33 PM  

@23
Don't you dare suggest that was a debate. Entertainment, certainly, but the only beating worse than that in recent times was Rousey's comeback attempt.

Anonymous Steve January 02, 2017 4:57 PM  

Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus, 5343 Kinds of Deplorable - You are most welcome, chaps.

If you think that was bad, you should've seen the pic of his polyamorous purple-haired physiognomically-challenged beau I didn't share.

Blogger Nick S January 02, 2017 4:59 PM  

Gerard's impressions posted on Ol' Flog Worthy's blog makes them doubly fatuous.

Blogger Feather Blade January 02, 2017 5:03 PM  

@26 Steve strikes when you least expect it.

OpenID frankluke January 02, 2017 5:09 PM  

@17

Good idea! However, they didn't crawl the page on the few days my article was there. I've checked the WP history, too. I did that after it first disappeared. They completely memory holed it.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable January 02, 2017 5:11 PM  

you should've seen the pic of his polyamorous purple-haired physiognomically-challenged beau I didn't share.

There's a Steve FILTER? The mind reels ...

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus January 02, 2017 5:15 PM  

Steve wrote:Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus, 5343 Kinds of Deplorable - You are most welcome, chaps.

If you think that was bad, you should've seen the pic of his polyamorous purple-haired physiognomically-challenged beau I didn't share.


Too late. I, and millions of others, have already gone blind because of you and now you'll have to agonize over that for the rest of your life. Maybe you'll write a book about it while picking through the ruins of our former civilization- "Day of the Steve".

Anonymous LastRedoubt January 02, 2017 5:20 PM  

@8 JDC.

My prayers are with them.

Blogger Dave January 02, 2017 5:28 PM  

Feather Blade wrote:
@26
Steve strikes when you least expect it.


When Steve posts a link you soon learn to expect the worst.


Alfred Genesson wrote:
@23
Don't you dare suggest that was a debate. Entertainment, certainly, but the only beating worse than that in recent times was Rousey's comeback attempt.


You got that right, my bad.

Blogger Fenris Wulf January 02, 2017 5:32 PM  

Gerard did, indeed, write an exceedingly silly review of a Castalia book. I'm flattered to have my own Alexei Panshin.

Blogger Alfred Genesson January 02, 2017 5:34 PM  

@26-
There clearly was an eyebleach warning. That warning was "Steve".

Blogger Fenris Wulf January 02, 2017 5:41 PM  

Egads. I didn't know Gerard was one of the founders of RationalWiki, which reads like a snarky blog written by a single person. He's like Bizarro Vox Day.

Blogger Dave January 02, 2017 5:47 PM  

Fenris Wulf wrote:Gerard did, indeed, write an exceedingly silly review of a Castalia book. I'm flattered to have my own Alexei Panshin.

Heh, you've (almost) arrived; how many times has your wikipedia page been deleted?

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable January 02, 2017 5:55 PM  

how many times has your wikipedia page been deleted?

The SJWs are still convinced Fenris IS Vox.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 02, 2017 7:00 PM  

David Gerard, who is an admin and is so neutral on the subject that he cited Phil Sandifier as a reliable source, removed all references to Infogalactic and tried to deny my involvement with it.

Ha Ha Ha (*gasp...wheez...gasp*) Ha Ha Ha

It hurts...It hurts!!!

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 02, 2017 7:09 PM  

The SJWs are still convinced Fenris IS Vox.

Hey, when I was reading Loki's Child I thought so too.

The chapter on Japanese Metal, seemed like it was damn near a signature.

Loki's Child begins as an in depth wade through the outdoor sewer known as the music industry, by someone who clearly and obviously knows what he is talking about. The deep and abiding love of music, the debasement of talent and the relentless subjugation of art to a system that only pretends it’s doing it for money but in truth loves above all things relentless control of the free. These are the penetrating and overriding themes of this book.

Anonymous Wooly Phlox January 02, 2017 7:46 PM  

Colon "I" doesn't work in Brave any more.

It reverts to a Google search page, with the Wiki entry on top.

I just typed ":i Francisco Franco" in the address bar, and got that page, with my search, modified in Google's search box (not the address bar) as "i:i Francisco Franco".

I tried it three times. Same result.

Anonymous Wooly Phlox January 02, 2017 7:48 PM  

If it was i&i I'd suspect the Jamaicans of hacking.

Anonymous whatwedontknow January 02, 2017 8:11 PM  

Wikipedia can't stay a monopoly forever, but countering them will require asymmetric warfare. A lower notability barrier may be the best way to start. Everyone on earth could have their own article.

Blogger VD January 02, 2017 8:32 PM  

Colon "I" doesn't work in Brave any more.

Try updating. I just used it. It works fine.

Blogger VD January 02, 2017 8:32 PM  

Has to be a small "i", however. Capital "G" doesn't work for Google either.

Blogger pdwalker January 02, 2017 10:09 PM  

David Van Dyke was also unpersoned at Wikipedia. i wish i could find the delete page discussion so i could see what their justification was.

if i were to hazard a guess, i'd say they may be targeting authors who've "mistakenly" published with Castalia House because Vanity Press or some such nonsense.

Thank the Dread Lord of Overarching Evilness and Cute Puppies(tm) for this spot of light in the darkness.

Blogger Sam Smith January 02, 2017 11:00 PM  

Hey Vox!

Did you know I wrote many articles on David Gerard and his activities on Wikimedia and another site he spends a lot of time on - RationalWiki.

"Rational Wiki #1 – David Gerard and the Paedophiles of Wikipedia"
http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=2855

"Rational Wiki #2 – Wikimedia UK CEO Distances Herself from Rational Wiki and Sinister Paedophile Enabler David Gerard"
http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=2861

"Rational Wiki #3 – Gabriel Holl, Moderator, Resigns After Receiving Draft Article About Paedophile, Stating He Will “leave that s***hole to rot”"
http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=2963

Blogger wreckage January 02, 2017 11:59 PM  

"but he's very commercially successful, so he must be notable"

Now on wikipedia: success no longer counts as success!

These people need to be destroyed as a social force.

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot January 03, 2017 1:38 AM  

Just a thought ...

When Infogalactic forked Wikipedia, did that also pull in the editing history?

If that's the case, then one of the more interesting things that could be implemented to speed editing along of highly contested pages would be a "gaslight mask" of sorts.

One piece of code could mock up all of the various versions of the page as an additive overlay, while another would pull pieces away according to the editing history. Those negative deltas would then be filtered against known gaslighting operations, and in fact such an analytical space could be used to build a more accurate profile of what online gaslighting actually looks like.

In other words, you'd have a programmatic SJW buster of sorts.

Has anyone within Infogalactic thought about this sort of thing along these lines?

Why not make "big data" work for a real public interest for a change ...

Anonymous jakob January 03, 2017 5:02 AM  

Ah Sandifier. Pedo apologist par excellence one day, shriekingly accuses pro-Gamergate webcomic author of being degenerate pedo next day. Sees no issues with that, and continues is same style.

Blogger Thucydides January 05, 2017 5:52 PM  

I wonder if to would be possible to auto generate pages, keep a rolling IP address so they can't identify the source and close it down and simply pull the "library of babel" trick own them.

Auto generated pages coming in at a fast and furious clip to overwhelm the admins and SJW thought police, diverting their attention, or causing them to hire/entice more SJWs into an ever increasing admin pool, burt either way diverting resources from other things they might do.

Just spitballing at the moment.....

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts