Re: Ian clarke, self-proclaimed free-speech fan, censors criticism of the freenet-project

I was surprised to notice that Newsbyte hadn't continued his pathetic  
battle to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his views, and then I  
noticed that my prediction came true and a Wikipedia editor had  
banned him for his activities on the Freenet article.  See [1].

Of course, Newsbyte, with his indestructible and grossly inflated  
sense of the value of his own opinions is  bound to accuse the  
Wikipedia editor of being a Freenet fanboy, as that is the only  
possible explanation for this that is compatible with his warped and  
self-aggrandizing world view.

Ian.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.144.64.17

On 10 Jan 2006, at 19:55, Newsbyte wrote:

> Well...someone with Ians' nick, anyway, but I thought the title of  
> this post
> should reflect in the same way as that of Ians' about me. Equal  
> treatement,
> after all (no doubt he will be lecturing again about off-topic posts,
> neglecting his same, earlier behaviour). And besides, I think there is
> little doubt; feel free to deny it if it's not true/you, Ian.
>
> As one can see on the wikipedia, a small group of freenet-fanboys  
> there, and
> probably Ian himself,  have consistently tried to censor any form of
> criticism. Now, I myself am still fond of the freenet as a concept  
> too, but
> that doesn't mean I have to close my eyes for the things that go  
> wrong, and
> neither should anyone else, if they are really serious with helping  
> the
> project. But aparently, Ian and his cronies do not only not agree  
> with the
> criticism, they even don't want any mentionning that there *is*  
> citicism on
> the freenetproject.
>
> Constantly new excuses are sought to justify the ongoing  
> revertions, even
> AFTER the agreement was reached that we would abide by the  
> compromise a
> wiki-admin had made with an edit. First, it was because it was  
> posted by me;
> but when somebody else posts it, it's to no avail anyway. Then, in the
> interest of keeping the peace on the wikipedia, I agree with the  
> decision of
> a wiki-admin...but aparently, *I* am the only one considered to be  
> bound to
> it, and when a very watered-down wikiadmin-edit with the  
> acknowledgement
> that at least there IS criticism of the freenet-project, then  
> suddenly no-1
> else feels bothered by completely ignoring the agreement. When I  
> revert to
> that of the wikadmin-version, it is claimed there are no sources  
> mentionned,
> when I give a wikipage where the sources *are* mentionned, it is  
> claimed
> they are not notable, etc.
>
> As one can see, a perfect catch-22; no criticism exists, because no  
> sources
> can be given, and when sources are given, then they are proclaimed  
> to be of
> trolls and lamenters and not notable, which means no sources have  
> to be
> reckoned with, which means the mentionning of the fact that there is
> criticism can be deleted, so no critcism exists...
>
> Thus even the simple fact that there *is* criticism is conveniently  
> and
> self-servingly kept out of the wikipedia-page, as if no such thing  
> exists;
> but in any pragmatic sense, it is clear it is just used by Ian and  
> consorts
> to let it appear if no such thing exists - completely in line whith  
> his
> continuous habbit of over-optimistic claims and mispresenting, in  
> this case,
> an article by making it less NPOV (which inherently happens, if you  
> censor
> criticism - a fact dictators well know, as Ian should know, seen his
> purported 'free-speech in china' goal).
>
> Is this fair and honest? A rethorical question indeed, because  
> someone with
> a grain of honesty in his bones, would at least admit that there *is*
> criticism, whether you agree with it or not. But not so Ian and  
> consorts,
> ofcourse. *They* think their ego and keeping their pet-project on a  
> pedestal
> is more important then making a more NPOV wikipedia-article by  
> including
> various criticisms on the Freenet Project.
>
> I'm actually not surpised to see him&co reacting like this, because I
> already encountered the hypocrisy on his own blog (free speech  
> proponent, my
> ass)..but it still saddens me he is now using the wikipedia as his/ 
> their
> personal playground to work out his frustrated ego and bias.
>
> I would ask anyone with a free and open mind to edit the wikipedia
> freenet-article in a NPOV way, so that it may also contain the more  
> negative
> facts and some criticism, and not only acts as if no criticism  
> exists. Yes,
> I know, we all like freenet, at least as a concept, otherwise we  
> wouldn't be
> here, but I would like to remind everyone that a project is *not*  
> helped by
> optimistically misrepresenting things, neither by closing ones'  
> eyes for
> things that are poorly managed, and certainly not denying that  
> there IS
> criticism possible and being given. When making an NPOV article about
> freenet, one should at least acknowledge that; the wikipedia  
> deserves such a
> thing. Understand me well; I'm not asking anyone to agree with my  
> particular
> criticism, I'm only asking that one can acknowledge that some - maybe
> including you - have criticism on the project, and, of course, to  
> make clear
> that any criticism should not be considered a threat, but rather a  
> wortwhile
> effort to point errors out, or at least to come to a more NPOV
> wikipedia-article.
>
> friendly regards,
>
> Newsbyte
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
>

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe