Wikipedia : The limits and dangers of truthiness.

At this stage, I still have hope that my Wikipedia situation can be amicably resolved, but I am keen to have a calm workspace to air my thoughts, hence this post.

I'm an interested, occasionally motivated, but fundamentally quite mundane editor over there who has now been 'indefinitely blocked' from editing several times. In my opinion, essentially for disagreeing with some powerful editors.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, and ins and outs of mine and others' behaviour, I've noticed more and more a scary tendency for 'truthiness' to play a role in both dispute resolution, and in the decision making processes of editors who should know better (the oft referred to 'cabal' - which more accurately is a fairly disparate, but very 'wiki-powerful' group of individuals).

Specifically today, there's a feeling being spread and nurtured that I have been 'trolling' the Wikipedia article page about Giovanni di Stefano - a colourful and controversial lawyer. The idea that I am being disruptive, and not just trying to get to the bottom of something is an idea that once planted, the seed grows, and quietly and insidiously my integrity is undermined.


I haven't been trolling at all, and my contributions there (as I would assert elsewhere, and everywhere) are sound. Please (please please) ask for a 'diff' or any other evidence at all should you wish to take a look at the truth, not the truthiness of the situation. For the record, here is the post which led to the article, and talk page being deleted and recreated;

The following are all from publications widely used as reliable sources throughout the wiki, for both straightforward, and controversial claims. To use a fairly common, but sensitive example, we are happy to use many of the following as a source for a conviction, or notable personal scandal. Could we please please please go through these one by one and work out if any are 'allowed'.

I'm still trying to understand if we are rejecting every single one currently, and why;

*The independent mentions a fraud conviction.

*Irish times April 20, 2006 mentions a fraud conviction

*new zealand herald mentions a fraud conviction

*Variety mentions a fraud conviction

*The US District Court mentions a fraud conviction

*The Guardian mentions qualifications issues and a fraud conviction

*The Scotsman mentions qualifications issues and a fraud conviction

*The Guardian again mention the qualifications issues and the fraud conviction.

This is of course a collation of previous editors' work - thanks to all. ~~~~

The posturing and misrepresentation of my contributions sickens me, and in this arena, truthiness causes significant damage to community morale, as well as being just plain wrong.

Finally (because let's face it, this isn't all that interesting really) - I'd say to all to tread carefully. I believe admin 'JzG' to have acted unethically in sharing privately submitted information online, I believe admin 'David Gerard' to have irresponsibly published this information online, and at this stage, I know nothing more of admin. Mercury than the fact that he appears to be a useful admin, acting in misguided good faith.

that's all folks.
PM


ps. I would support the right of any editor, in any circumstance, to post in this manner, without further ugly aspersions being cast on them whilst working 'on-wiki'. An indefinite block leaves one reeling, and to desire to have a voice is a powerful human urge from which I am not exempt. I hope you feel the same way.