"Engineer Ed" Hoax Proves Bias at Wikipedia

Take a look at this message left for a Wikipedia editor:

TruthSeeker1234 Journalism

I am indeed writing an article about my experience here, about Wikipedia in general, and about 9/11 articles in particular. I did write a draft a few weeks ago, however there is much more to write about now, so I have held off on seeking a publisher. Since you and other administrators are partly the subject, I offer you the opportunity to dialog with me, to be interviewed by phone or email. Prior to seeking publication, I will make a copy available to you, and ask for any corrections, clarifications, or comments that you wish to make.

Contrary to your concerns, this is not meant to be a "threat" of any kind. I am merely exercising free speech, and of the press. I find WIkipedia very interesting. Many people enjoy being the subject of articles.

Of course you are under no obligation to dialog with me at all, and I would never violate your privacy. I hope this clears up the questions you have voiced on other pages.

TruthSeeker1234 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Click to expand...
This is just an example. I tried to stay away from the "Collapse" article, and concentrated on other 9/11 articles. I didn't have the patience to wade into that. I can only commend Tom and the others for dealing with TS over those many months.

-Kate
 
What I've learned about Wikipedia is that if you post up garbage, no matter how obscure the article, it'll get corrected eventually.

I'm not sure what TS1234 is trying to show here besides not many people read about the Fuji tower.
 
Debunk911Myths said:
That's correct. Decisions are made by reaching consensus, with discussions on the talk page.

Wikipedia has "admins" who have extra tools for doing janitorial work, such as cleaning up vandalism (rollback edits, block vandals - often juveniles on the computer at school), can delete articles (after consensus is reached in AFDs), can edit protected pages such as Wikipedia's main page.
Click to expand...

There are various speedy deletion criteria and while they can edit protected pages there are very few situations where it is considered right that they do.
 
geni said:
while they can edit protected pages there are very few situations where it is considered right that they do.
Click to expand...

The ability to edit protected pages mainly applies to interface pages. This is so that profanity and inappropriate images do not end up on Wikipedia's home page.

When an article is fully protected (rarely happens), its because of a content dispute which needs to be resolved on the talk page. An uninvolved third party admin would help mediate.

-Kate
 
I am always astounded by what is considered "journalism" on the internet. A journalist doesn't depend on one source for their information, they use multiple-independent verifiable sources. Meaning, they make sure that their sources are not getting their information from the same source. Many "truthers" who come to this site, for example, will list many sites that back up their theories, but all those sites usually lead back to the same original source.

Another example of the lack of journalistic integrity, Chris Bollyn is often sited by proponents of the CTists/ers for his investigative skills. In one article "Ben Chertoff:Propagandist & Illuminati Disinformation Tool," he claims to have proof that Popular Mechanics is a tool of the Gubmint. After having placed two phone calls, one to Benjamin Chertoff (researcher at PM) and to Ben's mother, he came to the conclusion that Ben Chertoff is a close relation to Michael Chertoff (Sec. of Homeland Security) and therefore a tool of the gubmint. The problem is of the two people he talked to only one believed they were, his mother, who (for those keeping track at home) would be Mrs. Chertoff and related by marriage to the Chertoff family. His investigation ended there, probably because he got the answer he wanted from at least one source. Most investigators would have looked further and dug deeper, looking at the birth records or genealogy sites. Possibly follow up with Ben about what his mother said. This article then made it's way around the net, and became a way of argueing against the article (never mind the other 300 contributers to the article would have to also be willing to cover-up the murder of 3000 people), and became the subject of many articles which then became the sources of other articles. All leading back to the same piece of bad information.

Wikipedia is used as the source of information by many people and has to have a higher standard than the rest of the internet, if it is going to keep it's reputation above reproach.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, I am the same TruthSeeker1234 that is currently banned from editing Wikipedia, for my having conceived and executed the "Engineer Ed" Hoax. I was sick of having my mainstrem-sourced interesting facts repeatedly deleted from 9/11 articles, so I created a sockpuppet named Engineer Ed. Ed was a structural engineer who claimed to have witnessed the "Fuji Tower" collapse in Houston Texas in which a drug-using crane operator initiated a complete pulverizing, molten-metal inducing "collapse" back in the 1990's. Ed was billegernt, arrogant, and demeaning of the Truth Movement, even had his insults "Cleansed" by administrators at one point. Even so, when Ed finally inserted the Fuji Tower incident into the article, it remained there work over a week. No one removed it despite the fact that Ed have never posted a single source of any kind.

It only came to light when I admitted it. I couldn't stand it any longer, it was just too damn funny.

And Yet,


During that same week. TruthSeeker1234's edits to Wikipedia were the subject of intense scrutiny, disappearing within one half hour. Attempts on the part of TruthSeeker1234 to insert actual mainsteam-sourced facts into the article were deleted within one half hour.

As I recall, the last fact that was rejected at Wikipedia was the New York TImes article entitled
which has now been cleansed to read



The Engineer Ed Hoax was modeled after the Sokal hoax.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair


Discuss amongst yourselves.
Click to expand...
I thought you left - somebody want to threaten someone else again - feel free to threaten me - I won't take umbrage!!!!!!
 
It's wiki...I would not trust it anymore than I can throw it...and since I can't throw it...

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
It's wiki...I would not trust it anymore than I can throw it...and since I can't throw it...

TAM
Click to expand...

...and since i know that "yes, i´m the same truthsqueezer1234..."
is abusing Wikipedia.... :boggled:
 
Let's see. I tried to add molten metal into the article for weeks on end. Now, is there anyone here who wants to attempt to make the case that molten metal was not observed flowing and in pools in the rubble of all three "collapsed" WTC buildings, and also cascading out of WTC2 at the 80th floor? Of course it was. These are mainstream facts.

These are facts which are totally censored, at least they were when I was trying to edit. Wikipedia aministrator Tom Harrison repeatedly deleted my factual edits. He and admininstrator "Mongo" run a very effective "good cop/bad cop" routine. Mongo, who works for Department of Homeland Security, is continualy serving up the flame bait, while Tom Harrison quiety deletes anything outside the official script.

Say all you want about my tactics, the record shows TruthSeeker1234 only posted truthful edits, and most of those edits were deleted. The correct term for that at Wikipedia is "vandalism". I hereby repeat and reallege that Tom Harrison vandalised my work at Wikipedia.

Only as "Engineer Ed" did I ever put false stuff in the article, I did it to make a great point, the point was made, and for my effort I was awarded Wiki Barnstars.

Yes, so here is the beginning of your article Mongo and Tom Harrison. I am proud of what I did. The cleansing of the New York Times article is quite interesting, doens't anybody question why Jame Glanz went and changed that article so much?
 
Getting closer to Christophera-land with every post, THX1138.

Referring to yourself in the third person too, WTF is up with that?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Let's see. I tried to add molten metal into the article for weeks on end. Now, is there anyone here who wants to attempt to make the case that molten metal was not observed flowing and in pools in the rubble of all three "collapsed" WTC buildings, and also cascading out of WTC2 at the 80th floor? Of course it was. These are mainstream facts.

These are facts which are totally censored, at least they were when I was trying to edit. Wikipedia aministrator Tom Harrison repeatedly deleted my factual edits. He and admininstrator "Mongo" run a very effective "good cop/bad cop" routine. Mongo, who works for Department of Homeland Security, is continualy serving up the flame bait, while Tom Harrison quiety deletes anything outside the official script.

Say all you want about my tactics, the record shows TruthSeeker1234 only posted truthful edits, and most of those edits were deleted. The correct term for that at Wikipedia is "vandalism". I hereby repeat and reallege that Tom Harrison vandalised my work at Wikipedia.

Only as "Engineer Ed" did I ever put false stuff in the article, I did it to make a great point, the point was made, and for my effort I was awarded Wiki Barnstars.

Yes, so here is the beginning of your article Mongo and Tom Harrison. I am proud of what I did. The cleansing of the New York Times article is quite interesting, doens't anybody question why Jame Glanz went and changed that article so much?
Click to expand...

While you´re online, TS:

Would anyone, who may ever have planted anything
in one of the buildings to bring it or them down:

Would´nt they blow it up in a way, that would !!!NOT!!!
look like a controlled demolition? Why the heck should
they make it look like a controlled demolition?

Because that someone like you can ask millions
of stupid questions about it? Do you think that
those people, who would be able to do something,
are idiots?

Seriously - think!
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
It's wiki...I would not trust it anymore than I can throw it...and since I can't throw it...
Click to expand...

Cds containing copies of wikipedia exist how far can you throw those?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Ed was a structural engineer who claimed to have witnessed the "Fuji Tower" collapse in Houston Texas in which a drug-using crane operator initiated a complete pulverizing, molten-metal inducing "collapse" back in the 1990's. Ed was billegernt, arrogant, and demeaning of the Truth Movement, even had his insults "Cleansed" by administrators at one point. Even so, when Ed finally inserted the Fuji Tower incident into the article, it remained there work over a week. No one removed it despite the fact that Ed have never posted a single source of any kind.

It only came to light when I admitted it. I couldn't stand it any longer, it was just too damn funny.
Click to expand...

Really funny, Engineer Ed. :) Anyway, the point that wikipedia represents the "consensus" and censores controversial views had not to be proven as it is immanent to the way that thing works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom