Wikipedia Cuts on the Bias

[HRIP7]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/douglas-an ... 52869.html

They say that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. What this quip fails to acknowledge, however, is just what an achievement the camel is. No mean feat to design one.

Wikipedia is a camel.

[...]

You see, I've been involved in a highly controversial project, here on the Huffington Post, to promote the No Kill movement -- a bid to reform animal shelters -- and this has earned me more than a few enemies: mostly supporters of PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, who are bitter opponents of No Kill.

[...]

Seems that JohnDopp, neutral arbiter of all things me-related, is the webmaster of the single most prominent website devoted to discrediting enemies of the Humane Society: Humanewatch Info. If the world offered a prize -- something like the Nobel, or an Oscar, for conflict of interest -- JohnDopp would be Mr. Conflict of Interest 2012. He's the Michael Phelps of bias.

[...]

Here's where Wikipedia itself is put to the test. I admire the project -- always have -- but how do the official gardeners at Wikipedia respond when they have a snake in their grass?

Wikipedia's first response was to ban me from commenting.

[...]

[Randy from Boise]

The piece on the slightly disgruntled HuffPost author survived AfD as a Keep on Oct. 6:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ony_Cooper

Ironically, the dreaded bogeyman JohnDopp was among those voting Keep.


RfB

[Moonage Daydream]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/douglas-an ... 52869.html

They say that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. What this quip fails to acknowledge, however, is just what an achievement the camel is. No mean feat to design one.

Wikipedia is a camel.

[...]

You see, I've been involved in a highly controversial project, here on the Huffington Post, to promote the No Kill movement -- a bid to reform animal shelters -- and this has earned me more than a few enemies: mostly supporters of PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, who are bitter opponents of No Kill.

[...]

Seems that JohnDopp, neutral arbiter of all things me-related, is the webmaster of the single most prominent website devoted to discrediting enemies of the Humane Society: Humanewatch Info. If the world offered a prize -- something like the Nobel, or an Oscar, for conflict of interest -- JohnDopp would be Mr. Conflict of Interest 2012. He's the Michael Phelps of bias.

[...]

Here's where Wikipedia itself is put to the test. I admire the project -- always have -- but how do the official gardeners at Wikipedia respond when they have a snake in their grass?

Wikipedia's first response was to ban me from commenting.

[...]

It appears that JohnDopp (T-C-L) is John Doppler Schiff, webmaster of Humanewatch.info. Humanewatch.info is a website about Humanewatch.org, which in turn is a website about the Humane Society of the United States. Enjoy this gem from JohnDopp's user page: "I respect Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and adhere to its guidelines. To avoid conflicts of interest, I do not edit articles regarding the insurance industry."

[TungstenCarbide]

It appears that JohnDopp (T-C-L) is John Doppler Schiff, webmaster of Humanewatch.info. Humanewatch.info is a website about Humanewatch.org, which in turn is a website about the Humane Society of the United States. Enjoy this gem from JohnDopp's user page: "I respect Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and adhere to its guidelines. To avoid conflicts of interest, I do not edit articles regarding the insurance industry."

[Michaeldsuarez]

It appears that JohnDopp (T-C-L) is John Doppler Schiff, webmaster of Humanewatch.info. Humanewatch.info is a website about Humanewatch.org, which in turn is a website about the Humane Society of the United States. Enjoy this gem from JohnDopp's user page: "I respect Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and adhere to its guidelines. To avoid conflicts of interest, I do not edit articles regarding the insurance industry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#Edits_Made_by_JohnDopp_in_Re:_Douglas_Anthony_Cooper:

When that conflict of interest was made plain by several editors on “talk” and “articles for deletion” pages, JohnDopp squawked that his privacy was being compromised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADouglas_Anthony_Cooper&action=history&year=2012&month=9

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=515001701&oldid=514999597

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3A189.148.186.149

If JohnDopp is so concerned about his privacy, then why did he chose "JohnDopp" as his username. If Fae is so so concerned about his privacy, then why did he upload photos of himself to Commons, reveal his identity to WMUK, and become one of WMUK's trustees? Wikipedians don't make any sense. They don't take even the simplest of measures to safeguard their privacy yet they expect others to look the other way. Why should "189.148.186.149" be punished for JohnDopp's carelessness? Why are Wikipedians covering up the obvious?

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/189.148.186.149/Archive

Why is JohnDopp allowed to out CandaceWare and Larkinvonalt and use Facebook as evidence yet no one is allowed to out JohnDopp or use WHOIS as evidence (e.g. Delicious carbuncle in the Fae case)?

[eppur si muove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/189.148.186.149/Archive

Why is JohnDopp allowed to out CandaceWare and Larkinvonalt and use Facebook as evidence yet no one is allowed to out JohnDopp or use WHOIS as evidence (e.g. Delicious carbuncle in the Fae case)?

Andhy is a self-evident SPA allowed to get away with complaining that his opponents are also SPAs?

[larkinvonalt]

I realize this thread is old . . . but I've just recently found you. I thought you might be interested to know that the bias on which Wikipedia cuts is so severe that by "outing" John Dopp I was banned from contribution or editing on Wikipedia for life. (I understand this puts me in good company, but still . . . )

[Vigilant]

I realize this thread is old . . . but I've just recently found you. I thought you might be interested to know that the bias on which Wikipedia cuts is so severe that by "outing" John Dopp I was banned from contribution or editing on Wikipedia for life. (I understand this puts me in good company, but still . . . )

Shhhhh, shhhhh, shhhhh

There, there.
All that's happened is that you have to make a new account.
It doesn't hurt.

[tarantino]

I realize this thread is old . . . but I've just recently found you. I thought you might be interested to know that the bias on which Wikipedia cuts is so severe that by "outing" John Dopp I was banned from contribution or editing on Wikipedia for life. (I understand this puts me in good company, but still . . . )

Welcome. I think you were wrong about about John Dopp being Qworty, though.

Please see "Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia" and and Wikipediocracy's coverage on Qworty.

[larkinvonalt]

Yes, I think you're right that I was wrong about JohnDopp and Qworty being one and the same. Cut from the same cloth perhaps.

Here's the thing about a new account. I posted there with my real name. (As I do here.) Though it leaves me vulnerable, I have a "thing" about owning what you write, particularly opinion. (I know, so stodgy and old-fashioned.)

But the "punishment" meted out seemed a little, um, excessive, given the supposed infraction.

[larkinvonalt]

Tarantino,
Thanks for the links. (And the welcome.) Fascinating how it all unraveled for old Q., and that it should all come down to yet another failed writer with the same old sophomoric jealousies.

[EricBarbour]

I forgot about this story. If someone can write a decent summary about JohnDopp's abuses on WP, I'll make a blog post out of it.

Also pointing a connection out: Stop HumaneWatch shrieks constantly about one of HumaneWatch's funders and supporters, one Richard Berman. We've been down that road before, from a different direction. And whenever you bring up Berman and his "Center for Consumer Freedom (T-H-L)", inevitably SlimVirgin makes an appearance. Or scores of appearances.