Talk:Rupert Allason/Archives/2014/August

If One Can Be Allowed To Weigh In ...

I have been following this discussion over the last few days. I was directed to this entry through a colleague who has done some work with Wikipedia and asked for my thoughts.

There are two things that stand out in the piece as written, and those two things don't belong: the comments about the man and his character. They don't belong because they don't reflect the objective of the encyclopedia: neutral, unbiased content. That the comments can be perceived as negative isn't the point. They stand out for the wrong reasons and potentially create an unfair bias.

Justice Laddie's remarks -- the rarity and vituperativeness of same made news at the time and are still extraordinary to this day -- are just the sort papers love to run with because they make good copy. Nevertheless, the presentation of Justice Laddie's opinion of Mr. Allason is just that -- an opinion. It is not a fact. Nor does Justice Laddie's opinion having been splashed in the pages of the press make it true.

To all involved here -- by definition, Wikipedia's purpose, and its benefit, is to give neutral, objective, encyclopedic coverage of a topic/subject with the core approach being neutral unbiased article writing. It is understood there will be naturally be some degree of implicit bias.

While this collaborative effort is an on-going process -- and particularly as the subject remains alive and productive -- to divert the original purpose or use same as a platform to subjectively impose a point of view on a subject, dilutes the validity of this entry, and the source itself (see excerpt 1 from Wikipedia below).

Matt Crypto has asked Balliol about his relationship with Rupert Allason. Having read his increasingly impatient tone to seemingly genuine requests for compromise and dialogue over a matter of seeming irrelevance, I would ask Matt Crypto the same question.

I would ask if what Matt Crypto is attempting by including the quoted remarks about Mr. Allason is in good faith (see excerpt 2 from Wikipedia below)? Is there any animus behind the inclusion of the quoted material?

I ask because Matt Crypto is on record as saying of himself: "Matt Crypto is a freaky stalker weirdo who rants on Wikipedia and he is so bad that he helped to inspire the term 'wikiling writers' as a reference to him and others of his ilk. He knowingly engages in personal attacks and deletions of and vandalism of any information (even links) that explain the connection between Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy and National Socialism. He spams screeds about his propaganda all over Wikipedia."

Therefore there is cause for legitimate concern as to the nature of and reason for his desire to include the quoted material.

Balliol has tried in earnest, as the above Talk dialogue attests, to reach a compromise over material the inclusion of which can only be construed to do Mr. Allason harm.

What value does inclusion of Justice Laddie's remarks add to the entry? They can, whether substantive or not, only be interpretted one way -- as can the decision to include them.

The facts of the case are not included: rather links to the media's interpretation of same. Instead we read excerpts of the justice's comments and his decision. Why is it so important to Matt Crypto? I thought the revision by Balliol made the point that Allason lost the case without Justice Laddie's character assasination. It was factual.

Certainly there are other more successful and legitimate means of promoting one's ideas on a subject, and for sharing others thoughts on an individual or subject.

As it stands, there are comments within that attempt to establish through bias, for whatever reasons, the personality and character of the individual which is not the purpose of the site. That is what the tabloids are for.

No matter how well-publicised in the local media, inclusion of a judge's comments on the subject, the judge himself rather a controversial figure, are out of place, as no counterpoint or balance to the rest of the subject's legal career is offered.

Anyone with interest in the subject will investigate further and make his/her own conclusions.

To all comers, I have never met Rupert Allason, Balliol, or Matt Crypto.

References:

1. Wikipedia is not a battleground

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly toward you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.

When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[2] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

2. Vandalism

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

˜˜˜˜Wrenciller, 10:36, 1 December 2006 (PST)

I do not appreciate your insinuations about my motives. Wrenciller, if you can give any credible evidence that I've gone on the record to say of myself "Matt Crypto is a freaky stalker weirdo who rants on Wikipedia...", or else apologise for your mistake, then I might consider discussing this article with you. If you wish instead to smear my character by quoting from a banned net kook, then I have no interest in spending my free time talking with you. — Matt Crypto 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just now Googled "Matt Crypto"+"freaky stalker" and got 187 hits. But that's beside the point. Perhaps those represent 187 opinions of what they think Matt Crypto said of himself. The quote I used was attributable to him.

Before I wrote my initial comments above, because I sought to determine what the issues could be behind what seems a straight forward matter, I did a refined search on "Balliol" and "Matt Crypto." From the former I found measured debate and courtesy. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same from the search on "Matt Crypto." I invite all comers to do so for themselves. I used a level playing field for both parties in this debate: the worldwide web.

Having used what was available on the internet, whether Matt Crypto said what he said about himself or not, underscores the very points I make in my initial comments above. If Wikipedia wishes to be treated as a viable, serious reference tool, it needs to reosrt to the facts -- not opinions, not hearsay. It is not a vehicle to be used for score settling.

Which returns this discussion back to the point at hand: is Matt Crypto acting in good faith by attempting to insist that quotes -- which can only be construed as negative and harmful; and can only be considered as opinion and not fact -- about Mr. Allason should be included in an encyclopedia, especially as his wish to include them appear (by the very nature and tone of his argument) to run counter to the spirit and intent of Wikipedia.

And the larger questions remain unanswered. Why does Matt Crypto feel so strongly about the inclusion of the "quotes"? What is the nature and reason behind the wish to include such quotes? What is his relationship to Mr. Allason? Is he acting in good faith?

Nothing is insinuated, Matt Crypto. I raised viable questions based upon an unbiased reading of the tone of a debate. Prior to making comment, I researched both parties involved. The information is available to any who wish to do so for themselves on the internet.

˜˜˜˜Wrenciller, 9:30, 2 December 2006 (PST)

Righty. I have no interest in your comments. — Matt Crypto 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Wrenciller, the simple fact is that the remarks of Laddie J were given after a hotly contested trial of a claim brought by Mr Allason. His judgment was never appealed (at least, not successfully) and therefore stands as an indictment of the man's character. The rules about NPOV do not require entries on Wikipedia to ignore unfavourable things about the people they portray. Mr Allason is a highly successful author and a public figure (formerly an elected politician) and comments of this nature by independent judges are therefore a matter of public interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.83.147.19 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)