"Engineer Ed" Hoax Proves Bias at Wikipedia

TruthSeeker1234

Banned
T
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,756
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
"[SIZE=+1]ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC[/SIZE]

"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED.
Click to expand...
which has now been cleansed to read
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel

function submitCCCForm(){ PopUp = window.open('', '_Icon','location=no,toolbar=no,status=no,width=650,height=550,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes'); this.document.cccform.submit(); }
*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information.
November 29, 2001, Thursday
By JAMES GLANZ (NYT); Metropolitan Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section B, Page 9, Column 1, 1557 words
Click to expand...


The Engineer Ed Hoax was modeled after the Sokal hoax.


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


Discuss amongst yourselves.
 
Last edited:
You appearantly believe that any malicious and dishonest behavior is justified when done in the name of your religion.

How long until you start stuffing your vest pockets with C4 and ball-bearings?
 
Similar to the kkkilltown klown, this guy seems to delight in doing dishonest things and then bragging about them on message boards.

It takes a special kind of conspiraloon to engage in such behaviour.
 
So then, you admit to lieing and making up data.
hmmmmm. How very interesting.
 
Well, to be fair, he has a point:

Falsified lies and errors are given more tolerance for the 'OCT'. Falsified lies and errors for CT are not.

Hence, there is a bias...
 
Since Wiki can be edited by any loon with an internet connection, if they can be bothered, probably no-one could be bothered to edit your last post.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Well, to be fair, he has a point:

Falsified lies and errors are given more tolerance for the 'OCT'. Falsified lies and errors for CT are not.

Hence, there is a bias...
Click to expand...

Well TS puts up bad information so his edits are more carefully monitored. The fake information that supports the "OCT" was removed in a 7 days. Not too bad in my opinion.
 
:confused: I thought Wikipedia could be edited by anyone. If there's a bias, it's a free-market bias, not a heirarchical one.
 
Seems to me that all this shows is that the WTC events are better understood, by more people, than the Fuji Tower incident.

Surpring no one. I've looked into the WTC enough to say a few educated things about it, but until now, I've never heard of the Fuji Tower incident.

This is entirely consistent with the behavior I expect from a system like Wikipedia. There is no controversy here.

It also confirms observations I've made about "TruthSeeker1234."
 
KingMerv00 said:
Keep in mind the goal, at least to some degree, is accuracy.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm not entirely familiar with how the process works (like: how does someone get banned from making edits?) but from what I can tell, there's no oligarchy of "super-editors" who make the final call about edits. Accuracy is approached through a free-market-type mechanism. The bias is towards accuracy.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You appearantly believe that any malicious and dishonest behavior is justified when done in the name of your religion.

How long until you start stuffing your vest pockets with C4 and ball-bearings?
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree with you, but people like "truth"seeker don't wire themselves with C4 & ball bearings.

They instead rent moving trucks and load them up with home-made ANFO...:bricks:
 
chipmunk stew said:
Exactly. I'm not entirely familiar with how the process works (like: how does someone get banned from making edits?) but from what I can tell, there's no oligarchy of "super-editors" who make the final call about edits. Accuracy is approached through a free-market-type mechanism. The bias is towards accuracy.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia strives to use reliable sources (wtc7.net is not a reliable source). Even when citing RS, they can't be cherry picked to write articles with a POV. TS also exhibited uncivil behavior, such as labelling others valid edits as "Vandalism". In the end, he was banned for "exhausting community patience".

Take a look at his talk page:
User_talk:TruthSeeker1234

And the talk page archives for "Collapse of the World Trade Center", which he primarily "worked" on:
archive3
archive4
archive5

Wikipedia explicitly frowns people from doing things to make a point (as EngineerEd tried) and doesn't allow sockpuppets to be used in evading Wikipedia policies. That incident is ultimately what led to him being blocked.

I have tried to sit quiet and tried to ignore TS here, but have been watching him since he arrived at Wikipedia in April and lately here.

-Kate
 
Debunk911Myths said:
Wikipedia strives to use reliable sources (wtc7.net is not a reliable source). Even when citing RS, they can't be cherry picked to write articles with a POV. TS also exhibited uncivil behavior, such as labelling others valid edits as "Vandalism". In the end, he was banned for "exhausting community patience".

Take a look at his talk page:
User_talk:TruthSeeker1234

And the talk page archives for "Collapse of the World Trade Center", which he primarily "worked" on:
archive3
archive4
archive5

Wikipedia explicitly frowns people from doing things to make a point (as EngineerEd tried) and doesn't allow sockpuppets to be used in evading Wikipedia policies. That incident is ultimately what led to him being blocked.

I have tried to sit quiet and tried to ignore TS here, but have been watching him since he arrived at Wikipedia in April and lately here.

-Kate
Click to expand...
Who enforces the policies? Is there an Admin group, or something?
 
there's no oligarchy of "super-editors" who make the final call about edits
Click to expand...
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.

When it comes to editorial decisions, admins are no more superior than anyone else. Their votes count equally (not more) than anyone else's.

-Kate
 
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