As the WIF was from the mid of 2005 changing from a totally advisory group of the world’s most eminent thinkers to one of an applied institution (a registered Swiss charity) in the field, it was considered that it was the right time for the world to know a little bit more about the WIF and its activities. The decision was taken therefore to place information about the WIF on Wikipedia.
The WIF’s chief executive Dr. David Hill personally undertook to place information on Wikipedia due to no untruths being placed during the September 2007 period when this took place.
Start of Affairs with Wikipedia
1. On the 17th September 2006 or before, the WIF was blocked from entering the Wikipedia site and Dr. David Hill sent the following email at 1.53 hours requesting the reasons for why this had been done.
USERNAME - drdavidhill
I have been blocked by editing some information that relates to members of the World Innovation foundation. This was purely for adding information that these persons were members of the World Innovation Foundation. If people cannot edit such things to inform what is the use of Wikipedia in the first place. If it is the truth so why can’t we put it on Wikipedia?
Hope that you can resolve this and unblock me. I consider Wikipedia a good thing but not if truthful information is blocked.
Dr. David Hill
2. At 01.51 hours on the 17th September an email was sent to the WIF from unblock-en-l-bounces@mail.wikimedia.org on behalf of Wikipedia.
Your mail to 'Unblock-en-l' with the subject Reason for Blocking - why ???? Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held:Post by non-member to a members-only listEither the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel this posting, please visit the following URL:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/confirm/unblock-en-l/62d5ad82e4e1fb2995ae94b06dbdb7c9b876cc69
3. At 04.37 hours on the 17th September 2006 a reply was sent by Wikipedia from someone purporting to be a person called ‘Zoe’, apparently a Wikipedia sifter/blocker Editor of information placed on Wikipedia. (For some strange reason this same ‘Zoe’ resigned just a few months later according to Wikipedia’s own information - Read a discussion groups comments on her/him and why apparently she/he left Wikipedia as one of their Editors at the end of the email interactions.
You were warned several times about spamming, but refused to stop. Why should we allow you to keep adding self-promotion to our encyclopedia?
Zoe
Zoe
Zoe
4. At 15.59 hours on the 17th September 2006 the WIF sent a reply to ‘Zoe’ asking her/him for clarification.
Dear Zoe,
We differ here as we are making people aware that people listed in the
encyclopaedia are members of our institution and therefore this is not
spamming in our eyes. This is NOT therefore spamming at all, just adding
knowledge to the database itself and not self-promotion! Why do you say
that it is spamming? What is the difference in listing information of
organizations that people who are listed in Wikipedia are members of and
Spamming. Please make me understand if you can. Might as well stop
altogether if this is the attitude of Wikipedia watchers.
The www. was added so people could verify that the people were indeed
members of WIF. If this is your problem we can stop putting the web
reference. But I do not really understand your problem. If you can therefore
give me a plausible reason that we are spamming then I will listen but what
you have briefly said already holds no water I am afraid and therefore the
reason for a full explanation by yourself.
Kind regards,
David
5. At 20.11 hours on 18th September because no further reply had been received from ‘Zoe’ to the email from Dr. David Hill on the 17th, Dr. Hill sent a further email to ‘Zoe’. The WIF was still totally blocked from Wikipedia.
Dear Zoe,
If you are a person of the highest integrity and for justice around the
world, will you please reply to my email and address the subject matter that I raise. I need a clear explanation of your actions against someone who was just adding knowledge and truisms for others to read.
Hope to hear from you very soon.
David
6. At 15.11 hours on the 19th September 2007 the WIF was sent an email from a Mr. Maurice Frank who had seen that the WIF had been blocked. In his email he described how Wikipedia really works. The email was entitled – ‘how Wikipedia really works’
Anyone who belongs to the dominant block of opinion on any subject can get anyone else blocked. Wikipedia has no policies, applied consistently.
All the admins who talk on En-l openly admit counting any shred of personal fairness as mattering less than developing Wikipedia as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offence that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these:
a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html
on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html
I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Wikipedia by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. My Wiki name was Tern, and here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html
saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy."
On the nature of Wikipedia: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html
http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/
tag "Wikipedia"
Messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, http://s13.invisionfree.com/aspievision/index.php
"You are not the only one who has had problems with Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group
"Yes ... this is my opinion of Wikipedia.
It suppresses anything that may be considered 'more than marginally controversial'.
It's definitely in the same boat as the mainstream media without any shadow of a doubt. " - the forum of the British anti-ID cards site http://www.1984brigade.com/
" of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, http://www.medialens.org/board/
7. At 15.57 hours on the 19th September 2006 the WIF sent the following reply to Maurice Frank
Thank you Maurice.
What a sham it really is therefore !
If I do not get satisfaction I will place on our website's front page (20,000 visitors a week and constantly growing) all about the situation so that people are clear. If this happens could I also use your evaluation and quote you?
Sincere thanks for your input which is appreciated. I will be getting back to Wikipedia today after not having any further replies to my last two emails. What a shower in this respect also.
My very best,
David
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
8. At 16.24 hours on the 19th September 2006 and still having no reply from Wikipedia, Dr. David Hill tried to resolve the problem by emailing unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org who were supposed to be the appeal people within Wikipedia. The following was the
Dear Sirs,
On behalf of my Foundation I am absolutely disgusted about how someone has blocked us from adding knowledge to the pages of Wikipedia where our members are listed. Having sent two emails now to the blocker she has not even had the decency to reply. What is this all about, certainly not a democracy.
I copy and paste the specific emails for your reference and where I require an in-depth reply.
9. At 16.25 hours on the 19th September 2006 the following email was sent by Wikipedia to the WIF
Your mail to 'Unblock-en-l' with the subject
Complaint againt Wikipedia and Actions - IP Address 86.135.50.180
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Post by non-member to a members-only list
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel this posting, please visit the following URL:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/confirm/unblock-en-l/086b87b3bb1520b17df2a04402c25a56f3a7ae86
10. At 19.46 hours on the 19th September 2006 a further email was sent to Wikipedia due to the fact that no action or substantive replies had been received from Wikipedia at all and where it appeared that the WIF could not resolve the matter through a common sense attitude and where all approaches had fallen on barren ground. Under these circumstances there appeared to be no alternative but to approach matters in a more forceful manner.
Dear Zoe,
As you have not had the decency to contact me I have sent below to
Wikipedia.
Neither myself or my institute will stand for your conduct in this matter.
What I say is the first of several actions that we shall continuously take.
What you have to understand is that you are dealing with a major
international group that has direct linkages with all governments around the
world and where our 3,000+ members represent some of the largest concerns on
the planet together with the elite of scientific and technological
community. Therefore if we implement a strategy you will see major things
happening around the world and all down to you and your friends who appear
to have no sense of reality.
Kind regards,
David
11. At 20.12 hours on the 19th September 2006 an email was sent to the owner of Wikipedia Mr. Jimmy Wales. The reason for this was that the WIF had not received any in-depth reply from either Zoe, the unblocking people at Wikipedia (unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org) or anyone from Wikipedia. Therefore through sheer frustration contact was attempted to be made with the owner of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales to see if he really knew what was going on within his Foundation. The following is the email sent where there was attached a listing of the WIF’s new Honorary Members and Fellows for the period 2005-2006 to give Wikipedia information.
Dear Mr. Wales,
I forward to you recent emails as we appear to be on a conflict road together. I have become highly sceptical of your Wikipedia over the last few days.
Therefore if you are a honest person and of the highest integrity you will reply. If not I shall have to conclude the opposite.
For your information so that you know a little of us I attach the new members rostrum for the last period 2005-2006. This will give you an idea of who you are dealing with.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity ( a Swiss Charity)
12. At 21.10 on the 19th September 2006 to keep Zoe up-to-date with matters, the WIF forwarded onto her or him (for we did not even know if Zoe was an acronym or something) the email to Jimmy Wales.
Dear Zoe,
I respectfully forward this email that hopefully Jimmy Wales will read so thatt you are up to speed.
Regards,
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
13. At 22.35 hours on the 19th September 2006 the following email was sent by Wikipedia to the WIF.
Email received
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2006091910011578] Email for Jimmy Wales
Dear Dr D. S. Hill,
Thank you for your mail. I reviewed your edits and determined that they
are
contrary to the policies of our project. Zoe's actions in warning you
regarding this and then blocking your account when the warning went
unheeded
were entirely appropriate.
14. At 22.43 hours on the 19th September 2006 a reply to Wikipedia’s last email was sent by the WIF.
Email sent
Is this a reply from Mr. Wales himself?
Dr. Hill
15. At 22.48 hours on the 19th September 2006 an email from the "Wikipedia information team" was sent to the WIF entitled [Ticket#2006091910011578] Email for Jimmy Wales.
Dear Dr D. S. Hill,
The "info" team of which I am a member handles such inquiries on behalf of
Mr. Wales.
16. At 22.53 hours on the 19th September 2006 and Dr. Hill having consulting within the WIF, it was decided for common sense reasons to drop the whole situation with Wikipedia and ask that our information be totally removed. The reason, the effort was just not worth the trouble. The following email was therefore sent to Wikipedia information team info-en@wikimedia.org asking them to do this.
As I cannot log onto your site anymore please take out of Wilipedia all
reference to the World Innovation Foundation and any information added to
your encyclopaedia that we have provided to date. We do not wish to be
associated with your organization in any way whatsover. I need conformation
that you have done this.
Dr. David Hill
CEO, The WIF
17. At 22.55 hours a reply to the 22.48 received email from Wikipedia was sent by the WIF.
Email sent
Make sure that he sees it !
18. At 23.04 hours on 19th September 2006 an email was sent by a Mr. George Herbert replying on behalf of Wikipedia.
I'm sorry, but what you did is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The WIF is not a notable part of many of those people's lives, and even if it's a charity organization, spreading links across articles widely like that counts as linkspamming in Wikipedia policy.
You were warned repeatedly by Wikipedia users, and continued.
It is possible that you can get your block reduced in time from the 5 or so days remaining, but you need to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. If you continue to add those links you'll get blocked again.
We can help you understand the policy, if you would like.
Thank you for contacting unblock-en-l.
--
-george william Herbert
19. At 23.09 hours a reply to Mr. William Herbert was sent by the WIF.
Take out all the information that we have placed into your encyclopaedia. We do not want to be associated with your organization in any way whatsoever. I need confirmation that this has been done.
Dr. David Hill
CEO, The WIF
20. At 22.22 on 19th September 2006 a further email was sent by William
Herbert of Wikipedia to the WIF.
I'm sorry, but what you did is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The WIF is not a notable part of many of those people's lives, and even if it's a charity organization, spreading links across articles widely like that counts as linkspamming in Wikipedia policy.
You were warned repeatedly by Wikipedia users, and continued.
It is possible that you can get your block reduced in time from the 5 or so days remaining, but you need to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. If you continue to add those links you'll get blocked again.
We can help you understand the policy, if you would like.
Thank you for contacting unblock-en-l.
--
-george william Herbert
All contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
--
-george william Herbert
21. At 22.27 on 19th September 2006 a further email was sent by William
Herbert of Wikipedia to the WIF.
All contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
--
-george william herbert
My apologies, this message got mangled during creation, and a very incomplete version got sent to you.
All contributions to Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
You agreed to that license when you submitted the content - there is a reminder notice on every edit page that any contributions you make, you agree to license under the GFDL, and abide by its terms for the content.
There is no legal "take-back" right associated with those contributions. They remain copyrighted by you of course, but by editing Wikipedia you agreed to give anyone in the world unlimited irrevocable rights under the GFDL to keep copies of the content and distribute it.
I'm sorry that you're having a negative reaction to other aspects of Wikipedia policy.
--
-george william Herbert
22. At 23.40 hours on the 19th September 2006 a further email was sent by the WIF to William Herbert. This was due to the fact that the WIF had undertaken a little research via GOOGLE and the WIF found that he was an engineer.
email sent
I am glad that you are an engineer. You know the power of innovation. You may have also heard of our founding president Glenn Seaborg and maybe our founding chairman John Argyris (Finite Element Method).
John, designed the heat shields for the shuttle and also the hydraulic system for the landing craft in 1969 for NASA amongst a multitude of mega engineering problems that he resolved. Most were undetermined by anyone else in the world at their respective times. Knowing them both personally they would not have condoned how Wikipedia operates.
I thought that you would like to know!
23. At 23.44 hours on the 19th September 2006 the WIF sent a reply to William Herbert of Wikipedia.
We do not want to be associated with your organization .
Are you saying that the courts cannot even make you remove our information or is your organization above the law as well?
Please respond.
24. At 23.54 hours on the 19th September 2006 a further email was sent by William Herbert of Wikipedia to the WIF.
If you intend to file a legal challenge you need to contact the Wikipedia office via the methods shown at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us
--
-george william Herbert
25. At 00.05 hours on the 20th September 2007 the WIF sent a further email to info@wikipedia.org entitled ‘Legal Challenge info required’.
I have been referred to you by George Herbert concerning a legal challenge to have our information removed from your wikipedia. Who are your lawyers and their address?
Dr. David Hill
Chief executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
26. At 00.05 hours on the 20th September 2007 the WIF sent a further email to William Herbert
I have notified them.
27. At 00.15 hours on 20th September 2006, Zoe eventually plucked up enough courage to reply to the WIF’s previous emails to her/him.
Your block expires on September 23. In the meantime, you can put a {{helpme}} tag on your Talk page at [[User talk:Drdavidhill]] and explain your side of the story. Note that *I* did not block you, so your complaints to me are of no use. You should discuss them with The Anome, who blocked you, or with the two other users who warned you about your edits before you were blocked.
28. At 15.54 hours on 20th September 2006 a reply was sent to Zoe by the WIF in response to the fact that she/he had stated that she/he was not responsible in blocking the WIF as clearly she/he had started the whole matter in the first place (see start of emails).
Dear Zoe,
I do not wish to correspond with you anymore as it appears now that you are
not even the person responsible for this terrible situation. Why did you not
make this very clear to me and be an honest person from the very start I ask
myself? I am even more concerned about Wikipedia now and I am contacting all
our 3,000 plus members around the world to not get involved in any way with
your encyclopaedia. We shall also be displaying on our website all about our
experience with Wikipedia and also the emails from others that I have
received who are of the same opinion.
Good luck but good bye !
DR.David Hill
CEO, The WIF
29. At 17.29 hours on the 20th September 2006 an email was sent by A M Clin to the WIF purporting to be a Wikipedian.
I doubt anyone else will let you know this directly, but the article you have been developing in Wikipedia on the World Innovation Foundation has been listed as an Article for Deletion. There are serious concerns about the verifiability of the information you have included; indeed, there is a question of whether the WIF actually exists as an entity or is simply a facade of some sort. Should you wish to contest this, I suggest you go to this link in Wikipedia and read the informatino here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation
You will also find the comments on WIF in this page to be of interest in framing your response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Although you were temporarily blocked as a contributor to Wikipedia (all of the links you were making created some concern), you are now able to edit and contribute to this discussion. You might find it of value to read your talk page from time to time, as that is how most Wikipedia communcation takes place; however, I am taking the liberty of emailing you directly so that at least you have a chance to speak on behalf of keeping the article.
Sincerely,
A Wikipedian
30. On the 20th September 2006 at 20.36 an email was sent by a Mr. Brad Patrick from Wikipedia stating that he was the General Counsel and interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization which runs Wikipedia. The title of this email was ‘Wikipedia and (gasp!) lawyers?’
Dr. Hill:
I am the General Counsel and interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization which runs Wikipedia. I was referred your
email. May I ask what this is regarding? I don't believe I am familiar with Mr. Herbert, or your organization. Apparently there is a page on Wikipedia relating to your organization, and the community is deciding whether or not to let it remain. Beyond that, I haven't an idea what might be troubling you. Please direct any inquiry to me; you don't need to copy info@ or any other email addresses. I'm who you want to talk to. I am in New York this week and generally not available by phone, but
would be happy to respond to any email you may send.
Sincerely,
Brad Patrick
Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
31. At 21.12 on the 20th September 2006 the WIF replied to the Wikipedian A. M. Clin.
What a load of codswallop !
Contact the Swiss authorities and you will see who we are. You people are living on Mars I believe !!!!
Don't bother me again.
Dr. David Hill
32. At 21.33 hours on 20th September 2006 a further email was sent by the
Bradford A. Patrick, Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation
Just so I'm clear, you will be happy if the article on WIF is removed entirely, is that right?
I'm sorry if the volunteers who responded to your email below convince you Wikipedia is "codswallop". I believe ours is a vibrant and respectful community, on the whole.
I will place your request that the article be deleted (i.e., your endorsement of the action) in the talk page if you will permit me.
Very truly yours,
Brad Patrick
33. At 21.28 hours on the 20th September 2006 the WIF replied to Bradford A. Patrick, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Brad Patrick
I send the background to the situation but I doubt very much that you are
any different to the others. What is Wikepedia all about? It is quite
disturbing how you operate. The sooner all our information is removed the
better.
Dr. David Hill
34. At 22.05 hours on the 20th September 2006 the WIF sent a further email to Bradford A. Patrick, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Brad Patrick
As a follow up I have just read the rubbish on your discussion/notice board.
I shall most probably be in Davos next year with one of my co-directors at
least on the Swiss board who is a main board member of Fiat et al and a long
term WEF member. I shall amongst other things certainly circulate our recent
knowledge of Wikepedia and its very strange individuals who run it. To
answer the question of WIF, yes we have been an organization working behind
the scenes for the past 14 years but now we are becoming more visible. That
is why we started putting our information on your website as we thought up
to then that you were something special. You will learn and see over the
coming years but where I shall never forget my personal experience of the
people who are involved with your organization. A sad situation indeed and
unfortunately now I feel that it should not exist. The reason is that it is
against all the thinking behind humanity and a better future world for all
people that the WIF strives to achieve.
Dr. David Hill
CEO, The WIF
35. At 22.06 hours on the 20th September 2006 a further email was sent to Bradford A. Patrick, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Get it done !!!!! or else !!!
Dr. David Hill
CEO, The WIF
36. At 22.14 hours on the 20th September 2006 a further email was sent to Bradford A. Patrick, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation attaching to the email the Swiss Charity registration documents.
PS.And anything else that we have placed on your encyclopedia including the
matter of Independent Innovation which have created much of the modern world
as we see it today.
Thank you and I hope you can at least have the decency to do this and get us
off your database as others on Wikepedia will not. I attach for your
sceptics our charity status in Switzerland but where since the incorporation
things have again moved on for the WIF to an even greater heights. We shall
next year be listed as a not-for profit in the USA as well through our New
York lawyers.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
37. At 22.30 hours on the 20th September 2006 a further email was sent to Bradford A. Patrick, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation with a plea.
Dear Brad (I am pleading with you now in my nicest voice),
Get everything off Wikipedia !!!
Or I can only conclude that you are the same as the rest.
David
38. At 23.46 hours on the 21st September 2006 a further email was sent to Bradford A. Patrick, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation asking why he had not done as requested.
Dear Mr. Patrick,
What are you doing about getting the World Innovation Foundation off your
site?
Or have you also gone in hiding? Strange, very strange indeed that we have
not heard a beep out of you or the others even though you said I only needed
to deal through you. What kind of CEO are you?
Have the courtesy to contact me.
Dr. David Hill
CEO, The WIF
Note: That the WIF never heard again from Bradford A. Patrick, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. So much for his initial email where he clearly stated, ‘Please direct any inquiry to me; you don't need to copy info@ or any other email addresses. I'm who you want to talk to.
I am in New York this week and generally not available by phone, but
would be happy to respond to any email you may send.
Therefore from the very top to the very bottom, Wikipedia says whatever they want but never satisfy their obligations to any body else. That is very clear at the WIF.
Indeed, this same Bradford A. Patrick resigned his Executive Director position in February 2007 and then resigned in March 2007 as Legal Council of the Wikimedia Foundation and where he would not give a definitive reason why he had done this. But in a later interview with ‘Wired News’ the following enlightened a little – Brad Patrick left his post as interim Executive Director and later resigned as General Counsel. Although he did not offer a reason in his public resignation as General Counsel, he later criticized the board's legitimacy (in the interview): "I've said before that the board could just as soon have a pie-eating contest or flip a coin or Tiddly Wink to determine who the next board member would be and it would have the same legitimacy as an election.
Enough said the WIF says.
As a postscript it was coincidental that one of the WIF’s Fellows wrote to the chief executive asking around the same time about the WIF posting its information on Wikipedia.
The transcripts are detailed hereafter.
39. Email of the 28th October 2006 received from Professor Carl Edwin Lindgren FWIF
Dear David,
Please note that Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page does not have an article on the Foundation. I believe it would be nice if we had a short yet scholarly piece on the group. Do you have something you would like to contribute?
Carl Edwin Lindgren
40. Email Reply of the 28th October 2006 by Dr. David Hill, Chief Executive of the WIF to Professor Carl Edwin Lindgren FWIF
Dear Carl,
Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately we have had a very, very bad experience with Wikipedia and their so-called sensor editors (Wikipedians), which appear with our experience to be quite draconian. For your further information this situation has happened only recently and over the last three months.
In this respect because the WIF's work as an independent adviser is so sensitive we cannot say much and therefore these people at Wikipedia castigated our organization. Indeed, to a great extent we are an invisible organisation due to these truths. Therefore we decided to ask them to remove the information on their website due to these circumstances. They even questioned our president and others together with our Nobel laureate members. Therefore we shall not unfortunately be listing anything with Wikipedia for the above reasons. But, if you visit Answers.com you will see what was listed, but which now as I have stated, unfortunately is no longer.
Since having an involvement with the Wikipedia we have had communications with some people who regard it as extremely sensitised, and could be viewed not as a reference for pure knowledge but an organization that blocks quite a great deal of information - mostly those who are trying to do good work around the world and not for financial reward but for others. This may seem very strange, as I too thought that before this unhappy episode, Wikipedia would be an asset for humankind. I am very doubtful now, possibly sceptical and where this web resource may not be all that it appears to be.
I am sorry to send you such a reply and where several of the WIF's Fellows list their association with WIF in this web encyclopaedia that you cite.
David
Dr. David Hill
CEO, The WIF
41. Email Reply of the 29th October 2006 from Professor Carl Edwin Lindgren FWIF
The editors are generally young enough to be my grandchildren and do make mistakes. I had written a rather lengthy article on a Dr. Matthew Lyle Spencer which they deleted and wrote back that I had taken it from a website verbatim. Indeed I had. If they had read the site they would have learned that I wrote the original site as well as three published articles and books on the scholar. They seem to fast to judge or remove things. Also about a year ago, someone had used my e-mail address to get in a raging battle with one of the editors. I was banned and not the person doing the battle. I assumed it was merely my bad experiences. However, it seems from your remarks that this is rather the norm.
Carl
42. Email Reply of the 29th October 2006 from Dr. David Hill, Chief Executive of WIF to Professor Carl Edwin Lindgren FWIF
Dear Carl,
Yes it certainly seems so. In our case we even went to the top and although initially he seemed to be going to do something about matters, he eventually went very quite ( so quite that we never hear another thing from him), and even though he told the WIF that they only needed to deal with him. So much for the executive director of Wikipedia therefore if the top person cannot be relied upon to bring a bit of stability to the situation. It is a bit like anarchy I believe the way that they go about things. In many ways very undemocratic as the louder you shout and put misinformation about, you WIN at Wikipedia according to our experience. A ganging up situation where if you challenge them they get worse and do not act like responsible human beings !
If ever I have chance to meet up with their founder or that silent executive director I shall certainly confront them.
Thanks for your feedback and I hope that you are well.
Sincerely,
David
Ps. We even sent the Exec. Dir. a copy of our registration documents as a Swiss charity to prove who we were. But this did nothing and it appeared in the end that our face just did not fit - possibly because we questioned their wisdom.
END OF EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS