Andy Martin, an American journalist and political candidate known for his role in the Barack Obama Muslim rumor and the conspiracy theories about Obama's citizenship, has issued a press release outlining his contention that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation "are controlled and manipulated by protosocialists as anti-conservative, anti-Republican and anti-Obama opponent smear operations." According to the press release, Martin is suing the Wikimedia Foundation for fraud because of its tax-exempt status.
"No one could characterize the Wikipedia entry on my extraordinary life of public service and personal sacrifice as ‘neutral and impartial", says Martin. Part of what prompted Martin to sue may have been the previous versions of his article, which as of the press release described him in the lead as a "vexatious litigant".
The article for Alexander Chancellor, a technology journalist who writes for The Guardian, was anonymously edited to indicate that Chancellor had died. Chancellor sets the record straight in the column "Wikipedia says I'm dead - well, that's news to me".
The Chicago Tribune's Steve Johnson released a list of his top 10 web moments of this decade. Coming in at number 5 was the launch of Wikipedia, which "proved ... the potential to harvest the Web for massive, nonprofessional collaboration". Other items on the list include the creation of Twitter and of Craigslist.
Discuss this story
"No one could characterize the Wikipedia entry on my extraordinary life of public service and personal sacrifice as ‘neutral and impartial'". Wow, can't see you winning the 2009 Modesty Award. HonouraryMix (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on now. Who doesn't respect someone who reacts to being labeled a "vexatious litigant" by launching a lawsuit with no merit? Surely he deserves some credit for consistency? Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best part of the press release is when he refers to himself as "insurgent 'Internet Powerhouse' Andy Martin." I don't know what that means (his professional wrestling moniker?), but it makes me happy. - BanyanTree 07:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Maybe we should just delete the article. Give him a taste of what being un-notable is. It's what he deserves for launching meritless, toothless lawsuits. When I read that I loled. ResMar 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really worry about this maniac. The Foundation existed long before Obama was even a Senator.- JustPhil 12:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And who is this guy again, & why wasn't I informed that we were supposed to be presenting him in a bad light? (Oh yeah, the instructions must have been included in the pay check we all are supposed to be receiving.)</sarcasm> -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a very big pool. Some of its contributors do not live in the US. Some speak languages other than English. For some peculiar reason most people have not heard of Martin. Suggest he goes to Wikia and creates his own wiki - so everybody is happy. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'The name you can trust' - any connection to 'the trustworthy encyclopedia'? Should he not be the #doyen# of Illinois media and communications rather than the dean (unless he is running the whole show) ... and what exactly is a protosocialist? A predecessor of Karl Marx?
Following his line of argument - what is behind his change of surname? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky that happened to a journalist, he gets a story out of it! Any other random person would just get miffed. Yay! for open editing and news droughts. Rich Farmbrough, 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Hehe, I wouldn't be surprised if he himself made the edit, just for the sake of having something to write about! --cremepuff222 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chancellor is a journalist who has recently written about Wikipedia, but he is not a technology journalist. In a hole, stop digging! — Richardguk (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In life, if for a split second, one makes a mistake, one is usually forgiven. If, for instance, I happened to say, "two plus two is five--I mean four!" no one would accuse me of not actually knowing how to add. Mistakes in print sources, as well, are judged subjectively against their long term reputation for reliability or accuracy. However, short term mistakes in Wikipedia articles are not judged objectively against the actual length of time the article or detail was correct or subjectively against the overall reliability and accuracy of the article or Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not the only ones! [1] Hyacinth (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is supa funni (Darkspartan4121 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
At least he can join Mark Twain and others whose death has been much exaggerated (is there a WP list of such people?) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]