I've had a wild education in Wikipedia World since Barrett Vs Rosenthal was ruled upon in the California Supreme Court in November, 2006.

I won against Barrett's Team in the Superior, Appeals and the Supreme Court of California -- yet his Rag-Tag Posse won on Wikipedia.

Thanks to Susan Ferris for bringing this page to the attention of Jimmy Wales ... my response is below.

I've been thrilled to see so much coverage about the Wiki Scanner and outing the many corporations who post from their offices. Bravo!

However, I am not in agreement with anonymous professional posters, usually industry / government connected who push their POV and team with others to help push theirs. Wiki is so filled with them, it is almost impossible to compete with their industry/gov edits.

For example, Barrett has "editors" working around the clock ... no fact that is not flattering to him remains on Wiki for more than a heartbeat.

The worst of the worst are the freelancers ... the bloggers for hire that fill Usenet and Wikipedia and the BlogWorld, pretending to be just 'folks.'

When Stephen Barrett and Terry Polevoy lost to me in the Supreme Court of California ... they were determined 1,000,000% more to change history and appear to be the victors and the victims.

When I went to Wikipedia in December, 2006, it was to correct the disinformation and biased loser POV (point of view) being posted by Barrett himself, followed immediately by his assistant, Paul "Fyslee" Lee, Barrett slanted admin, Arthur Rubin, and Ron Zero.

New Barrett POV posters were added in January, 2007, including QuackGuru, who, within 8 seconds, connected with Paul "Fyslee" Lee.

Another new Wiki editor appeared then on January 20, 2007, a long term Usenet Flack with thousands and thousands and thousands of posts. Her job was to subtlely promote Pfizer's Celebrex, while providing support and back up for the Barett Usenet team.

When she arrived on Wiki, she immediately went to work on the Stephen Barrett articles, and as recently as yesterday, was helping make his article another Barrett fluff piece ... bearing no resemblance to reality.

It appears that she may well be a Pfizer flack, as she was able to get herself published in USA Today, with this opening Pfizer perfect comment, at a time when Pfizer was being blasted in the news. and sorely needed some good PR.

For Susan Ferris, the drug Celebrex has been "a godsend."

On Usenet, she keeps the benefits of Celebrex before the public ... as well as being an avid supporter for the Stephen Barrett Quackwatch Team.

On Wikipedia, she is there to back every post of Paul Lee's or Ron Zero's or whoever hides behind QuackGuru.

She helped them remove the link I had edited on the Sally Kirkland webpage about her breast implant advocacy for no reason other than their mutual attempt to remove any website that links in any way to mine.

She helped keep off the fact that Pfizer sponsored the Pfizer/Spiked self-congratulatory piece quoting Barrett.

She supported keeping off the fact that Barrett, although owner of "Credential Watch" was never board certified and in fact had failed his psychiatric boards.

It was quite shocking that she has accused me of outing her, when a friend merely pointed to her many posts under her own name. Click here.

For more ... click here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What fear they have of my opinions and facts. For example, Ron Zeno (ronz) and MastCell (probably another disguise used by David "orac" Gorski) work long & hard to continue to attempt to discredit me and keep of factual and unflattering information about their Guru, Steve Barrett.

They refuse to allow the court papers of the latest suit against Barrett by Dr. Harrison to be acknowledged. The pdf file is here.

An Arbitration in the same name raged --- and for an unexplained reason ... the supposively non-biased arbirtrators, decided that Paul Lee was to be enonerated and me burned at the stake.

I believe that the halls were stacked against me from the moment I arrived on Wikipedia ... the Assistant Listmaster to Stephen Barrett's beloved Healthfraud List greeted me with huge red stopsigns and threats and warnings.

Concurrently, as Lee stood as a sentry, Stephen Barrett himself edited happily away on Wiki ... removing links to his legal opponents webpages, and replacing them with his own.

He then went underground, and immediately, Paul Lee took over, assuring that all his links and many more, would be linkspammed throughout Wikipedia.

For my December Wiki page ...please click here.

One of the things that I have been falsely accused of is bringing my "personal" lawsuit to Wikipedia.

That is blatantly false. Barrett's POV was all over articles about him and the article on the Supreme Court decsion was biased to the point of not being recognizable.

I'll be filling in details of what is like a needed separation from a bad, abusive marriage, where the abuser enforces rules for me and not for himself.

My losing #1 plaintiff ... Stephen Barrett, ever so modestly called himself "the media" in Time Magazine. He got a Ph.d in Google Bombing and has layers and layers of multiple websites & webrings & blogs & Groups & now Wikipedia sites -- each promoting each other, repeating each other, filling Google with their commercial, partisan, "anti-quackery" propaganda.

They use every trick in the book for their smear campaigns against Chiropractors, Naturopaths, and me ... to name but a few. Paul Lee is the Ring Master, and hosts his own partisan blogs and hate sites ... each promoting each other. He has spent about 15 months on Wikipedia as "fyslee" bringing this biased, campaign, frequently sending out "Call to Arms" for other editors to back him or collaborate with him, pretending to be "writing an encyclopedia."

I for one, still believe that Jimbo Wales wants Wiki to be an encyclopedida ... and not be used to further commercial campaigns like Quackwatch's and other professional teams that work Wiki.

Here are some of my statements regarding Barrett Vs Rosenthal on Wikipedia and our "separation."

Wiki Arb #1  Wiki Arb #2

I'll be writing quite a bit about what I have learned about Wiki ... and welcome any of your experiences. Send to me here:

I want to thank all those who have dared to support me there ... and who have endured the wrath of Barrett's team in so doing.

People have been coming out of the shadows of Wikipedia to share their own experiences on Wikipedia ... and how the corporate interests are attempting to overtake Wikipedia too ... slanting every relevant article to the he who has the gold, rules.

Wikipedia is a very, very, very, very important medium in the Information Wars.

Shockingly important.

For example, I've noticed recently that in a high percentage of basic Google searches, the Wikipedia article in the top dog on the Google Search.

I knew little about the workings of Wikipedia until December, 2006, when a couple of friends had written to advise me that Barrett Vs Rosenthal was being covered in an article on Wikipedia. What I read was basically unrecognizable as to the facts of the case.

When I corrected the errors ( edited in WikiSpeak), and quoted from the Supreme Court decision, within moments, Wiki editors close to the plaintiffs would revert my facts and take off my references ... sometimes in a heartbeat. Like sentries, they guarded articles. I didn't know until much later, as I figured out the system better, that it was Barrett himself publishing his viewpoint as facts.

They were attempting to make it appear that Barrett lost to me on a technicality ... just because he was a "public figure." That was not factual in any sense of the word. The article was ridiculously slanted.

One typical example is my co-defendant, Mr. Tim Bolen and I are not allowed any description.

Mr. Bolen isn't even allowed a first name. (update: Mr. Bolen got a last name after heated fight)

He's only Bolen.

His registered California company is not allowed to be mentioned, though most all of Barrett's commercial operations are listed on hundreds and hundreds of articles and linked all over Wikipedia.

They refuse to allow anything about who I am ... my name alone is permitted (I get first and last) but nothing about who I am or represent.

The fact that I have headed an international support group for women harmed by breast implants for over 11 years, been quoted in multiple media, including a recent Wired Magazine ... is forbidden.

Last Summer,  I had spent a short time on Wikipedia editing a few articles, and attempting to balance what continues to be lopsided and biased information on Barrett.

Paul Lee stood guard on every article about Stephen Barrett or any of his operations, and refused to allow a link showing that NCAHF, the so called  The National Council Against Healthfraud , has been suspended by the State of California since May, 2003.

Soon before that, the NCAHF and Barrett lost to King-Bio and were severely reprimanded by the court in these Court Opinions. This all ties into Paul Lee (fyslee), and the Wiki War he has led against me from my first Wiki days. Click here for the two court rulings against NCAHF and Barrett and Wallace Sampson.

Paul Lee is someone I know very, very, very well.

Barrett and he are together attempting to control information on what they (and the pharmaceutical industry) considers quackery on the internet.

Barrett calls himself the Director of Internet Operations for NCAHF. Paul Lee runs two webrings that every Barrett site is distributed through. He treats Wikipedia just like the Healthfraud list ... attempting to censor any critics.

I started looking around at other sites around Wikipedia in matters relating to breast implants and various alternative modalities and other articles of interest to me.

Everywhere, the same people from The Rag-tag Posse ruled the article.

With their guerrilla and gang tactics, they bullied their viewpoint. Barrett's links were everywhere ... yet critics (me being one) had to fight for every word on Wikipedia.

This team began to circulate scores of statements that go against what I quote below from Judge Moreno (in red.)

Why would these have been included and even the very last words in the Opinion if Judge Moreno did not find them significant?

Why would they be significant in the Supreme Court but not Wikipedia?

From the Supreme Court decision, page 39, these are the the last words in the opinion.

"As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory."

I therefore conclude the majority is correct in reversing the Court of Appeal.
MORENO, J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

This ruling is an important one for internet providers and hosts of internet chat groups and blogs and individual posters of which there are millions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thank the true scientists there ... those who are really neutral and bring order in chaos.

I wanted to thank Dr. Zuckerman (and a few other powerful editors) for their courage and tenacity to make the Wikipedia article on breast implants as factual as possible. If the industry had their way, Wikipedia would be just another biased PR / advertising tool.

More soon ...