Wikipedia Fraud

Posted on March 3, 2007. Filed under: Humor, Politics, Wikipedia |

By now it’s well known that one of Wikipedia‘s admins was passing himself off as a professor of theology when he was really just a twenty four year old kid without a graduate degree. I don’t think that his masquerade is any reason to discount his contributions to Wikipedia. In fact, if he had been more up-front about his credentials, it would have been even more impressive that he had contributed so much to the project.

To that end, and in the name of openness and transparency, I would like to disclose my own identity. I am the 13th (of 9) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and the Grand Poo-Bah of the World Court. I have twelve degrees from twenty different universities and have written over 1,000,000 books on various subjects. Perhaps you have read one of my plays. It’s called Hamlet. I also own the Brooklyn Bridge (which is for sale on eBay, btw, along with another of my possessions, the island of Burmuda) and the Staten Island Ferry, which I would be happy to get rid of for just about anything you could give me. I’m also selling China (not plates and cups; the nation).

Now I know that Wikipedia says that there are 9 Supreme Court Justices (1 Chief and 8 associates), but are you going to believe everything you read on the Internet? There are about 13 Associate Justices. The extra five associates are stand-ins or alternates, in case an Associate Justice is ill or hung-over (yes they party). In cases (no pun intended) such as these (and there are many such), one of the alternates is called.

I have been trying to convince Wikipedia to include this information for some time, but they are immovable. They stand in the way. They stand in the way. You can’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

Advertisements
  • Quotes of the Day

    "Writing editorials is like wetting your pants in a blue serge suit. It feels good, but nobody really notices."

    --Jack Germond

    "Famous men and women, by the act of putting themselves on display, whether as politicians, actors, writers, painters, musicians, restaurateurs, or whatever, invite public appraisal. They are all, impressively or pathetically, acting on the presumption that their ideas, their fantasies, their music, their bodies are more original than those of, say, a plumber or a certified public accountant. They are all exercising the impulse, as Mencken put it, ‘to flap their wings in public.’ This is so obvious to the critic–and, I believe, to the ordinary reader or spectator–that it seems hardly worth saying. But resentment of the practice of criticism itself is strong among professional artists (and all Presidents of the United States). There is a psychological type among them that hates critics on principle as parasites or failed performers. This is very natural but surely very childish and, in any country claiming to be civilized, actually anti-social. The existence of critics, good, bad, or indifferent, is a firm clause in the social contract between the governors and the governed in any nation that is not a dictatorship. Public figures should accept with good grace the public response to their invitations to be admired and resist the temptation to retort, except in the face of flagrant malice."

    --Alistair Cooke

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: