Quote of the Day

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Glenn Beck

I've been a fan of Glenn Beck for several years. I've never listened to his radio show, but I was a regular viewer of his cable show on CNN HN. I'm disappointed that he has agreed (I'm sure he's being paid) to speak at a fundraiser for GW next month.

Here is an audio invitation from Beck himself. I have done my best to get through to him, invite him to read up on the history of the school, but as yet I haven't received any response. I'm sure that if he researched the school's tactics, obfuscations, checkered history, etc., he would be reluctant to associate with it, but there it is.

Hopefully, increased focus on the school resulting from Beck's association will only serve to shine more of a light on the facts. My goal, in the end, is that people have the facts about this school so they can judge for themselves.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Friday, April 10, 2009

UPDATE 6: Wikipedia Editor

See the bottom of this page. The editor (Arationalguy), who identifies himself as Dan (which is consistent with what we have learned about him), may be trying to clarify here that the other editor (4by40) was in fact his wife, who we have learned serves in a high position with George Wythe University / George Wythe Foundation.

UPDATE: Let me emphasize here, in response to his third appeal to be unblocked from Wikipedia, which refers to this posting, that he is the one who publicly disclosed his first name, and that because someone with the same name has used this avatar at several other websites, it is easy to assume it is the same person. We already disclaimed that this could in fact be someone posing as this person -- we can never know for sure.

But we have established here that we will not now nor ever identify him at this blog or anywhere else, out of respect for his privacy. I would encourage him to respect his own privacy as well and stop rehashing the issue, as I then feel forced to re-clarify here that we will not disclose his identity.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

UPDATE 5: Wikipedia Editor

My associates and I have confirmed through various sources that the person behind the Wikipedia sockpuppet editing of the GW article is a close associate of DeMille, was an official of GW as late as 2006, and is married to someone currently high up in the organization.

Although we know his name, I will not disclose it publicly. He knows who he is. Let me say, sir, that I am disappointed in your conduct, but sadly not surprised.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

UPDATE 4: Pro GWU Editors Were Indeed Sockpuppets

My suspicions were 2/3rds confirmed: the two Wikipedia editors making the most drastic changes to the George Wythe University article were, in fact, the same person. A clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Both editors have been blocked indefinitely. You can read the verdict here.

What is most disheartening about this is that whoever this was claimed to be making his edits in the spirit of honesty and truth. You can see him lying about being a sockpuppet here and here.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

UPDATE 3: Juxtaposition of DeMille Articles

To illustrate the whitewashing that has taken place on Wikipedia, here are two versions of the Oliver DeMille article juxtaposed, one from 4/1/09 and one from today:

* 4/1/09
* 4/5/09

Saturday, April 4, 2009

UPDATE 2: Wikipedia Whitewash and Callout to Rachel DeMille

It appears that the editor known as Ibinthinkin is at the very least a close associate of DeMille, if not DeMille himself. Here is my reasoning:

1. The person is likely at least 40 years old (see this edit)

2. I get the distinct sense that it's a male engaging with me

3. He described two of his children (I will not link to the edit or go into detail here out of respect; whether it's DeMille or not, it's beyond me why the individual brought his children into it)

4. To back up an assertion that he attended BYU on a full scholarship, as well as myriad details about his life in high school, he added a reference to sixteen (!) obscure local newspaper articles from the early- to mid-1980s. These are not available anywhere online. (see here) This person later claimed he got the articles from DeMille's mother (see here)

5. To back up an assertion in the article that he had "a 3.89 GPA" at BYU he added a link to an image of DeMille's transcript, suddenly uploaded as a stand-alone link at www.tjedonline.com. This site is owned and run by the DeMilles. (I won't link to it here because it contains sensitive, personally-identifiable information, and I encourage DeMille to take it down ASAP) UPDATE on 4/15/09: The transcript has been taken down.

Obviously, I am making my own conclusions based on the evidence, and I could be wrong.

Frankly, I'm so battered and bruised from the back-and-forth on Wikipedia, and my reputation there has been so tarnished by the persistent assertions and accusations of this/these pro-GW individual(s), I'm not sure I'm going to have much credibility editing articles anymore, which is sad for me. I have tried very hard to make neutral article edits. But if my efforts to paint a neutral picture of George Wythe College / University helps just one person avoid the trap my relative fell into, it is worth the sacrifice.

I guess I am fighting to my own Wikipedia death, and I am losing!!!

I am asking Mrs. DeMille, who recently posted at this blog, to either call off this editor or have Mr. DeMille post here and disavow the person's tendentious editing.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Wikipedia Whitewash of G. Wythe Articles

The George Wythe University and Oliver DeMille articles are currently bombarded by GWU students, faculty, both (not sure exactly) diligently whitewashing anything that may reflect poorly on the school. The main points gone are that (1) GW previously awarded degrees based on life experience; and (2) DeMille may have made up some of his degrees in the past. I suspect one (or all) of the editors is Shanon Brooks, director of marketing for the school.

If you want some insight into how, in my experience, GW students / faculty tend to engage in discussion with those of a different viewpoint, check out the talk pages of these articles (linked to the left on this blog). One of the first responses when presented with damning evidence is to attack the opponent personally. Close behind is the straw man, the favorite fallacy it seems of GW adherents. For example, they often define your terms for you, then attack the definition they made up for you.

Wikipedia articles must conform to an ideal called "neutral point of view," meaning articles should not be presented from a pro- or con perspective, but rather from a neutral perspective. The facts in this case are damning enough that they speak for themselves even from a neutral perspective.

The nature of Wikipedia is such that if enough people get on there, majority rules, not a neutral point of view, and not the truth. Sadly in this case, the truth is losing.