Submissions:2015/History of the Murder of Meredith Kercher Article

From WikiConference North America
Jump to navigation Jump to search
History of the Murder of Meredith Kercher Article
Community. Includes BLP, COI, Dispute Resolution, and Advocacy, all in the context of one specific article.
Type of submission
Presentation. Possible request for 15 more min for panel if accepted.
E-mail address
Member of Injustice Anywhere. Presenter has blogged extensively off-Wiki in support of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

This proposal will involve a detailed discussion of the issues surrounding the Murder of Meredith Kercher (MoMK) article. The general subjects of dispute resolution, conflict of interest, blocking policy, administrator misconduct, advocacy editing, and the fair treatment of living persons (BLP) will be examined within the context of a specific topic.

The submitter is one of about a dozen editors blocked since 2010 for their participation in the topic. All those blocked had argued that the article did not treat Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito fairly. It is submitted here that the BLP issues surrounding a “highly biased” (exact words of Jimmy Wales) article about a heavily disputed murder case are grave.

The MoMK article is probably the most troubled entry in Wikipedia’s history and one that has caused profound harm to living human beings. Jimmy Wales has taken a close look at the dispute and found an article that employed “systematic exclusion of reliable sources” and “censorship to promote an agenda.” Wikimedia Foundation candidate Josh Lim went on to characterize the events there as “reprehensible.” Jimmy took an interest in the article following an open letter to him that was eventually signed by 454 people including seven reliable sources and the authors of six different books about the case. Jimmy’s attention was short lived and the article of today remains deeply flawed.

The case involved the highly publicized trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the 2007 murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. The case has been the subject of nearly 20 books, a dozen television documentaries, thousands of news segments, and two movies. Many reliable sources have criticized the fairness of the proceedings against Knox and Sollecito, a fact not reflected in the current article.

As noted in the article today, Knox and Sollecito were demonized in the European press. For much of this time Wikipedia became a central player in the dissemination of false and misleading information about the case. Both the Wikipedia dispute and the larger Internet debate pitted mostly European editors who believed in Knox and Sollecito’s guilt against less experienced editors from the US who believed in innocence. The US v. UK divide was so sharp and well defined that it can’t be ignored. Only with the final exoneration of Knox and Sollecito in March of this year did the Wikipedia article finely concede that the trial had been heavily criticized in America.

This presentation will include significant criticism of the English Wikipedia ARBCOM.

If accepted, a request maybe made to modify the presentation to a panel discussion of a little longer time as several of the important reliable sources banned from the current article reside in the DC area and might be interested in participating.

Wikipedia has of course done more to further the education of those children in the world who want to learn than any innovation in our lifetime, all at no cost to the taxpayers. That is an impressive accomplishment. It should come as no surprise that some articles will have problems and a very small number will have big problems. Wikipedia has done so much good for the world but in a handful of areas they may need to do a better job of listening to responsible voices of dissent.

Length of presentation
30 min. Possible request for 45 min if accepted.
Special schedule requests
Fri Oct 9 not OK. Sat and Sun OK.
Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?
Probably not.

Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (~~~~).

  1. Add your username here.
  2. Samantha (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
  3. I'll admit that the comments below make me a little leery, but I would be interested in hearing at least one side of this story. It would maybe be interesting to hear from both sides, if possible. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2015 (EDT)
For the reviewers: Note that this submission comes from a user banned from the English Wikipedia for harassment and threatening behavior related to the subject of this proposal. Dominic (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
First of all let me make clear that the allegations of threat and harass on my block log are utterly false. Here are some real threats that pertain to the discussion.
Please take a look at this article on the TJMK site that talks about me and is given credibility in this Signpost article also about me. The author "Gwaendar" (not his Wikipedia username) is described as a long time Wikipedia editor. He is in fact an administrator who has implemented numerous blocks on the Kercher topic and has accused me of THREAT. In the comment area following the article there are two comments each by Gwaendar(Wiki Admin), FormerIP(Wiki Editor), Peter Quennell(0ff-Wiki), and Grahame Rhodes(also Off-Wiki). Peter Quennell has run the site for over seven years. Rhodes has made close to a thousand posts there. Please see the quotes below and consider the decision by the Wikipedia administrator who is accusing others of THREAT to post an article there.
"I personally would like three hours alone with you in a sound proof basement. you would never walk again or feed yourself or hear or see certainly never fuck again because I'd cut your balls off first thing and then I'd leave you to scream away the night until I cut your lying tongue out" – Grahame Rhodes (AKA Grimbal) Sep-14 Link Here
"I wish you [Amanda Knox] a long life looking over your shoulder wondering where retribution is going to come from. Point being that you will never be safe, at least from me and people like me. You can fool these idiots but we know you are guilty and there will be a reckoning. You and the people round you of course, over time will forget and relax. It may take some time ure but it will happen I promise you that." Grahame Rhodes April 2015 Link here. Search on "Rhodes"
"Quennell then accused me by email of being on the Knox family payroll, informed me that his sources in Perugia had seen me consorting with Amanda’s mother (I had in fact met with her once, in a public place, by then) and eventually started writing about how he was going to “train his scope” on my apartment in Manhattan, and closing emails with “how are the kiddies?" – Nina Burleigh, Mar 13 in Time Magazine Link Here.
I have posted a more detailed response to the above here that I hope everyone will take a look at. Thanks PhanuelB (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2015 (EDT)