Citizendium, the more responsible replacement for Wikipedia, does better article on Arudou Debito


Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants, and Immigrants to Japan\Foreign Residents and Naturalized Citizens Association forming NGO\「ジャパニーズ・オンリー 小樽入浴拒否問題と人種差別」(明石書店)JAPANESE ONLY:  The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan
Hi Blog.  Last August I began taking on Wikipedia’s heavily-biased (even by its own standards) entry on Arudou Debito, pointing out some systemic flaws in the media:  among other things, how all manner of anonymous people can launder quotes and alleged criticisms by citing websites as if they were genuine publications (and their authors as if they were established authorities in the field), yet omit published third-party sources and comments by true authorities just because they were archived on (or just because they don’t fit in as “Criticisms”, wink).  It was a good discussion, but now that it’s died down, the Wikipedia entry is just steadily reverting back to the same old biased and laundered references, and losing impartiality all over again.  (And I’m not even bothering with the Japanese version of the entry — there’s no saving it from anonymous net denizens without even an inkling of integrity.)  So forget it.  Wikipedia as a medium is probably unredeemable in its present form.

Meanwhile, arising is an alternative — Citizendium, where contributors must have verified identities. and articles cannot be so easily defaced at whim.  I like how the article on Arudou Debito has come out so far there.  Reproduced below.  I suggest readers start switching to Citizendium particularly when it comes to information on contentious topics and people.  Arudou Debito in Sapporo


Arudou Debito

Image:Statusbar1.png Main Article Talk Related Articles  [?]  Bibliography  [?]  External Links  [?]   

This is a draft article, under development. These unapproved articles are subject to a disclaimer.

© Photo: Arudou Debito Arudou Debito is a Japanese teacher, author and activist.       

© Photo: Arudou Debito 
Arudou Debito is a Japanese teacher, author and activist.

Arudou Debito (有道出人; born 1965) is a Japanese human rights activist, teacher and author. Arudou was born and brought up in the United States and became a naturalised Japanese citizen in 2000.




Arudou was born in California in 1965. As a U.S. citizen, his name was David Aldwinckle; he went to Cornell University and visited Japan in 1986 on an invitation from his future wife. He graduated in 1987, having studied Japanese in his senior year, and spent a year teaching English in the northern Japanese city of Sapporo. On his return to the United States, Arudou entered the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego. He deferred from the programme to return to Japan to get married and spend a year on an internship at theJapan Management Academy in NagaokaNiigata prefecture. He returned to the U.S. in 1990, completing his Masters of Public and International Affairs (MPIA) degree the following year.

In 1991, Arudou joined a small company trading in Sapporo, but working conditions and unhappy experiences there led him to leave after 15 months. In 1993, he obtained a position at the Hokkaido Information University, a private higher education institution, teaching courses in Business English and debate.[1]

Japanese citizenship

Arudou became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996. By 2000, Arudou was established in Japan, with family and a full-time job as an associate professor; he paid taxes, but had no right to vote as a foreigner. For these reasons, Arudou chose to seek Japanese citizenship, which he obtained in 2000.[2] He later changed his name to Arudou Debito,[3] which is formed through selecting the Japanese characters 有道出人 and their appropriate pronunciations. In 2002, Arudou gave up his U.S. citizenship.[4]

Publications and citations

See also: Arudou Debito/Bibliography

Arudou’s first book, in Japanese, was Japaniizu Onrii – Otaru Onsen Nyuuyoku Kyohi Mondai to Jinshu Sabetsu (ジャパニーズ・オンリー―小樽温泉入浴拒否問題と人種差別 ‘Japanese Only – Otaru Hot Spring Bathing Refusal Problem and Racial Discrimination’; 2003). The book documented Arudou and two others’ experiences of litigation against aJapanese hot spring business which denied entry to non-Japanese, and the City of Otaru (小樽市 Otaru-shi) itself.[5][6]Arudou published a second book in English on the matter, Japanese Only: The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan (2004; updated 2006),[7] which included new material and different emphases; this appeared to generally positive reviews,[8] with the Japan Times calling it “an excellent account”[9] and the non-profit Japan Policy Research Institute (JPRI) also recommending it.[10]

Arudou’s third work, with administrative solicitor Akira Higuchi (樋口彰 Higuchi Akira), was Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants and Immigrants to Japan (2008), which gives information on living in Japan for the medium to long term, including advice on the procedures for entry to the country, taxes, marriagedivorce, going to court, tackling discrimination, and so on.[11] The book appeared to positive reviews,[12] the Japan Times naming it as the best guide to such issues.[13] The content of the book is printed twice, with English and Japanese on opposite pages.

Arudou has also extensively published in academic journals, particularly the peer-reviewed Japan Focus, and penned columns for newspapers such as the Japan Times. He is a regular interviewee in various news publications, radio programmes and podcasts,[14] and is cited frequently in academia, the media and on the internet.[15] His website,, contains a substantial amount of information about living and working in Japan, details of Arudou’s activities, and campaigning pages such as a ‘Rogues’ Gallery’ of establishments which appear to restrict or deny entry to non-Japanese.[16]


Arudou founded a group called ‘The Community’ in 1999 to raise awareness of human rights issues in Japan, such as discrimination in employment and denial of services to people of non-ethnically Japanese appearance.[17] In 2008, he co-founded ‘FRANCA’ (Foreign Residents and Naturalized Citizens Association) in the wake of the Japanese government‘s implementation of fingerprinting all foreigners on every entry to the country, regardless of status. Among this forming NGO‘S aims are ensuring non-discriminatory treatment for foreign residents and naturalised citizens, eliminating stereotypical images, and promoting the benefits of immigration and a multicultural society.[18] His website and Japan Times columns have focused on cases involving discrimination.[19]

Otaru hot springs case

Arudou’s best-known discrimination case, the subject of his two books on the subject,[20] is the six-year-long Otaru onsens (hot springs) case. In September 1999, Arudou went to three hot springs in Otaru, Hokkaido, which displayed ‘Japanese Only’ notices. Members of Arudou’s group of families and friends who were white (caucasian) were denied entry. In February 2001, one of the hot springs was taken to civil court for racial discrimination, along with the City of Otaru, which was accused of violating the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), to which Japan acceded in January 1996.[21] The hot spring lost the case in the Sapporo District Court (札幌地方裁判所 Sapporo Chihoo Saiban Sho) in November 2002, and the Sapporo High Court (札幌高等裁判所 Sapporo Kootoo Saiban Sho) in September 2004; the latter rejected the hot spring’s appeal against the district court’s order that they pay Arudou and the other plaintiffs ¥1,000,000 each.[22] However, both courts also ruled in favour of the City of Otaru on the matter of violating the UN CERD treaty, and in April 2005, the Supreme Court of Japan (最高裁判所 Saikoo Saibansho) ruled that constitutional issues were not involved in the case.[23]


  1.  See for more information.
  2. ‘Arudou Debito’s website: Japan Today Columns 1-3‘.
  3.  Japanese use family name first, given name second.
  4. ‘Essay: how to lose your American passport‘.
  5. ‘The Otaru lawsuit information site‘.
  6.  Japan Times: ‘City off hook over bathhouse barring of foreigners ‘. 8th April 2005.
  7. ‘Book ‘Japanese Only’‘.
  8. ‘Reviews of book “Japanese Only”, full text‘ (archive of reviews).
  9.  Japan Times: ‘Bathhouse pushes a foreigner into the doghouse‘. 30th January 2005.
  10.  JPRI: ‘JPRI’S recommended library on Japan‘ (‘politics’ section).
  11. ‘Information site for ordering “Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants and Immigrants to Japan”‘.
  12. ‘“Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants and Immigrants to Japan”: ordering options‘.
  13.  Japan Times: ‘Helping newcomers settle in Japan ‘. 20th April 2008.
  14.  e.g. Trans-Pacific Radio: ‘ Podcast for April 5, 2008‘. 5th April 2008.
  15. ‘Arudou Debito/Dave Aldwinckle’s publications‘.
  16. ‘“The Rogues’ Gallery”: Photos of places in Japan which exclude or restrict non-Japanese customers‘.
  17. ‘The Community‘ and ‘“The Community”: Issues and proposals concerning non-Japanese in Japan.’
  18. ‘Press Release: First NGO FRANCA meetings Sendai Mar 15, Osaka Mar 25‘.
  19.  For example, see the Japan Times columns ‘Twisted legal logic deals rights blow to foreigners‘, 7th February 2006, and ‘Abuse, racism, lost evidence deny justice in Valentine case ‘, 14th August 2007.
  20.  Arudou (2003; 2004).
  21.  Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: ‘Status of ratifications of the principal international human rights treaties: as of 09 June 2004‘.
  22.  About US$9,500 in September 2008.
  23. ‘The Otaru lawsuit information site‘.


11 comments on “Citizendium, the more responsible replacement for Wikipedia, does better article on Arudou Debito

  • Alright, well I’m at least registered on both of these sites. And I do follow developments. Yes, you have good points, but I reserve a great deal of criticism towards Citizendium.

    When sufficient attention is directed towards a Wikipedia article, it becomes a good article. While some problems may remain, you should have noticed a fairly thorough rewrite of the Wikipedia article about you after a fuss was raised about it.

    The problem with both of these sites are that they’re simply not funded. If you want academic quality stuff, then you have to pay for it, and this is why Citizendium was always doomed from it’s basic principles. Never mind the fact that its creators are… unabated elitists. We should always strive for the ability to judge an item on content and content alone.

    Take the references…

    Wikipedia is far far far from perfect. But at least by policy, it shouldn’t be citing your website. Should it link to your site, it should really be citing your books. Citizendium, on the other hand, smears on references from your site.

    I’m not saying that you have a bad site (I clear read your posts). But I am saying that it is starkly unprofessional and biased to cite it. Any individual’s site, for that matter, is the same. You know, a large amount of the c*** that’s on your Wikipedia page(s) are referenced from your site. Very selectively chosen, of course. But who’s to decide what flies and what doesn’t? Therein is the wisdom of such policies.

    I’m just saying, the principals and foundation of Wikipedia are far superior. It will always survive the test of time better than it’s competitors and I would caution those who would ride the bandwagon of old fashioned ‘credibility’.

    –Thanks for answering. I’ve raised a few points about the bias in referencing at Wikipedia here today:
    Feel free to participate.

    Disappointing how discussants at this link are still defending a defunct website, with demonstrably bad faith and a history of laundering quotes, as a “reliable source”. And the point that people are selectively quoting, as you say above, is somehow interpreted as a reason for not citing (as opposed to actually cleaning up the process of citation, which Wikipedia simply cannot do effectively), shows the logical flaws continuing. Judging an item on content and content alone (which also should, logically, include is simply not happening given contentious issues.

    It’s not elitism. It’s accountability. And now that Wikipedia has now demonstrated an inability to clean up its act, I’m very willing to consider an alternative source.

  • Followup from Arudou Debito:

    One thing that came out in the discussions today is that the person who has edited the Arudou Debito entry more than just about anyone else over the years (and has rejected and argued against a number of revisions that would have made the entry more balanced), a person by the name of “J Readings”, has this to say about the subject he or she keeps guardian editing:

    …I can understand Mr. Arudou’s position, though. It’s fairly obvious that he wants to remove anything that could be perceived as negative in order to create an advertisement — otherwise, he would focus on all sources everywhere. He wouldn’t be the first subject on Wikipedia to want a micro-managed resume, and he won’t be the last. It’s natural. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

    It’s a rule of thumb that one doesn’t expect a person who has a contempt for the subject matter to write a balanced essay or direct a movie about the subject matter. Same here with J Readings, who publicly impugned the subject’s character today (despite Wikipedia requirements about assumptions of good faith), and keeps arguing (as he or she has over the years) that a defunct website which launders quotes and tries to pass itself off as a real publication (a place called be reinstated as a source.

    So I asked for “J Readings” to come clean about identity and connection to JRN. And here’s how it went:


    J Readings said above, in this section: “Overall, JapanReview seems suitable. I can understand Mr. Arudou’s position, though. It’s fairly obvious that he wants to remove anything that could be perceived as negative in order to create an advertisement — otherwise, he would focus on all sources everywhere. He wouldn’t be the first subject on Wikipedia to want a micro-managed resume, and he won’t be the last. It’s natural. FWIW”.

    Er, don’t we have a thing about civility in discussions? I too have been annoyed at comments and had language tone here reflect that, but a blanket accusation that I’m trying to make a Wikipedia entry on me into a “micro-managed resume” not only does not assume good faith, it is also a very serious allegation (and a slur against the subject of this entry) that warrants the credibility and impartiality of this person, both as a guardian editor of this site and a defender of a dubious source, to be called into question.

    So let me do that. Who are you, J Readings? Your name and your connection to, please. An inability to be verifiable will make it impossible to check out any COI. And will doom Wikipedia to be overtaken someday by credibility-checkers like Citizendium. So for the sake of the media, come clean.

    Finally, as regards my allegedly not focusing on all sources everywhere: Sure, criticisms in reputable published sources (not just mere letters to the editor etc. and laundered quotes from defunct nonpublication websites), put them up in this entry. My issue has always been: how sources that are NOT critical but ARE in reputable published sources are NOT put up, to balance out the subject. I raised this issue several weeks ago. And the media has still not corrected itself. Instead, we have J Readings reemerging from his or her bolthole to argue that the same old sources that were problematic before and removed should be reinstated. Carrying out edit wars of attrition like this only hurt Wikipedia in the end, people. See past the sophistry, please. Arudoudebito (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


    You seem to be very stressed and upset Mr. Arudou, and it was never my intention to add to it. I’m sorry about that. That said, I’ll let my contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Editors are welcome to review them at J_Readings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). As I said before, I was responding to a post on WikiProject Japan. I haven’t touched the content of the article for at least six months (probably more) — with the notable exeption of a few clear cases of vandalism several months ago. I certainly don’t WP:OWN this article. I believe, as most editors probably do, that talk page discussions for the benefit of improving an article are almost always a good thing unless they’re designed to be disruptive. I notice that several editors (and others) have tried repeatedly to point out to you how Wikipedia works per WP:BITE (as you’re obviously new to the project). I hope you’ll take their advice on board and continue to edit Wikipedia. It’s a worthwhile project. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


    Who are you? And what is your connection to

    Let the record show that “J Readings”, whoever he or she is, refused to answer the questions immediately above and evaded accountability.

    QED. Its editors like “J Readings” who publicly impugn the character of the person being covered, yet will not come clean about who they themselves are, do a disservice to this media. Wikipedia as information source will only suffer for it. Let’s see if Wikipedia as a system can actually (and finally, after all these years of J Readings’ guardian edits) do something about it. Arudoudebito (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

    Conclusion: Wikipedia has a serious flaw in its accountability and impartiality in editing. Let’s hope it can right itself. But I doubt it. Meanwhile, Citizendium, keep at it. Debito in Sapporo

  • Martin Baldwin-Edwards says:

    The first post here claims that Citizendium’s professional integrity, public accountability through a realnames policy and an editorial policy that is actually enforced (by a team of highly experienced and qualified people from all walks of life) constitutes elitism. Of course, Wikipedia operates through populism — except that individuals can manipulate the content through anonymous abuse of power, sheer persistence and a variety of other techniques that are well-known to historians. These problems of human behaviour did not arrive with the internet: the main problem that arrived with the internet is anonymity and the opportunities it affords those with a personal or political agenda to pursue.

    I cannot speak to the quality or reliability of our article on Prof. Debito, since I have undertaken no research on the topic. What I can say, as a purely academic point, is that it is appropriate to source at least some material from his website. The way in which that is done is, naturally, of paramount importance: our editorial policy for Approved articles is designed to address such issues. Articles in progress are subjected to less scrutiny, but there is some sort of editorial oversight for quality control and neutrality of article content.

    We hope that serious-minded people will join Citizendium and participate in what is a serious attempt to recreate an online body of high quality knowledge on a range of subjects. Like WP it is an unpaid activity with free access: unlike WP, it is a regulated and accountable process with clearly-defined rules (for the most part) and named personnel.

  • Update from Arudou Debito:

    One more entry on this subject for today, and then I’ll try to let this go and move on to other topics. Life’s too short.

    Today’s tidings have left me no cause for optimism regarding Wikipedia. In the course of debate:

    1) As you saw above, one editor accused me of trying to make the WP entry into an “advertisement” and a “micro-managed resume”, and when I asked for the editor to identify him or herself (because I believe the person is in fact either Paul Scalise or Yuki Honjo, two guardian editors of the site who keep sticking their defunct website into the entry, and sourcing Yuki Honjo’s unpublished materials as a source), they refused.

    2) Wagons then circled around the editors and said that they did not have to identify themselves or their possible connection to, meaning they can know all about me that they like, but I can’t know who my accuser is, even when he or she demonstrates both a bias towards information and publicly impugns my character.

    3) Another editor accused me of trying to edit my own entry (when in fact all I did was put a NPOV tag at the very top, showing a lack of balance, without altering any of the text below it), and put a tag up on the WP talk page saying, “An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Debito Arudou, has edited Wikipedia as Arudoudebito”. (Yeah, like I really tried to hide my identity with that moniker.) Even though a) I added this NPOV tag last August to no fanfare, b) I was told last August I could change the WP page myself under certain guidelines by the editors, and c) I refused to do so, precisely because I thought I would be accused of a conflict of interest. I’m glad I took my own advice now — seems almost as if the editors were trying to lure me into a trap.

    4) And finally, no matter how hard I’ve tried to make my arguments and issues clear both here and on the Talk pages, the editors keep willfully misconstruing the points and avoiding answers.

    These are some of the classic tactics of anonymous Internet trolls. And they are controlling the first pages anyone sees when Googling my name. What a snakepit. I’m outta there. As I wrote at the very end of one of my entries today:

    How would you like it if people were anonymously saying things that were biased and twisted to the point of being untrue about you? And you couldn’t know who your accusers are (a right in other respectable media), even when you ask? It’s not as though it’s a fair fight here. Show a bit of empathy with the subject you’re critiquing, can’t ya? Arudoudebito (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

    Pages being referred to, if you’re interested:

    That’s it, then. I tried to bring issues to the fore through proper channels, and this is the reception the living subject of a biography gets. Time to let it go. It’s not a fair system. And it’s one reason why Wikipedia, like Fox News, will ultimately fail as a credible media source if left as is.

  • I figured this would be here.

    You seem to have some comprehension problems. You accuse one user of having a conflict of interest. However, you ignore the several other editors who also back the addition of the text and reference. Even if the sole editor was found to have a conflict of interest and his opinion was ignored in the discussion because of Wikipedia policy, the JapanReview reference would STILL be allowed because there is nothing wrong with it and it is from a valid source. One editor’s possible conflict of interest on Wikipedia does not negate the validity of a well backed source.

    And if you want to continue your accusations, you’re free to look through and see if you can find any proof that this editor is who you think he is, or that he has some sort of affiliation with JapanReview. See, this is what the rest of us did when we told you that there was no conflict of interest. We actually looked. Guess what we found? Nothing to back your accusation. How much more do you want to lie and claim we didn’t do anything?

    You were told this on at least three occassions, but continued to complain that we ignoring it, even though it was specifically addressed. Your concern that we did not police this person you accused are false. Editors saw no conflict of interest. To claim that we held only you to our standards of Conflicts of Interest is a blatant lie. You simply did not like the fact that we did not agree with your accusation and moved on because the matter was moot.

    You questioned who this editor was, you were answered that he had no obligation to do so and that his contributions did not sway the validity of a reference. You questioned why he was not being investigated for COI, we told you that there appeared to be nothing to back the accusation. You questioned. We answered. You didn’t like the answers. It’s as simple as that.

    That sole user’s terms for describing your actions were over the line and broke our policy of Assuming Good Faith. Other editors already pointed this out.

    You did edit your article by adding the NPOV tag, that is not up to debate. This editor was also likely over the line, although he had reasoning behind it. Adding a tag claiming an article is NPOV does change the appearance or tone of the article, even if you did not change text. It would be similar to putting a “this book is not neutral” on the cover of Encyclopedia Brittanica. It should have been discussed on the talk page rather than just pasting a tag over the article.

    Yes, that same editor added a notation to the top of the talk page stating that a user edited an article about himself. This is not an accusation. This is here for the aid of other Wikipedians so that they know that that person is editing, or at the very least watching over the article about themself. No one stated that you hid, it was merely for the benefit of other editors who did not know the full story. The text specifies that “…Debito Arudou, has edited Wikipedia as…” which is true, you were participating on Wikipedia.

    “How would you like it if people were anonymously saying things that were biased and twisted to the point of being untrue about you?”

    I would move the fuck on. I can’t control the opinions and statements of those around me. Wikipedia is NOT a news source. We’re not held to the standards of media because we’re not the media. We’re not reportes. It’s an Encyclopedia. If you want news, we have Completely different area and section of Wikimedia Foundation which has its own rules and policies completely independent of Wikipedia, and vice-versa.

    If you believe that it is simply Internet Trolls who are doing this, then it’s nice to know what you think of those who likely read your work or know of you, since they’re likely the ones who wrote the article in the first place. These are not people randomly picking an article to corrupt. These are people attempting to write a biography. Note, biography, not autobiography.

    If you are unsatisfied with way the biography ends up, discuss it. Don’t accuse people of intentionally attempting to troll or use tactics against you or anything else just because they do not see things your way. That’s not discussion, that’s immaturity.

    You were asked to discuss things multiple times, you chose not to. Not our fault.

  • Debito,

    In my opinion you are wasting your time commenting on that talk page. The few active editors there are not clearly objective or neutral.

    If you want a larger and hopefully more objective audience to determine if JapanReview and Honjo are reliable resources (per Wikipedia guidelines), then I propose posting at . Make your case, but please try to be respectful and sincere. A little bit of tack can go a long way.

    J Readings may or may not have a conflict of interest. Regardless, though, the content of the article needs to be generated from reliable resources, so it is ultimately irrelevant.

    –Thanks very much for the advice!

  • “In my opinion you are wasting your time commenting on that talk page. The few active editors there are not clearly objective or neutral.”

    You’re basing this claim on what, exactly? The fact that they don’t agree?

    “J Readings may or may not have a conflict of interest. Regardless, though, the content of the article needs to be generated from reliable resources, so it is ultimately irrelevant.”

    And we already established that the content was reliable?

  • It’s rich that this person asks about bias. Look at the comment he left today at

    If the JapanReview statements are removed because they are not a reliable source, then there should be a removal of the praise from the Japan Times, should there not? As I mentioned in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, if these books had their own articles and we only included the praise from the Japan Times, then this would be a case of undue weight and bias. Ignoring the validity of JapanReview, we can’t have just praise. Either a reliably sourced criticism needs to be added, or the praise needs to be removed. The359 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

    This is after taking this to a higher admin level and getting an opinion last night that the source under review for “reliability”, was indeed inappropriate for WP biography of living persons. (see:

    My response to “The359”:

    Omigod, are we arguing this with a straight face? We can’t have PRAISE? Speaking of undue weight, we’ve had almost nothing but criticism up for years now from what has now been adjudged by more barnstars than you to be an unreliable source (a website et al that is nothing more than a blog). So now we’d better remove the praise despite the fact that it IS from a reliable source (the Japan Times)?

    Repeating the argument above, we must have criticism before we can allow praise? This is a BIAS, people. Against praise. Heaven forfend our biographied subject ever get praised! It becomes an advertisement! Well, no it doesn’t. It becomes troll-proof, because the only people who are really levelling (mostly unfair, and that’s why it’s mostly unpublished in properly-vetted and fact-checked sources) criticisms are people who aren’t offering balanced opinions. On balance, what the subject is doing has garnered mostly praise, like it or not. Except from the people like those who seek to become guardian editors of this website who hide behind Internet monikers, and offer opinions they don’t have to take responsibility for because nobody knows who they are or what their track record is. They don’t WANT praise — they want criticism only or praise removed unless criticism is allowed to exist.

    If we are judging by content and content alone, the only reliable sources out there that can be allowed are those that, coincidentally, say mostly nice things. Content that is praising is not inherently bad. Content that is reliably sourced (and coincidentially for the most part positive) is the only thing allowed under Wikipedia rules. But The Alleged Consensus at least as far as the guardian editors are concerned has been to ignore those rules. Because they want a tendentious biography that criticizes the subject and doesn’t allow praise. The above editor has argued precisely as such above.

    Heal thyself, Wikipedia. Get rid of these anonymous tendentious Internet bullies. Arudoudebito (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

    Again, we have to be asked by this Internet persona where the bias exactly is?

    No doubt “The359” will respond (he’s one of those types who must have the last word). But I think he’s probably answered the questions he poses himself by himself, so let him spin away. It’s still amazing how self-assured these “editors” are in their own infallibility. That’s why we have people specially-trained for these sorts of things — it’s called “professionality”. Pity they aren’t the ones running Wikipedia pages. Again, Citizendium. Arudou Debito

  • Is the paragraph the only part of your page that you want deleted? Is there anything else about the page that you feel needs balancing?

    –I’m afraid there is. Would my elaborating on it here (I’ve already elaborated on it in a previous blog entry and on the Talk Page itself; there are still problems remaining despite changes made last August, and they’re slowly being increased over time thanks to editor attrition) matter or make a difference at this point?

    The contents up on Citizendium as listed above are fine with me. And that’s NOT because they’re accessing inter alia. It’s because they are accurate. They were also, incidentally, written by somebody else who actually did his research and made them accurate. I say use it as a template for summaries of things like the Otaru Onsen Case etc.

    But of course, the Wikipedians aren’t going to investigate those sources and verify their veracity. They assume (actually, no, have explicitly argued) there is an automatic conflict of interest just because the information is from That’s a bias. Especially when sometimes is the ONLY archive for some primary-source and third-party published information.

    And I’ve pointed that out again and again to willfully blinded eyes at Wikipedia. It’s frustrating indeed to have people biographying about cases of prejudice yet showing their own prejudices.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>