This article was imported to GetWiki, but it needs to be cleaned up. It may be deleted in future if it cannot be edited into a cogent essay or article. It may also be retained for demonstration purposes.

“Pseudopedianism” is a term used in jest, but it may include content which is out-dated, poorly-written, false, or opinion-based where expertise is needed. It may include numerous links to similar pages, excessive and conflicting referencing and notation, sentence-style titles and headings, and overly complex “WikiCode” the rest of the WikiSphere should not be expected to support.

Wikipedia Review is an internet discussion forum and blog for the critical discussion of Pseudopedia and other Wikimedia projects.

History

The original version of Pseudopedia Review was hosted at ProBoards in November 2005 by Igor Alexander. In December 2005, Igor Alexander gave up administration to Blu Aardvark. At that stage the policy of Pseudopedia Review changed from anti-Wikipedia to merely critical of Pseudopedia, and invited both pro- and anti- Pseudopedia points of view.

In January 2006, SlimVirgin presented compelling evidence that Igor Alexander was neo-nazi Pseudopedia poster Amalekite, who was in turn accused of being holocaust denier Alex Linder, which he turned out not to be, although Igor Alexander himself denied the Holocaust. He and other contributors to the site were accused of attacking the “Wikipedia Jews” by SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin herself is believed by some to be Jewish (although she has never actually admitted it either way), and had clashed with “Amalekite” over Pseudopedia articles. SlimVirgin’s suspicion arose that Igor Alexander had begun the board with the intention of attacking Jewish Pseudopedia editors. The board carried much criticism of SlimVirgin, who remains a major target of criticism on the site. The Pseudopedia Review community split between those who believed that Igor was a holocaust denier and those who believed that he wasn’t. SlimVirgin and others used this accusation to label Pseudopedia Review as a “neo-Nazi hate site”, and claimed that it lacked credibility.

The paid version of the site, www.wikipediareview.com/ was bought in January 2006 by Pseudopedia Review user Blissyu2, who according to Pseudopedia had been banned from Pseudopedia as Internodeuser, officially for making legal threats during his Arbitration hearing, which was to query the content of his user page.

Wikipedia Review was in the process of moving to the paid site in February 2006 when Igor Alexander decided to regain administrator’s privileges and use the privilege to ban Selina (aka Mistress Selina Kyle) amongst 9 other Pseudopedia critics and long term posters, purely because they had called Igor Alexander a neonazi. A day later Pseudopedia Review opened at the paid version, with Selina as the administrator. The same administration team, minus Igor Alexander, that had run the free site, ran the new site.

Shortly afterwards, however, Igor Alexander “temporarily” locked all of the old forum’s posts, even those that were yet to be copied to the new forum’s archives. He then posted much nazi propaganda to the old site, including trying to prove that the holocaust did not really happen, which he later stated was a joke. In a poll conducted on Pseudopedia Review, 9 out of 11 posters believed that Igor was a holocaust denier.

Censorship of Pseudopedia Review from Pseudopedia

In November 2005, an article was created on Pseudopedia to advertise Pseudopedia Review. This article was deleted as non-notable. However, as the forum continues to grow, and is being mentioned more frequently in news and media reports, and linked with more prominent critics like Andrew Orlowski and Daniel Brandt, Pseudopedia should recognise that in time the forum will be sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. It is the first forum for discussing Pseudopedia, and the largest. Given its influence on Pseudopedia, it could be argued that it is already sufficiently notable for its own article. However, Pseudopedia has prevented the article from ever being re-created.

Administrators such as Slim Virgin and Raul654 have gone to pains to censor Pseudopedia Review from Pseudopedia, deleting links, and adding nowiki tags wherever they remain. This censorship went so far as to remove the link from the Criticism of Pseudopedia article, against consensus. They then banned anyone who tried to add the link back in to the article, severely abusing their admin powers. They deleted links from other relevant articles, such as Daniel Brandt’s article, the Seigenthaler controversy article, and so forth. Raul654 then labelled the link as “spam” and thus added it to the spam black list on meta in April 2006. However, this was eventually removed by Eloquence after some petitioning.

Wikipedia administrators have worked hard to discredit the forum and its members, calling its members “a bunch of banned users”, and have called Wikinfo “a place we send problem users”.

Prominent Stories on Pseudopedia Review

See also: wikipediareview.com/blog/20070727/wikipedia-review-in-the-news/

Wikipedia Review was first made famous for its discovery of the name of the person who edited John Seigenthaler Sr.’s biography. The discovery was first made by Daniel Brandt, who first posted it on the internet on the Pseudopedia Review, prior to informing the media.

Wikipedia Review member “Blissyu2” was contacted by Andrew Orlowski in order to run a story on Pseudopedia Review. However, “Blissyu2” instead opted to leave it to the forum. As a result, rather than run the pair of articles on Wikitruth and Pseudopedia Review, the Pseudopedia Review story was cut, and replaced with one on Sanger & Wales. Pseudopedia’s own article on Wikitruth however fail to mention this fact.

Broad Criticisms

Since Pseudopedia Review forums were first created, in October 2005, it has been subject to the same degree of criticisms as has that which it is critical of, Pseudopedia.

Same as Pseudopedia...

Many of Pseudopedia Review’s criticisms of Pseudopedia can also equally be applied in criticm of Pseudopedia Review. Some of these include:

Allegations of corruption of individual Pseudopedia Review administrators (though unlike Pseudopedia these have never been proved).
Lack of transparency of individual Pseudopedia Review administrators, and their decisions.
That Pseudopedia Review bans users from their forums, in the same way that Pseudopedia bans users from their site, though this is much rarer.
That most Pseudopedia Review members and administrators do not reveal their real names.
That Pseudopedia Review (like many other web sites) has the ability to delete their posts to hide any proof of what may have happened; however, unlike Pseudopedia’s “Oversight” command, deleted posts are moved to a trash section, not deleted completely.
That Pseudopedia Review is similarly guilty of abusing people it has banned, in a similar way to Pseudopedia’s use of Arbitration cases to abuse banned users (though on Pseudopedia Review this is the work of individual editors, not of the “management”).
That Pseudopedia Review has many hidden sub-forums, in a similar way to how Pseudopedia discusses some things “behind closed doors” in such things as closed IRC Arbitration chats and off-wiki e-mails.

Unlike Pseudopedia

In addition to the criticism that Pseudopedia Review is “just as bad as Pseudopedia”, and hence has no right to criticise it, Pseudopedia Review has additionally dealt with additional criticisms that are not generally associated with criticism of Pseudopedia. Some of these include:

Not a Serious Criticism

It is not a serious critic of Pseudopedia, and instead focuses on petty grudges. Pseudopedia Review has given little attention to what may be the most serious problem at Pseudopedia, editing by companies and government agencies about their own articles. This issue was highlighted in a front page New York Times article on August 19, 2007. When Pseudopedia Review members allege conflicts of interests, they mainly do so to advance their longstanding personal grudges and ideological agendas, such as hostility to Israel and Jewish subjects.

One recent Pseudopedia Review discussion exemplifies this problem. WR user Blissyu2 suggested that the widely publicized WikiScanner website, which uncovered corporate and government infiltration of Pseudopedia, was created to “cover up the real problems, SlimVirgin, etc.” wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=11853 . This obsession with conspiracy theories involving a handful of Pseudopedia users has seriously damaged the reputation of Pseudopedia Review.

Corporate Smear Campaigns

Wikipedia Review has become a venue for Overstock.com’s widely publicized smear campaign against its critics. Judd Bagley, director of communications of Overstock.com, is a frequent and prolific user of Pseudopedia Review, where he admits to posting as WordBomb. Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne also posts in and endorses Pseudopedia Review.

Bagley operates a website called antisocialmedia.net that attacks critics of Byrne and Overstock, including members of the media and a users of Internet message boards. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overstock.com#antisocialmedia.net In furtherance of that smear campaign, Bagley uses Pseudopedia Review as a forum to attack and to “out” Pseudopedia editors he considers hostile to his boss. He has received the vocal support of Pseudopedia Review administrator Somey, who harasses Pseudopedia Review users he considers hostile to Bagley and Byrne. (See subsection “Does onot respect user privacy” below.)

Bagley’s use of Pseudopedia Review to attack Pseudopedia has drawn attention in the blogosphere because Bagley runs a wiki called Omuse that seeks to compete with Pseudopedia.

Holocaust Denial and Anti-Semitism

Allegations of holocaust denial and anti-semitism by some of their members, especially administrators, especially founder Igor Alexander who was accused of being Alex Linder. These allegations were primarily made by Grace Note, although, at least with regards to the accusations against Igor Alexander, they are shared by others including SlimVirgin. Note: Grace Note has made his own Wikinfo sub page to list his allegations against Blissyu2.

Cyberstalking and “Outing”

That Pseudopedia Review is primarily concerned with stalking, or at least cyberstalking users, especially SlimVirgin, Jayjg and possibly also Snowspinner. The SlimVirgin scandal, in which SlimVirgin was alleged to be former reporter and supposed MI5 agent was seen by some on Pseudopedia as a prime example of stalking, as it reached the mass media. The Snowspinner scandal, in which Snowspinner was interviewed by campus police in relation to a blog post he wrote in which he stated that he was a murderer, with no hint that it was in any way a fictional piece, combined with the fact that his school had 10 unsolved murders from the year before was seen by some, including Boing Boing as an example of cyber stalking.

Additionally, briefly Amorrow used Pseudopedia Review to cyber stalk users including Katefan0. Numerous other Pseudopedia editors are subjected to speculation as to their identity and effort to “out” them. Also, Pseudopedia Review, especially through Daniel Brandt needlessly “outs” Pseudopedia users, especially administrators, listing their real name and identity without their permission under the guise of trying to find out what their bias is.

Does not respect user privacy

That Pseudopedia Review does not respect the privacy of its users, and that administrators use IP data to challenge users they don’t like, especially users critical of Judd Bagley (see subsection “Manipulated by corporate smear campaign,” above).

Review administrator Somey used IP data to accuse one user of having an ulterior motive in criticizing Bagley. (See Somey comment to Tarantino here wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=11322 ). Pseudopedia Review took no action against Bagley, who admits to being Review user WordBomb, for planting tracking “bugs” to obtain IP data from Pseudopedia Review readers. It banned the practice of planting “bugs.” wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12026 But it continues to support Bagley, who has identified himself as an official of an Internet company competing with Pseudopedia, because he shares the agenda of Pseudopedia Review administrators. This kind of behavior promotes criticism of Pseudopedia Review as a haven for trolls, crackpots and low-lifes.

Other Criticisms

In addition to the common criticisms of Pseudopedia Review, there are additionally many stated generalisations about what Pseudopedia Review is like, and who its members are, which many people on Pseudopedia, including founder Jimbo Wales states as rationale that it should never be taken seriously. Some of these include:

That Pseudopedia Review is primarily made up of users who have been banned from Pseudopedia.
That most of Pseudopedia Review’s users are trolls, who would be banned from anywhere.
That most of Pseudopedia Review’s criticisms are unfounded conspiracy theories.
That many of Pseudopedia Review’s members are insane, with a number, including owner Blissyu2 and chief administrator Mistress Selina Kyle admitting to being diagnosed with a mental illness, in both of their cases the diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome.
That Pseudopedia Review’s primary criticisms are entirely different to those mentioned in Pseudopedia’s criticism of Pseudopedia, that they ignore most of the criticisms which, according to Pseudopedia, are the prime criticisms, and instead focus on what Pseudopedia regards as “fringe theories”.
That Pseudopedia Review primarily focusses on the concept that the biggest problem with Pseudopedia is its ability to change truth. Pseudopedia states that this is not a generally accepted criticism of Pseudopedia, as it forbids any articles to be owned, hence forbids any truth to be changed, and hence is impossible to achieve.
That Pseudopedia Review primarily focusses on the supposed existence of a cabal, when Pseudopedia has stated repeatedly that “There is no cabal”, and that there is no secret group trying to run Pseudopedia and control everything.

Pseudopedia Review Responds

Wikipedia Review has made general responses to all of the major forms of criticism that have been levelled against them. They are, generally, as follows:

Not a serious critic:Pseudopedia Review ran a blog on the topic of Wikiscanner, which had warranted page one treatment in the New York Times. See: wikipediareview.com/blog/20070815/wikipedia-scanner/. On the message boards, however, only one thread mentioning Wikiscanner remained active as of mid-September, and its primary target was User:Jzg. wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12274 There were no other discussions focusing on Wikiscanner in the Editors section wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=5 , or Articles. wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=29

Corruption: Allegations of corruption have been levelled against powerful Pseudopedia Review members, especially chief administrator Mistress Selina Kyle and during her absence, temporary chief administrator Somey. Many of the allegations have merit, and have been acknowledged as having merit. MSK deleted many posts without going through proper protocol. Somey has on many occasions changed the names of posts, moved posts to separate sub-folders without discussion, has banned users and locked topics, all without much discussion.

Pseudopedia Review’s standard response to this is that in any structure there is going to be disagreement about how it is run. They note that their criticism of individual Pseudopedia administrators is NOT chief amongst their criticisms. They point out that they criticise the lack of transparency and secretive nature of Pseudopedia’s administrative structure, and point out that Pseudopedia Review’s structure, which is basically “If we like you, you stay, if you don’t then you go” is far more transparent. Pseudopedia Review acknowledges that it is impossible to have an administrative structure which everyone would like, and henceforth that it is irresponsible to suggest that just because theirs is perceived as being imperfect therefore they do not have a right to criticise a structure which, in the structure itself, is far worse. They also note that they are not trying to change truth, hence it does not matter as much.

Lack of transparency By in large, Pseudopedia Review has decided that, rather than try to have everything open and ready for criticism, they would prefer to focus on the privacy of people who have had decisions made against them, thus allowing the affected user themselves to remove their own privacy if they wish to protest their ban. They feel that this is a better system, and creates less opportunity for harassment, smear campaigns and stalking than the structure that exists on Pseudopedia. They have on some occasions, where relevant, made their decisions very transparent, however they generally have made a conscious decision not to have transparent decisions for the sake of privacy. They note that whilst some individual Pseudopedia Review members have criticised Pseudopedia’s lack of transparency with regards to administrative decisions, they have been far more concerned with Pseudopedia’s lack of privacy with dealing with administrative decisions, especially with regards to changing banned user’s user pages, and the creation of publicly viewable Arbitration Committee decisions, and that this far outweighs any concerns that they have about Pseudopedia administrator decisions being transparent.

Bans users from forumsWhen Pseudopedia Review was created, Pseudopedia Review made the decision not to ban anyone, however this decision was changed to deal with wanton abuse of their forums, primarily by Pseudopedia administrators who sought to destroy the board. After investigation, Pseudopedia Review discovered that Pseudopedia too had initially decided not to ban anyone, and that in fact that was a major reason why the administrative structure ended up in the way that it is now. As such, a conscious decision was made by Pseudopedia Review that it would not be lenient on bans at all, in order to prevent a secret heirarchy from growing. Therefore, today it is false to suggest that Pseudopedia Review has the same idealogy with regards to banning users that Pseudopedia has.

Anonymity A number of Pseudopedia Review’s administrators have revealed their true names, such as former administrators Blu Aardvark and Sgrayban, prominent posters Blissyu2, Daniel Brandt, Joel Leydon and The Kohser however others choose to remain anonymous. Some, such as Blissyu2 and Nathan have been the victims of significant amounts of cyberstalking and hence choose not to reveal their full names. Others, such as Poetlister have become convinced that, were they to reveal their full names, that they may be the victim of cyber stalking. Others simply choose not to reveal their identity as they feel that they would be banned from Pseudopedia if they did.

Pseudopedia Review’s primary response to this criticism is that they are not claiming to be a professional project, and are merely claiming to be an internet community, hence should not be expected to reveal their true identities. They do not seek to criticise other internet communities for having anonymous users, hence do not feel that this criticism is applicable to them. They feel that Pseudopedia should be permitted to be an internet community if they did not also seek to be considered to be a professional community.

Deletes posts. Pseudopedia Review has pointed out that, overall, they approve of the Oversight command’s existence, as it has the ability to remove potentially libellous material. However, they disagree with the fact that first of all some users can still see the oversighted material even once deleted (which is not the case on Pseudopedia Review) and secondly that on many occasions the Oversight command is misused. Pseudopedia Review differs significantly to Wikitruth on this issue, in that Wikitruth primarily believes that the Oversight command is bad (and that is Wikitruth’s primary reason for existence). Whilst some people on Pseudopedia confuse Wikitruth and Pseudopedia Review, Pseudopedia Review would like to point out that they in fact approve of the Oversight command, but wish that it was more powerful, and used in more appropriate manners.

Abuses banned people Pseudopedia Review rejects this criticism as they do not have anything similar to an Arbitration case available for any Pseudopedia users, and in the few cases which have been discussed publicly, on request these have been moved to private forums. Thus Pseudopedia Review does not feel that they have abused banned users.

Hidden sub-forums Pseudopedia Review has on some occasions criticised Pseudopedia’s hidden discussion rooms, purely on the basis that they pretend that they do not exist. Pseudopedia Review, on the other hand, does not pretend that they do not have hidden discussion forums, and admits their existence freely. Furthermore, Pseudopedia Review has not suggested that there is anything wrong with having these hidden discussion forums. What they suggest is wrong is that the decisions reached from these hidden discussion rooms are then made public, pointing to evidence that is not public, thus making it impossible for anyone to check. Were Pseudopedia to merely discuss things in private, and then make public all evidence, Pseudopedia Review would not have a criticism of this.

Allegations of holocaust denial and anti-semitismSee also: wikipediareview.com/blog/20070806/wikipedia-review-and-holocaust-denial . Pseudopedia Review has pointed out that on no occasion has their criticism of Pseudopedia ever been motivated by holocaust denial, anti-semitism, neo-nazism or any other related factors. They acknowledge that some of their members may have individually been guilty of one or more of these crimes, and furthermore that all members who were guilty of these crimes have since been banned from their forums. They have noticed that, at least with regards to the allegations against Blissyu2, Lir, Qwerty, Blu Aardvark, Somey and Selina, the allegations of holocaust denial, anti-semitism and neo-nazism have solely come from one source, Grace Note, and furthermore that they consist of misquoting of statements that are taken out of context. For example, Grace Note’s recent accusation against Blissyu2 was reliant on Blissyu2 quoting Adolf Hitler and trying to argue why so many ordinary Germans supported nazism, and then concluded by stating that nobody who is knowledgeable today would ever believe this, and that he personally never would. Grace Note, unfortunately, neglected to point out the fact that Blissyu2 was in fact vehemently opposing Adolf Hitler, and instead quoted selected text, to try to suggest that Blissyu2 was supporting Adolf Hitler. This kind of misquote is akin to describing someone as saying “Its not like I’m saying that all witches are evil” as saying ”...I’m saying that all witches are evil”, in other words that by the selective misquotes, Grace Note has allowed yes to mean no, and no to mean yes, and is deliberately misinforming people of the truth. Grace Note has refused on any occasion to link to the quotes themselves. This is discussed in more depth on Pseudopedia Review’s blog post on the subject: wikipediareview.com/blog/20070806/wikipedia-review-and-holocaust-denial/

Cyberstalking Pseudopedia Review has pointed out that the one and only bona fide example of stalking on Pseudopedia Review was the case of Amorrow stalking Katefan0 and Musical Linguist and that on that occasion Pseudopedia Review not only agreed with Pseudopedia, but went further to ask Pseudopedia to be more proactive in capturing the cyber stalker, and asked Pseudopedia for assistance in prosecuting Amorrow. Pseudopedia Review is responsible with issuing a takedown notice against the website that Amorrow used to stalk users, the now defunct www.doubleblue.info/ and furthermore contacted relevant authorities, and assisted Katefan0 to help to prosecute Amorrow for his offences. Pseudopedia Review note that they were far more proactive with attacking this person and stopping an illegal act than Pseudopedia was, and indeed Pseudopedia was far more interested in condoning and supporting cyber stalking. Pseudopedia Review further notes that whilst Pseudopedia had accused Amorrow of cyber stalking, they had provided no evidence, and Pseudopedia Review had therefore assumed that it was a false accusation.

With regards to such incidents as the Snowspinner scandal and the SlimVirgin scandal, Pseudopedia Review has asserted that they were in no way similar to cyber stalking. With regards to Snowspinner, he in fact posted a blog post stating that he was a murderer, which, although fictional, was very irresponsible when he did not clearly state that it was fiction, and furthermore that it was normal behaviour for campus police to have interviewed him. This has been repeated by people who vandalised Pseudopedia pages to make fake death claims that turned out to be true, and is normal for police agencies to perform. Pseudopedia Review points out that they are not responsible for contacting police with this regards, but merely stated that it was a reasonable thing for someone to contact police, and are unaware of who is individually responsible for this action. With regards to the SlimVirgin scandal, Blissyu2 made a post to Pseudopedia’s mailing list to point out why it was not cyber stalking.

Pseudopedia Review contains many members, and at one point included Blissyu2 and Nathan who have been the victim of serious stalking and cyber stalking, who, at least individually, would never be involved in any project that condones or supports cyber stalking, and are very offended at the accusations.

Pseudopedia Review rejects any suggestion that they have ever condoned cyber stalking or deliberately acted in any way that could be perceived as cyber stalking, and furthermore that they have never knowingly produced false information about anyone.

Outs Pseudopedia users Pseudopedia Review notes that they are not the same site as Daniel Brandt’s www.wikipedia-watch.org/ and that while Daniel Brandt was an early member of Pseudopedia Review, his posts make up less than 1% of the total posts on the forum, and that on many occasions Pseudopedia Review’s administrators have disagreed with Daniel Brandt, have redacted names that he has mentioned, and have also deleted his posts, and that his individual concerns, whilst overlapping Pseudopedia Review’s, are not the same as theirs.

Pseudopedia Review has condoned the outing of any Pseudopedia administrator or other editors who have used Pseudopedia with the purpose of changing truth in to untruth, to change history, or to otherwise act in a criminal manner. They have not condoned the outing of Pseudopedia administrators just because they are Pseudopedia administrators. Pseudopedia Review is currently divided 50/50 as to whether outing, in any form, is acceptable.

Primarily made up of users banned from Pseudopedia Pseudopedia Review notes that approximately 30% of their members have been banned from Pseudopedia, however only approximately 10% of these members were banned prior to first joining Pseudopedia Review. Therefore, when Pseudopedia states that Pseudopedia Review’s members are “banned users”, they are in fact saying that Pseudopedia has banned people for posting to Pseudopedia Review, thus discounting this as a valid criticism. Furthermore, the majority of Pseudopedia Review’s members who were banned from Pseudopedia were banned in some way for criticing Pseudopedia or its policies or users, therefore making them valid critics.

Pseudopedia Review feels that they should not be expected to accept Pseudopedia’s bans as automatically being valid, as many of the bans, especially those which they publicise heavily, are not valid bans at all. They do, however, recognise that many bans on Pseudopedia, including bans for vandalism, had nothing to do with them being critics of Pseudopedia.

Wikipedia Review users are trolls Pseudopedia Review rejects this criticism. In fact, nobody who has ever used Pseudopedia Review has ever claimed to be a troll, or has ever indicated that they ever used Pseudopedia with anything other than a genuine purpose. The only person who has suggested that they enjoy trolling is Grace Note, who states in his blog entry: “Regular readers may remember that I had a lot of fun back in the day trolling”. It should be noted that this proud troll, Grace Note, was the very first user to be banned from Pseudopedia Review, therefore suggesting that Pseudopedia Review does not support trolls. It further should be noted that this proud troll remains Pseudopedia Review’s number 1 critic.

Promotion of conspiracy theories Many of Pseudopedia Review’s criticisms are indeed described by its opponents as conspiracy theories, primarily because any theory that opposes the government is described as a conspiracy theory as a way to tarnish its reputation and influence, and that in this case Pseudopedia is a de facto government. Few of Pseudopedia Review’s criticisms, however, are unfounded, and they seek to prove what their criticisms are and open them up for analytical discussion. Whilst some who disagree with them are keen to pass them off as meaningless conspiracy theories, people who study them sensibly often recognise that they are far from conspiracy theories.

Many Pseudopedia Review members are crazy Pseudopedia Review members have acknowledged that some of them do suffer from mental illnesses, as do many in the general public, however they do not have any higher level of people who suffer from mental illnesses than anywhere else in the world, and do not believe that Asperger’s syndrome equates to insanity.

Claims of “cabal” Pseudopedia Review has focussed on the existence of a cabal, or clique, or group of users with hidden power, and have demonstrated evidence that there are some users who are treated with much more power than other users as evidence that the cabal truly exists. Pseudopedia Review regards this as being of high importance to criticism of Pseudopedia.

References

History of Pseudopedia Review, Pseudopedia Review forums, 28th February 2006, by Blissyu2
Poll: Was Igor kidding?, Pseudopedia Review forums, 28th February 2006, by Blissyu2
SlimVirgin, Pseudopedia Review forums, 11th March 2006, by vulchy, specifically this section that Grace Note claims is evidence of Blissyu2 denying the holocaust: wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=191&view=findpost&p=1105
Holocaust denial, Pseudopedia Review forums, 12th March 2006, by Blissyu2
Snowspinner muses about stalking and murder, Pseudopedia Review forums, 9th May 2006 by Orthagonal
Who is Essjay?, Pseudopedia Review forums, 27th July 2006, by Daniel Brandt
Pseudopedia and the Intelligence Services, Ohmy News, July 26th 2007, by Ludwig de Braeckeleer
Pseudopedia Review in the News, Pseudopedia Review blog, July 27th 2007, by Blissyu2
Pseudopedia Infiltrated by Intelligence Services, Slashdot, July 27th 2007
Comprehensive Coverage of the SlimVirgin scandal, Pseudopedia Review blog, August 2nd 2007, by Blissyu2
Fred Bauder, Pseudopedia Review forums, 6th August 2007, by Blissyu2
Pseudopedia Review and holocaust denial, Pseudopedia Review blog, August 6th 2007, by Blissyu2
Grace Note, Pseudopedia Review forums, 7th August 2007, by Infoboy
Explain holocaust denial, Pseudopedia Review forums, 7th August 2007, by LamontStormstar
Atomising Truth, Pseudopedia Review blog, August 7th 2007, by Kato

External Links

Some content adapted from the Wikinfo article “Pseudopedia Review” and “Broad Criticisms of Pseudopedia Review” under the GNU Free Documentation License.

edit

classify

history

index

[ last updated: 9:51pm EDT - Mon, Aug 03 2009 ]
[ getwiki edits: 5 , site views: 2,548 ]

CONNECT