Note, Wikipedia has a well documented history of political manipulation and censorship, as also reported by the BBC. Further, here's another clear message to the manipulators, your every move is being watched and recorded - and will be reaching an extremely wide audience. When that hits the fan, it will completely trash the worth of Wikipedia as a "Reliable" source on Schapelle.
Click on that pic above to enlarge and read the direct message to the censors. And here is the glaring information about the price differential someone doesn't want you to see (as it was very politely inserted several times, but deleted within minutes as "Irrelevant"). And here is the blog post inserted in that screen grab above.
Well it seems the self-appointed "Censor" at Wikipedia is happy to delete official United Nations reports eight times in a period of around 20 minutes, but much, much slower (actually, non-existent), when it comes to justifying their actions. And yes, this squalid Wikipedia episode will be documented in the coming book.
I was also Banned from further discussion, because "Sarek of Vulcan" didn't like my user name, how bloody hilarious is that? I wonder if he has pointy ears . . . ;-)
Sorting it out with Wikipedia (I hope).
Methinks "Sarek of Vulcan" is proving the title of this blog post beyond a shadow of a doubt . . .
And here's "Sarek of Vulcan's" reply to me, which he's blocked me from responding to a Wikipedia, so I'll reply to it here, because this link is posted there anyway:
Not all "impeccably cited" information belongs in the article. In particular, original research does not belong here. Neither does synthesis of multiple bits of information to create a new fact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
"Sarek, if I may shorten your name for brevity, I'm well aware of what constitutes "Original research" and "Synthesis," but I don't think directly quoting a United Nations report constitutes either - and I'll also avoid doing something I haven't yet done, in future. And BTW, your user name leads me to believe you may be associated with some type of group, is that appropriate? And as for taking screen grabs of Wikipedia, I am involved with this blog, a documentary and a new book - so for me (and the rest of the World), they're extremely useful - but thank you for your generous concern."
And here's another reply to me on Wikipedia, which I'm still unable to respond to, because I'm still blocked:
UN article = synthethis
Mention of the UN document has no place in this article on Corby. No doubt it is a fine document and well researched and written - but, it doesn't mention the Corby case (at least as far as I can tell). It's inclusion would therefore be pure synthesis which is original research. Ie, the use of an unrelated text would be creating our own arguments, which while possibly well-intentioned, is not objectivity or neutrality - this is original research and thus against one of the most basic of wikipedia principals. It doesn't matter what part of the article it appears in. If you don't like this, then wikipedia is not the place for you. --Merbabu (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
And here's the reply I will post to "Merbabu" when I'm "Unblocked" (if ever):
"Merbabu, there is not a single reference within the current Wikipedia article to the relative price of marijuana in Bali to its price in Australia, at the time Schapelle flew. Obviously, that price differential is (and was), a key aspect of this case, and has been mentioned in multiple articles about Schapelle. Thus this Wikipedia entry is very seriously flawed and incomplete in that respect. I think it is perfectly reasonable to create a section covering that aspect, referencing those articles, and also referencing that key United Nations report - because even though that report does not mention Schapelle (obviously), it is the single substantive (and official), record that anyone, anywhere has of the relative price differential at the time. Obviously, to maintain neutrality, and to avoid accusations of "Synthesis" it should be added without comment either way, so people can make up their own minds. I suggest something like this (with citations added. of course):At the time Schapelle flew to Bali from Australia, and was arrested there when 4.2 kilos of marijuana was found in her luggage, many Australians doubted her guilt because it was widely believed this drug was a lot cheaper in Bali, than it was in Australia. In fact, on the eve of the verdict, Sydney Morning Herald journalist Matthew Moore wrote an article with this introduction "Perhaps the most compelling reason so many Australians believe Schapelle Corby is innocent is the coals-to-Newcastle argument: why would anyone smuggle marijuana to Bali when it is so easy to get there?" He then went on to claim a type of marijuana called "Aussie Gold" sold in Bali for $A600 an ounce. Further, the Head of Bali's drug squad, Colonel Sugiarto, claimed the existence of a type of Australian marijuana called "Lemon Juice," which he said was stronger and more aromatic than the type found in Indonesia. Matthew Moore did not quote any formal research, or official data, and neither did Colonel Sugiarto. In 2007, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime published a report titled "2007 World Drug Report." On page 233, it says that in 2005, Indonesian marijuana sold for a maximum US 30 cents a gram, and for a maximum $US31 a gram in Australia (page 234). It does not mention "Aussie Gold" or "Lemon Juice."
I also think it should be remembered that this interaction is very well recorded, and there are books, documentaries and films in production - thus this "Interaction" will soon receive very widespread attention. I don't think it's good for the reputation of Wikipedia to be publicly seen blocking official United Nations data, crucially relevant to the issue under discussion. As you can see in my proposal above, I am simply stating some key players made very public reference to the relative price of marijuana at the time - and therefore, the relevance of adding the only official record we have (of that price differential), without prejudicial or unfactual comment either way, should be more than evident to all but the most biased. "Synthesis" implies the word "Thus" between two officially referenced sources. No such connection is being made. The reader is free to make up their own mind.
Well the saga continues, it's now just gone midnight here in Australia, and we're now into the new year on the 1st January 2011 - and it seems I'm now "Unblocked," so I added these comments. We're now waiting for the next episode . . . and one more point, I'm not sure how many "Hits" the Wikipedia article about Schapelle gets, but there's one thing for absolute certain, the coming books, documentaries, film and articles about her will reach an audience of millions more - so in that respect, that squalid little corner of the net is hardly worth time and attention, except for one thing, this (now), publicly captured evidence clearly shows the ongoing political manipulation and censorship of this issue, manipulation which the BBC (and others), have already reported on, re other "Sensitive" Wikipedia subjects. And Sarek thanks, you played your role beautifully, and did exactly as expected - and now, it's captured for posterity.
New comments, lets' see if they stay . . . well yes they have (so far), but "Merbabu" still hiding in his/her dark little corner, and refusing to reveal their background or identity (which speaks volumes), and is now threatening to "Block" me . . . here, but later has the gall to accuse ME of "Intimidation," still refuses to say who they are, and avoids the central issues.
"Merbabu" also objects to the members of Women for Schapelle posting info at Wikipedia, while completely ignoring the fact this key article, about Australian Federal Police corruption and Schapelle, has been continuously blocked there.
And now a member of the "We" tribe has popped up . . . and the "We" tribe replies . . . while the anonymous censors at Wikipedia are now twisting themselves in knots (I've replied in red), to prevent the referencing of this official United Nations report.
Well, it seems the anonymous "We" tribe has decided to censor me for good, and called me "Conspiracy theorist" for suggesting that anonymous article stalkers in cyber space, who point blank refuse to say who they are, might have an agenda on politically sensitive material. Maybe they should whinge to the BBC, because the UK's national broadcaster appears to agree with me. So there you have it folks, key United Nations reports are being blocked and censored from Wikipedia, by people who refuse any form of accountability.