That was a pathetic move.

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=15883

 

To be fair, I don't believe Glen Hallit was malicious in his failed business.

 

And here someone claims that the imporved "controversies" section, with all accusations directly sourced to people making them, doesn't belong into the article at all because those are potentially libellous accusations against a living person...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Lee&diff=214900857&oldid=211962752

 

Wow his "updated" article on Wikipedia doesn't sound half as bad as what it really is. Someone should update it and change it back to the truth.

 

Boil Pat in his own pudding.

 

I updated the article to correspond with Wikipedia standards. Claiming that Pat Lee is a tit and Satan incarnated and shit only makes the entire position look screwed. Sticking to provable facts makes it more credible, even if all the nasty details are left out.

The problem is that this "Hiding" guy apparently thinks that even directly-sourced-to-the-people-making-them accusations and Pat Lee's lack of responding to them are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, because living persons should never be presented in a bad light or somesuch...

 

This is slightly remenissant of Don Murphy's "Stooge War" where he had rabid fanboys kissing up to him and sent them out to flood and attack specific websites that people he didn't like resided. IMDB.com being just one small example. Others were TF sites. I don't remember which ones specifically though.

 

Don also has a feud with Wikipedia.

It starts with Don thinking that Wikipedia should not have an article on him.

Be glad that Pat Lee hasn't discovered the magic of legal threats yet...

 

So, according to this editor, there is no evidence that Pat Lee ever did anything wrong.

Oh, and the mere fact that Pat Lee is a controversial person doesn't belong in the article either, because it's "only fansites" maintaining that position.

 

pat lee is at war with the internet!

eh, screw him, who gives a fuck anymore.

 

What's funny is that if you read the wikipedia page for John Byrne, his "controversies" page is still going. A lot of "he said/she said" about what Byrne did or did not say regarding other comics personalities. Plus the completely non-academic section about the "Byrne Curse."

Yet for some reason Pat Lee's entry has been completely edited down to what basically amounts to a stub.

Sorry Pat. You just can't take a steaming pile of shit and sculpt it into a statue.

 

I doubt it's Pat himself this time. This looks more like your regular holier-than-thou Wikipedia admin.

Think about it: Anything not covered by scientific publications, or, if necessary, mainstream media, is technically not qualified for an inclusion in Wikipedia, as it lacks both reliability and verifiability.

Interviews with official sources published by fan sites are not worthy being included on Wikipedia. Joe McQ could claim that he just interviewed Michael Bay, even though he made up the entire interview. There is no certified editor ultimately responsible.

Anything said by Hasbro at BotCon in front of several hundred witnesses is not worthy being included on Wikipedia because it's not covered by mainstream media.

Worse, interviews per se are technically not allowed because they constitute primary sources, while Wikipedia is supposed to rely mostly on secondary sources, i.e. someone reporting on those interviews and summing them up.

 

There is a sixteen-page article on the Civil War comic book. That's four times longer than the ACTUAL civil war.

 

I do. I personally had to deal with him at the time, and he was a douche.

 

Yet on every single Wikipedia entry that I have EVER read in my entire life, these kinds of sources are used.

Of course this is generally why Wikipedia is shit for anyone who wants to actually research something. I know the goals for this online encyclopedia were lofty at first, but really... is there anything to gain from using it in research? Just about every college professor will give you an automatic zero for citing Wikipedia as a source. I dunno. I just think it's a huge mistake to allow everyone in the world to be able to edit the thing, especially since goof asses like me can include the phrase "He had an affinity for cherry Charms Blow Pops" in the entry for Abraham Lincoln and have it stay there for a couple of days.

 

The problem is that there are two kinds of articles on Wikipedia:

a)Totally unmoderated articles with questionable content (oftentimes far too long)
b) Overmoderated articles where so much content, no matter how well-sourced, is trimmed by an over-eager editor so the article effectively ends up as a stub again.

 

At least you can still find some truth on the Wikipedia article for the REAL Pat Lee!  

 

So, Bloodpack has joined the fray, while Hiding still insists on "highly reliable third party secondary sources" because anything else would violate the privacy and reputation of a living person and would be illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk at_Lee#Cleaned_up