Saturday, 1 September 2007

wikipedia and the Presiding Bishop

The Church Times followed up on the 18 August report in the Independent Wikipedia and the art of censorship by publishing a short item last week, now on the web, authored by me, Jefferts Schori in the dark on Wikipedia edit.

Episcopal News Service picked this up and published Presiding Bishop unaware of Wikipedia edit; allegations discredited.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 9:17am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Glad to see these clarifications. The articles against KJS were vitriolic and cruel.

It's nice to see that some souls don't check their facts before they shoot their guns/mouths/typing fingers.

It's also a relieve that staff confess their mistake rather than allowing others' names to suffer for their own error.

Of course, those that shot first were only using "gentle" words, so there is no reason to complain to Canterbury about their misconduct, is there?

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 11:21am BST

No, the claims have not been discredited. Rather, they have only been denied. And, quite poorly, I might add.

Posted by: K.Smith on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 2:06am BST

K.Smith on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 2:06am BST --

It is my understanding that Barbara Alton, assistant to Episcopal Bishop Charles Bennison, has now admitted that Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori did NOT tell her to delete "information concerning a cover-up of child sexual abuse, allegations that the Bishop misappropriated $11.6 million in trust funds, and evidence of other scandals." If that count as "discredited," then what does?

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 9:39pm BST

Surely the bigger point here is that people should not be able to add unsubstantiated allegation on Wikipedia in the first place.

The difference here is that liberal Episcopalians have managed to refrain from adding things like alleging Martyn Minns to be a chain smoker, child abuser and embezzler, while the likes of David Virtue (to pick an obnoxious right winger at random) and his "army" have no such scruples about alleging anything and everything.

Same goes for all the other allegations against everyone noted in the Independent article.

Posted by: dave p on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 10:24pm BST

@K.Smith:

Ah, so the person who actually did the erasing denying that ++KJS had anything to do with it is a "poor denial". You have an interesting idea of the threshold of proof.

There comes a point where certain people's wish to find something, anything, to pin on ++KJS reaches the faintly ridiculous. I will be blunt: I wasn't in favor of her election. But the continued efforts to destroy her reputation at any cost are frankly disgusting.

David Virtue and cohorts should retract the story and apologize to ++KJS for the false accusation. That would be the Christian thing to do.

The particularly silly thing is that by attacking ++KJS, he overplays his hand badly. Yes, it's foolish to try and censor Wikipedia. But he could at least get the facts straight and not pin it on the wrong people.

Rathergate, meet Virtuegate.

Posted by: Walsingham on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 10:47pm BST

David Virtue and cohorts should retract the story and apologize to ++KJS for the false accusation. That would be the Christian thing to do

David Virtue caused the last minute flap about Gene Robinson that proved groundless, but caused a lot of extra work and angst for some.

DV and various other 'commentators' and 'reputation destroyers' seem loathe actually to PRACTICE Christianity on the ground. I think Jesus had a word for such religious leaders ....

Posted by: L Roberts on Monday, 3 September 2007 at 4:19pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.