Wikipedia Attacks IPR’s Credibility As A News Source

Forwarded message ———-
From: Anonymous
Date: Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Subject: Wikipedian attack on IPR credibility

To whom it may concern:If you know any Wikipedians, you probably should direct them to this page:, several Wikipedians have decided IPR is not a reliable source.  This endangers fair coverage of third party concerns and candidates in Wikipedia since all information must be sourced, and IPR is the main source of news on many third party concerns and candidates.If enough active Wikipedians argue persuasively for a reversal of this policy, then IPR may again gain respect.Please keep this email anonymous since I don’t wish to involve the name of myself, or my organization in the discussion.  Doing so may appear to be a conflict of interest.

An IPR fan.

Wikipedia: Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Requires work:

  • Dougweller (at RS/N)
  • Fifelfoo (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Raw external links report: [1]

[edit]Summary of problem is an unedited link aggregator that has been repeatedly rejected by RS/N.

0/183 potential uses have been checked. 0/111 affected articles have been checked. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit]RS/N report

Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard#The_.22Indendent_Political_Report.22 (non permanent)

[edit]Progress on clean-up

49/183 items over 10/111 articles

  1. 2010 Libertarian National Convention removed source, duplicate spam link. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Alexander Snitker x2 removed both uses as redundant, citing from another source more broadly to cover Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. America’s Party (political party) removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. Barry Cooper (lecturer) removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  5. Bill Still x3 resolved. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 02:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  6. Bob Barr removed claim absent better sourcing Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  7. Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 x7 Some fundamentally dubious claims (BLP slapfighting, claims attributed to other outlets). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  8. Bob Bird (activist) replaced reference with better source Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  9. Boston Tea Party (political party) x2 replaced or removed as possible Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  10. Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008 x4 replaced where possible, cut quote with no other referencing, removed redundant uses Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  11. California Proposition 19 (2010) removed 1 redundant use, replaced 1 Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  12. Cannabis in Oregon dupe citation, removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  13. Carl Person replaced ref, rewrote section, removed BLP vandalism Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  14. Charles Jay removed as non-critical claim Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  15. Christina López removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  16. Chuck Baldwin presidential campaign, 2008 x7 Wacky, wacky uses. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  17. Cindy Sheehan
  18. Citizens Party of the United States x2
  19. Clinton N Howard
  20. Connecticut gubernatorial election, 2010
  21. Constitution Party (United States)
  22. Constitution Party National Convention x3
  23. Cynthia McKinney presidential campaign, 2008 x3
  24. Darcy Richardson
  25. Darrell Castle x2
  26. David Krikorian
  27. Deaths in November 2009 => {{cn}} Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  28. Deaths in September 2008 => {{cn}} Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  29. Dennis Mikolay removed Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  30. Florida Whig Party x2 both replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  31. Frank Fluckiger replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  32. Gary Chartier cut, material was one of several positive reviews of the same book from political allies Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  33. Gary T. Steele expired prod, as of 2012-10-02 Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  34. Gayle McLaughlin replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  35. George Wallace presidential campaign, 1968 replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  36. Gordon Clark (activist) replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  37. Green Party of Florida removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  38. Green Party of the United States replaced Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  39. International Society for Individual Liberty removed, redundant reference Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  40. James P. Gray x2
  41. Jerry White (socialist)
  42. Jill Stein
  43. Jim Clymer
  44. Jim Duensing x4
  45. Jim Lendall
  46. John Eder
  47. Jordan White (musician)
  48. Kristin M. Davis
  49. Laurence Kotlikoff x2
  50. Laurie Roth
  51. Laurie Roth
  52. LeAlan Jones
  53. Libertarian Party (United States)
  54. Libertarian Party of Alabama x2
  55. Libertarian Party of Michigan
  56. Libertarian Party of Missouri
  57. LPRadicals x3
  58. Malik Rahim
  59. Merlin Miller
  60. Michael Badnarik
  61. Mississippi Reform Party
  62. Modern Whig Party x5 resolved, largely by removing citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  63. Monetary policy
  64. New Jersey elections, 2009
  65. New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009
  66. New York gubernatorial election, 2010
  67. Office of Technology Assessment
  68. Our America Initiative
  69. Paul C. McKain
  70. Peta Lindsay
  71. Pirate Party
  72. R. Lee Wrights x4
  73. Randy Credico
  74. Randy Stufflebeam
  75. Rebekah Kennedy
  76. Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012
  77. Rhonda Martini
  78. Richard Winger
  79. RJ Harris (politician) x3
  80. Robby Wells
  81. Robert David Steele
  82. Rosa Clemente
  83. Roy Moore
  84. Sam Sloan
  85. Scott Boman x3 URL not found.– (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  86. Socialist Party USA BLP quote & source removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  87. Sonny Landham x2
  88. Stephen P. Gordon
  89. Ted Weill x2
  90. Third party (United States)
  91. Tiffany Briscoe x2
  92. Tom Hoefling
  93. Tom Stevens (politician) x2
  94. Tom Tancredo
  95. United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2010
  96. United States presidential election, 2008
  97. United States presidential election, 2008 timeline
  98. United States presidential election, 2012 x3
  99. United States presidential election, 2012 timeline
  100. United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010
  101. United States Senate election in Florida, 2010
  102. United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010
  103. United States Senate election in Michigan, 2008
  104. United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010
  105. United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2008
  106. United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 x21+ BLPs, so many BLP claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Unresolved due to editwarring by page’s editors. Currently at discussion on article talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  107. Vermin Supreme removed from BLP with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  108. Virgil Goode removed from BLP with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  109. Virginia’s 1st congressional district election, 2008 removed from BLP claim with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  110. Wayne Allyn Root x5 removed from BLP with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  111. William E. Dannemeyer removed from BLP with otherwise unsourced claims removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

30 thoughts on “Wikipedia Attacks IPR’s Credibility As A News Source

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    Something happened 3 days ago, but I believe that was before the latest Nevada thread. Does someone in particular have a beef with us, or is this part of the continuing plan to further marginalize third parties?

  2. William Saturn

    Last summer I e-mailed a few Wikipedians involved in the “white supremacist” label used on the A3P page. It ultimately resulted in One of the Wikipedians I contacted for that article posted on a Wikipedia noticeboard questioning whether IPR was a reliable source. One of the responders (Fifelfoo) then created the page referenced in this article. I worked to stop the page from being effective in its early stages and even requested its deletion. It was not deleted, but Fifelfoo soon gave up his efforts. Recently, this Squamish character has come around and resumed Fifelfoo’s work. I know nothing about Squamish or why he is doing this.

  3. Steve M

    I have nothing to do with wikipedia but they are correct.

    IPR doesn’t comply with generally accepted journalist standards. As such its more of a gossip rag then a news source.

    I have had this discussion with paulie and he flat out states that IPR wont meet this professional level of standard.

  4. Steve M

    @3 nothing to do with 3rd parties everything to do with meeting some level of standard.

  5. Steve Scheetz

    SteveM, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, etc… NONE of them meet that standard.

    They tell HALF truths, colored truths, and a great deal of spin. If you believe that IPR does not meet THAT level of standard, then I will say that I agree.

    IPR is much better than that. IPR posts all views, and allows everyone involved to comment. If you have a problem with this standard, I suggest you find another place to obtain your news.


    Steve Scheetz

  6. Smart Alex

    Steve M @ 4: Then why the f-ck are you hanging around? No one is making you.

  7. Steve M

    I am not so certain that this hurts IPR readership numbers… the national enquirer for example seems to have maintained readership, the issue is more scholarly… if you want to be a primary news source you have to be able to document where you are getting your information from. 1st hand sources for example instead of just regurgitating other news sources or “anonymous” sources.

  8. Steve M

    Steve Sheetz and Alex. do you think I care what you think….. try discussing the issues and I would find you interesting. Otherwise… I just ignore you… You might try that with me…

    But hey believe what you like… don’t put any effort into thinking or trying to understand whats going on around you.

  9. Steve M

    If IPR doesn’t meet journalistic standards then don’t expect places like wikipedia to take them serious. wikipedia itself shouldn’t be taken serious…

  10. Steve M

    Steve S… it might be a fair question to ask… how does wikipedia treat reports from say fox new?

    What IPR is running up against is documented here at wikipedia…

  11. Steve M

    That’s the problem Steve S… IPR posts all views but doesn’t document or verify sources. As bad as Fox News and CNN and even the Washington Post can be they generally make an effort to verify… IPR just publishes what ever ends up in the contributors in box. Journalism is more the IPR and IPR is far below fox and CNN and those guys might not go far enough…But they do fact check… then they write their slanted articles.

  12. Steve M

    Smart Alex…. Paulie had 1 very correct statement on this issue… It costs money to reach a minimal level…. How about… those who agree with the leanings the slant of certain contributors help meet these costs?

    I don’t have a problem with making donations to web sites that I think meet credibility or are trying to and deserve help. I do so with 2 others. I would do so with IPR if IPR would make a commitment to meeting professional journalistic standards. Not meet them but produce a plan towards meeting them.

    How about those of you who think IPR is important making that level of commitment? Cash for more professionalism?

  13. marzak

    I thought lawyers resolve these issues.I gave wiki some $$ when they asked so I would ofcourse give to IPR,

  14. paulie

    That’s gunna hurt traffic badly.

    Not really. Wikipedia is not a huge source of traffic here.

    As for the rest:

    It’s also nonsense that we don’t do original reporting; although most of the stories aren’t original (this is even true of professional news operations, BTW), IPR publishes many stories that are not published anywhere else first.

    Steve M.’s crusade is completely bogus. We put in a huge amount of time at no pay to bring you all sides, and when errors are found they are corrected.

    If anyone wants to hire me to do this full time, I’m willing. I need to be able to spend at least a hundred dollars a day on motels and food, and additional money would be nice to be able to travel to various places to cover stories live, but not an absolute requirement. The minimum I need to have to be able to spend is $100/day and I would make this my full time gig.

    I’ve already put in thousands of hours as a volunteer and recruited most of the other writers here. I’ll guess I’ve spent over 10,000 hours easily in the nearly 5 years IPR has been around. I did get paid once, $500 or so the first time IPR was sold for my “share” of the ownership then.

    Otherwise, it is what it is – enjoy the results of my unhealthy addiction (that has cost me tens of thousands of dollars at the very least in opportunity costs, maybe more), stay mad about it, or go away. I don’t care.

  15. paulie

    Why are over half of the first 19 posts from the same person?

    He has an addiction too. But in his case it is to tear down other people’s work, not to build anything up.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    This also makes me think we’re doing something right, meaning posing some threat to someone. Why else would someone at Wikipedia care?

    I also don’t think it’s too big of a big deal.

    If anyone thinks Steve M knows anything about blogging, read his comments on both of the new Nevada threads. If nothing else, they will amuse you.

  17. paulie

    Could be Tom Stevens. Or any of a number of wacko haters we have had. Alt party politics seems to attract them…

  18. Catholic Trotskyist

    I found ThirdPartyWatch (our predecessor site) on Wikipedia’s Recent Deaths page when Prohibition Party presidential candidate Earl Dodge died in 2007. the rest is history. I am a mostly retired Wikipedia administrator; I will try to deal with this.

  19. Scott Lieberman

    “Wikipedia Attacks IPR’s Credibility As A News Source”


    Given the stories IPR published on April 1st, why is anyone surprised at the above headline? 🙂

Leave a Reply

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