Like an autistic savant, Wikipedia is full of mostly useless trivia, and like an autistic savant, lacks any ability to understand the world around it or to understand complex concepts like “layered irony”, “witty comedy” or “utter incompetence”.

Yes, we all have pity-love for Wikipedia but we wouldn’t let Wikipedia drive a car or take care of our baby. We just pat it on the head and move on.

We discovered that Ashida aka Radford Davis was selling mail order black belts and arranged to purchase one of them from him.

Please review the article and come to your own conclusions regarding the reliability of Bullshido’s investigations.

The fact remains that “Ashida” has been publishing works claiming to be a Ninja for almost thirty years even though he does not have an actual lineage to someone who could properly teach this art. Ninjitsu is a historical art, if you can’t show that your teachings trace back to an actual Ninja clan in Japan you cannot claim to be studying or teaching Ninjitsu. We at Bullshido have called him on this, and he’s not happy, ask him about how he then threatened Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia, this action which is not reported above, also played a role in his banning.

Wikipedians want to look good – with minimal effort, so not too much research.

They’re probably more at home in front of a computer than talking to a real live person.

They subscribe to the ‘neutral POV’ theory so can delete anything that doesn’t fit THEIR POV rather than allowing natural variations to flourish.

Logic, logic, logic – the ‘neutral POV’ denys emotions and 6 billion individual world views. Logic has to be backed up by ‘facts.’ ‘Facts’ come from the media. Wikipedians by nature don’t have much in the way of critical abilities or they wouldn’t be Wikipedians – what sort of people swim with the notion that there is such a thing as a neutral POV? Wikipedians also love ‘authority’ – the greatest authority being to be seen on T.V. The neutral POV demands that there is one neutral solution to everything.

Change the concept of the neutral POV and allow – let’s say – up to five different variations on any one subject (five different pages – extreme ‘left’, ‘off-left’, netrual, ‘off-right’ ‘extreme right’) and the whole nature of the beast will radically change.

For a start Wikipedia will start to attract people who can think for themselves and who currently are driven away by the group-mind that pecks away at anything it doesn’t like.

Asking you questions about yourself constitutes research which is forbidden, since that is a private source. Research requires expertise. Ask yourself the question: how do you write an accurate book about every topic regardless of how complex or specialized assuming you do not have experts in every topic? The policies of wikipedia are in many ways a reasonable answer to that complex question.

Now, I’m a reporter, and I’ve written hundreds of print articles. I do my best to prevent errors and correct any (even minor spelling or capitalization ones) after they occur. But as someone who works in the sausage factory, I don’t assume that print journalism is authoritative or definitive. It simply cannot be because of the pace at which it operates and the reluctance to make corrections fully.

The idea that the style guide of various publications overrides how someone chooses to spell or use their name is bizarre. The New York Times required email to be spelled E-mail for some number of years. I doubt if I wrote about danah for the Times whether I’d be allowed to spell your name “danah boyd” because the house style forbids it.

So when Wikipedia editors point to the requirement of print sources as the only reliable method of verification of orthography, facts, and appearance — I don’t get it.

I also don’t see the fuss about the fuzzy hat. danah, every time I’ve spotted you at a conference or in pictures of a conference, you’re wearing that hat. Isn’t that a describable part of your identity? I’m missing why it can’t be in your Wikipedia entry.

Daniel Brandt has probably been the most proactive about all of this, and has suggested that Wikipedia consult people who are the subject of living biographies, to ensure that they get accurate non-defamatory information. Not that they’d have to be wholly supportive of the subject, but just so that they are not lying or unfairly demonising them. Obviously, some people don’t want to comment, but at least allow them to comment. Yet Wikipedia refuses to react. They have said that Daniel Brandt is not an expert on Daniel Brandt, because, according to Wikipedia, he is a crackpot. But most sections of the media don’t regard him as a crackpot. He’s been referenced for the past 30 years as anything but a crackpot. Why is Wikipedia so keen to demonise him? And why is Wikipedia so keen to demonise Ashida Kim, a man who was demonised on bullshido.net, a site that claims to denounce “fake martial artists”, a site which Wikipedia has denounced as unreliable and full to the brim with false defamatory material. Where is the proof to justify these claims? None of these people are convicted criminals. These are just rumours. What gives Wikipedia the right to spread these rumours while claiming to be some version of an encyclopaedia. Do you see rumours flying around in Encarta? I don’t think so.

There should be some kind of collaboration between people who have been affected like this. Whilst http://wikipediaclassaction.com/ was apparently a hoax, the reality is that there is a need for unification. And whilst a site like http://www.wikitruth.info/ is useful to look at, if you want collaboration, a message board is a good start. I hope that you come over to post your thoughts over at http://www.wikipediareview.com/ . You would be welcome.