David G. Goodman
As a retired PhD in biology and a librarian, David Goodman (T-C-F-R-B) <
dgoodmanny@gmail.com> should be a voice of reason, experience, and knowledge on Wikipedia. In fact, Goodman has repeatedly proven himself to be an obsessive crank on "Frei Kultur" matters and the alleged "openness" of Wikipedia. For many years, he has routinely attacked, vilified and blocked users that he suspected of being commercial "spammers" or paid editors, often with little or no evidence. And being a respected academic figure, his evil behaviour and obsessed Wiki-loyalty has encouraged Wikipedia's "manchildren" to behave in a similar manner. In short, his arrogance is legendary--and contagious.
background
From a 2004 CV: "David Goodman is Associate Professor at the Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Long Island University. He has a B.S. from Brooklyn College, M.L.S. from Rutgers University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley ."
"He joined the faculty at Palmer School in fall of 2002. His undergraduate degree is in mathematics and his doctorate is in molecular biology. After several years as Assistant Professor of Biochemistry at Rutgers, he became a librarian."
"He has worked at Brooklyn College as General Science Reference Librarian and at Princeton University as, successively, Chemistry Librarian, Biology Librarian, and Research Librarian and Biological Sciences Bibliographer. He retains a part-time position at Princeton as Visiting Research Scholar. His research interests include library user studies, the structure of scientific information, and electronic journal publishing. Many of his postings can be found on liblicense-l."
Goodman wrote this 2004 paper on "open access" to scholarly publication. He has given a number of lectures and seminars on free access to scholarly writings, and in recent years, on editing Wikipedia. [1] This presentation is a good overview of Wikipedia according to David Goodman, but as usual with Wiki-fans, it skips around Wikipedia's many problems while extolling its virtues.
[edit] WP activity
First appearance September 2006, primary interest in library science, academic publishing, biochemistry and related articles. He was also a consummate "Wikilawyer", quickly learning how to use Wikipedia's half-formed "policies" to his advantage, and how to show mechanical, dismissive arrogance in any discussion. This notorious 2007 AFD being a perfect example: "Keep. Not OR, for it is a compilation of material found on other secondary sources. Encyclopedic, for it is of importance in understanding a widely used resource, and as an indication of the extent of censorship. N, through both the secondary sources and the liked maps. Google maps has been used as a source of WP for many things. But if the article is rejected as bing (sic) an undifferentiated list, the same material could be used as the basis for an article under a more closely appropriate title. DGG 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)" He showed himself to be intelligent, well-spoken, articulate, and completely impossible to negotiate with in disputes. Despite being the exact opposite of the Wikipedia comic-book-and-video-game "manchild", he rose quickly within the ranks of insiders, in a manner comparable to the "Pope of Arbcom", Ira Matetsky.
Goodman's May 2007 RFA was a success, as the Frei Kultur kinder turned out to vote for him in force. The few oppose voters had their arms twisted, and two of them redacted their objections.
He quickly joined Wikiproject Libraries, an obscure project which is full of actual working librarians.
Quote: "I'm not here to save a failing project, but to deal with the inevitable transitions as the project has grown, and to find what is necessary to encourage it to grow further. Some parts of the project I think do not work very well, but the basic goal of writing encyclopedia articles does work, does continue, and is far from finished. DGG (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)"
In a discussion on the foundation-l mailing list in 2010, Goodman had the following to say about keeping records in compliance with USC 2257: "> This seems self-contradictory. If we are exempt we're exempt. If we're exempt we have no need to keep records. We would of course do well to advise our users about their own responsibilities. If we do decide to require some sort of certification--and I do not oppose our doing so-- it raises the question that if we do it in such a manner as to match the requirements of US law, even to the extent of making use of a service set up specifically to meet that law's detailed requirements, whether we would not be perhaps admitting in advance that us law applies to us in this respect, and forfeiting our defense that we are not a producer?"
Goodman also posted this essay on the 2010 BLP RFC, thus showing himself to be an "extreme inclusionist" on BLPs, complete with closely-reasoned justifications but with no discussion of the morality of BLPs and defamation. Thus placing him in the baleful company of open defamers like Joshua Zelinsky.
He commonly enjoys considerable support from the Wiki-Faithful, even in disputes where he appears to be wrong[2]. And in the Cirt RFC, he showed his great fear of "promotionalism". "Promotionalism is a serious danger to the encyclopedia, more so than articles about borderline notable things in general, for it makes our efforts to increased reliability ineffective; I would be reluctant to take seriously a reference source that runs what in effect are political or commercial advertisements." There are few noticeboard complaints about Goodman's blocking methods, probably because he rarely becomes enmeshed in revert wars, and also because he commonly blocks users indefinitely, with all access disabled. This being a perfect example of his hatred of POV, paid or "promotional" editing. His block log contains numerous examples of this activity.
In 2009, when Wikimedia NYC was chartered, Goodman was elected a vice-president, along with Matt Bisanz and Ira Matetsky. [3][4]
His BLP stance may have softened of late. He overturned his Keep vote on the Tahir Abbas AfD upon reflection, "Delete and salt for the next few years at least. I have changed my opinion, partially on the basis of some of what has been subsequently said, but chiefly on the basis on my increasing disquiet over the last few days that my judgment may have been hasty. a I accept the argument of "do not harm", which i consider almost the only justification of our BLP rules. I think we are at present the major reference, and the major prominence, and I am not willing to be in that position about negative BLP. As we become increasingly trusted, (whether or not we think we ought to be trusted) we have to live up to the responsibility that has been thrust upon us. b I think it a very bad principle that we delete on the basis of a request from the subject of an article. But sometimes principles are in conflict, and if this conflicts with "do no harm" and there is no other solution, we must make an exception." [5] "I urge anyone who may have based the opinion on mine to seriously reconsider. I consider my feeling of discomfort that I was joining in actively hurting someone, a more reliable ethical judgement than any verbal argument." [6]
And yet, when another attempt was made in 2012 to recreate the Gregory Kohs BLP, Goodman wrote: "Keep The sources would be sufficient for anyone unconnected with WP., and the article is as it should be primarily concerned with the public aspects of his life. Deleting this is a abject and disgraceful surrender , a foolish admission that WP is incapable of editing on controversial BLP subjects. That's what our enemies try to say. NPOV is meaningless when it translates as NPOV only up to the point where it become difficult. Freedom from censorship is meaningless if we self-censor because we think it's too hard to be objective. .If we are not capable of editing something, the solution is to become capable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) " In short, he admits that Wikipedia has serious internal problems, but they can't be fixed. Because the biography was deleted anyway.
On Jim Hawkins, "The present system favors the bold promotionalist, who can exploit it to force an article to his liking. It harms the modest unfortunate, who has to resort to extremely public and unnecessary discussions of whether his private life should be publicized here. It harms the people it should be helping, and helps those who a NPOV reference source has no business in assisting." [7]
In January 2014 he was caught plagiarizing onto a Wikipedia article. See Plagiarism#Gunther_Stent.
Wikipedia very safe
"Certainly the high school and junior high school Wpedians I have known in Wp circles have been working at a mature level. I learned this freedom from agist bias from my parents, who treated their children as rational beings who would learn more if given the opportunity. Here, we give them that chance. Children should be treated as adults as soon as they're ready, when it does not risk their safety. This is a very safe place, compared to others on the web. And it does not affect our own safety, because when there are errors, there are thousands of people to fix them. 16:18, 3 December 2012" (sic)
Motivations
An illuminating post by 'Sweet Revenge' of Wikipediocracy:
"He is an interesting case indeed. As long as we're psychoanalyzing him, I would speculate that the fact that he has a Ph.D. in molecular biology from Cal and yet ended up getting an MLS and working as a librarian has contributed greatly to his bitter attitude towards professors and experts. I have this vague, anecdotally based, theory that there are a lot of librarians who couldn't get jobs when they finished their Ph.D.s in other subjects, so went to library school and subsequently spend their careers getting angry at the professors they have to be around who, possibly, weren't especially more qualified than they were at the beginning but, through luck and talent, managed to make careers in their subject area. I've known a couple myself, ironically both from Cal, which is enabling for this career trajectory since they have a library school right there." [8]
Greg Kohs and the 2014 Wikiconference
As described in Greg Kohs Wikiconference 2014-06-01, Kohs was suddenly banned from the conference without warning, after having a presentation of his approved. Goodman, one of the conference organizers, absolutely refused to discuss it. And censored his own talkpage to insure it was not discussed. [9]
Quote from Abd: "Goodman has long been one of the best administrators, in my experience. Personally, I met him briefly at WikiConference New York years ago. Dead, in person, i.e., not present. I think there is something about serious involvement in the wiki that sucks the life out of people. I was planning on spending the night in New York, but found such a total lack of connection with people that I decided to take the train back to my car and drive home. There was no there there."
Further quote:
" I haven't had much dealing with him, but on every occasion that I have, I was struck by the way he was incapable of dealing with evidence that very bad things were happening."
"The latest episode is no exception. I asked him politely by email on 7 June, asking him if he knew anything of the plan to prevent Kohs coming? He never replied. It's not that he won't answer emails: we have corresponded, but only on mundane subjects. As soon as you turn to problematic matters, radio silence button gets clicked on."
"Brad is exactly the same of course."
"I suppose you could argue that these people are like Fortune 500 chief executives. It's fine to discuss matters which are not company related. But business is business, why should they be obliged to discuss matters which are secret and confidential."
"But then Goodman is a Wikipedian, and Wikipedians don't subscribe to such principles of privilege and secrecy. The whole point of Wikipedia is that information should be free. I.e. free as in free speech, freedom of information."
His 2014 Arbcom run
Goodman threw his hat into the ring, and was asked the following question.
"Q = You were one of the primary organizers of WikiConUSA2014, held at New York University from May 30 to June 1, 2014. On January 29 of that year banned Wikipedian Greg Kohs (User:Thekohser), submitted a panel request entitled "Confessions of a Paid Editor." He proposed to deliver there a presentation criticizing Wikipedia's often contradictory policies towards paid editing and to present one paid editor's perspective on the problem. There was apparently insufficient interest in this particular panel for it to go forward. According to his own testimony, Kohs registered for the event and made travel and lodging arrangements, planning to attend as a regular conference participant. At the 11th hour, conference organizers banned him from attending the gathering, intimating through the event's Orwellian-named "Friendly Space Policy" that he faced removal by security and/or arrest if he attempted to participate. This abrupt cancellation of his registration for the event caused him an admittedly small financial loss associated with the cancellation of his reservations, a bill which I believe he submitted to conference organizers. Kohs made multiple requests of various people associated with the conference for a formal rationale of his prohibition from the event grounds, which was pointedly stonewalled. This obviously sets up a series of queries directly reflecting upon your own executive judgment and leadership style. (1) Why was it suddenly and at the last minute decided by WikiConUSA 2014 organizers that a ban of Greg Kohs was persona non grata at the event. (2) Why was this reason never communicated to Greg Kohs? (3) Was Mr. Kohs ever compensated for the (nominal) financial loss which he suffered as a result of this arbitrary last minute decision? (4) Do you feel that this matter was handled properly? Why or why not? What would you do better next time? (5) Do you believe that lists of automatically banned people should exist with respect to future Wikipedia events? How do you square this with the notion that Wikipedia is not censored, that free discussion and free speech are important aspects of the Wikipedia experience? With the notion that free inquiry and the right to dissent are inalienable intellectual rights? (5) Do you feel that the apparent tendency to prejudge Greg Kohs's behavior at a future Wikipedia event reflects poorly upon your ability to handle cases which come before Arbcom dispassionately?"
Late in the Q-and-A stage, he finally posted this evasive response.
"(1,2,3,4) I was one of the organizers, not one of the primary organizers, and I was not the decision maker. I have been advised by NYBrad and the Foundation that public discussion of the details would best be avoided. But I will comment on some more general matters: (5) The ability to participate in a WP meeting, or to write a WP article, are not inalienable rights. We offer a publication medium for those who follow our rules; we're not a government. We are not preventing him from expressing his ideas on any of a multitude of channels. I have given indef blocks when needed, and I would have been irresponsible not to have done so. I think an arbitrator unwilling to block or ban is unsuitable for the position, just as much as one eager to find excuses to block or ban. (6) The community has made the decision to prevent the editor you ask about from writing articles or otherwise participating in WP. I consider that rational prevention of disruption, not prejudicial, and exactly analogous."
Nonetheless, he was elected to a two-year term on Arbcom. And in 2015/16, he became one of the "defenders" of the hapless Dr. Michel Aaij in various Zoe Quinn/Gamergate squabbles, and attempted to silence Slate writer David Auerbach for "criticizing the magical wiki".
In December 2016 he was re-elected for two more fun-filled years.
