I was looking at WikiTruth and followed a link to their take on Angela Beesley who recently received the coveted very first admin endorsement from myself. It's a good article (though close to a year old) and brings up something at odds with my idea of what Wikipedia is. I think that at Wikipedia, the truth will out, and that requires the process that Wikipedia has done so much to advance.

Beesley has complained about trolls editing her page, the same as they do to other famous people's articles on Wikipedia (WP). She then emphasizied that she wasn't notable. WikiTruth pointed out that that's ironic, given that she had an important part in reaching this state of affairs. I had a look at her article's history, and it's true. About 15% of it is, men who have problems dealing with women, vandalizing the page. And the same type of thing happens on her talk page, that I starting watching ever since the infamous Wikimedia 990 incident. WikiTruth claims she has tried to have the article on her deleted and I am inclined to believe them.

I've commented that the next time her article comes up for deletion, I will vote to keep it, and it turns out I was right for the wrong reasons. (I thought someone was trying to diminish her.) I'll vote to keep it, to stick to my belief that we need the process. The good edits as well as the bad. That to withdraw her article and similar articles is to defeat WP's purposes, to limit it, to in one small way diminish WP. The free flow of information I think, is crucial to Wikipedia's success and to limit it, is to move one step closer to having Wikipedia replaced by something else. Angela Beesley does retain my admin endorsement and that has nothing to do with my plans for taking the new Westonka Wiki (hosted by Wikia) to new heights.

Two other notes, edits to WikiTruth's main page have really dropped off, with one in June and before that some in March. Also there has been at least one, more recent request for deletion (2007) of Beesley's article that also failed.