"

Assume Good Faith Does Not Mean Have Blind Faith Despite the Facts

By repeatedly  for months  citing a book published by St. Martin's Press (New York), ""Feeling Your Pain,"" as a source of chapter-long damning criticism of the National Civilian Community Corps, LoverOfArt was abusing the name of a respected publishing house and misleading Wikipedia readers.

That St. Martin's Press would publish a book does not of course imply that no competing or contradictory facts exist.  But it does imply that the information has survived a responsible vetting process by fact checkers and lawyers.

(By the way, according to the flap copy of the book,""Feeling Your Pain,"" (at least as published in hardcover by St. Martin's Press, 2000), the writing of the author, Bovard, ""has been denounced by FBI Director Louis Freeh, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the White House AIDS czar, as well as by the Chiefs of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the U.S. International Trade Commission."")

As is now clear, ""Feeling Your Pain"" does not even mention NCCC or the National Civilian Community Corps (except in the footnotes, referring to one speech by then-President Clinton  not exactly a source of documented criticism of a program he signed into law), in a chapter devoted to what was then 50,000 members of AmeriCorps, not the 1100+ Corps Members of NCCC.

So to Dbiel and Che Nuevara: It took a lot to get me to sound off about LoverOfArt. I responded calmly to his repeated rants about me, saying I was foaming at the mouth, my writing was Lunacy, fluff, and similar crap.  At this point his ""editing"" of the National Civilian Community Corps has been conclusively demonstrated as biased and maliciously distorted:  his doctoring of quotes into misleading criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps (quoting NCCC as having been labeled a ""fraud"" in an article he cites that does not mention NCCC) should disqualify him from being part of this group.

When I read what he wrote and posted at Wikipedia, quoting the author of Feeling Your Pain as calling NCCC a ""fraud"" in an article he cites (untrue), saying the author devoted an entire chapter of his book to criticism of NCCC (untrue)  in a book published by St. Martin's Press, even I started to doubt the litany of glowing reports from credible and verifiable sources that I had read about this organization.

Someone unfamiliar with positive reports about NCCC would have been even more likely to greet news of the demise of NCCC - something ardently sought recently by persons using the same kinds of arguments LoverofArt posted  with detachment, if not pleasure.

That his statements  quotes  about NCCC are now known to be false and misleading means that he no longer enjoys an assumption of Good Faith.

So I would like you to spare me your lectures about my supposed sins. ""No information is better than misleading information,"" as Jimbo Wales liked to say. LoverOfArt has no business mauling the content of this page, nor does Wikipedia have any business disseminating his posts.

I am perfectly ready and willing to work respectfully and cooperatively with any editor who has not used the vicious and underhanded methods that LoverofArt has resorted to.

I have shown a willingness to respond to your editorial concerns. Dbiel wanted more notable sources. I posted a number of them quickly, including citations from the Baltimore Sun, the NY TImes, The Washington Times, and an Arizona newspaper - news outlets reflecting a spectrum of points of view.  (LoverofArt discounted all of the Baltimore Sun citations, saying none were notable.)

I don't maintain that my copy (or my view of what should be at the NCCC page) is perfect or unassailable or that other's work has no place. I have labeled some posts ""suggested edits.""  I have no problem with honest content that is in context that runs counter to my perspective.

But LoverofArt is clearly willing to resort to dishonest (or at the very least, grossly misleading) editing to ensure that his view prevails.  My editing reflects my perspective, but it  is not dishonest:  I present information that is verifiable and accurate, to the best of my ability.  If I make a mistake, and I sometimes do, I try to correct it, and I would welcome the correction of others - I do not want to be have a part in disseminating inaccurate or misleading information.  

I left LoverofArt's Criticisms page on the NCCC article for a long time, until I could verify whether or not it was accurate.  That is the mark of responsible editing.

Dbiel, I respect your knowledge of the Wikipedia way of doing