There's an interesting debate at Wikipedia about the recent Wikipedia entry about the shocking double rape and murder case I posted about yesterday.

The Wiki entry makes the same allegations of pre-mortem sexual mutilation I was unable to verify -- that the man's penis and woman's breast were cut off while both victims were alive -- and once again, the only evidence is the same article by Stefanie Williams (which provides no links).

While the entry links a CBS News report and a WBIR report, neither of those reports mentions anything about pre-mortem sexual mutilation.

If this debate is any indication, it will be interesting to watch the Wikipedia entry. Here's the post author on the attempt to enforce Wiki's "rules":

Excuse me Nae'blis and Dhartung, I started this article. Who the hell do you guys think you are to demand contributors ask your permission to modify? You are not the Wikipedia police, nor are you the definitive authority on this subject. The whole point of Wikipedia is to allow an organic content evolution, not that a couple busybodies censor information with the intent of altering the message to suit their political interests. And don't try and hide behind the guise of "Unreliable source", "Incorrect citation", "disparaging material", or whatever the hell Wikipedia rule you like to hide behind. What gives you the authority to interpret Wikipedia rules? The edits you've made render your intentions transparent. Don't you guys have a copy of "The Nation" to read? --[username omitted by request on February 26, 2008] 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org

That prompted this reply by nae'blis (who seems to be a longstanding Wiki writer):

No one owns their edits on Wikipedia. Your contributions are credited to you, but with the exception of talk pages and your userspace, you have no right to expect that they will remain unchanged, or that people will ask your permission before changing them. Likewise, no one is trying to tell you that you cannot change our edits, but merely that all edits should comply with certain policies and guidelines. One of those is that we do not include unsourced information, especially when it regards real people. The chance for impact on real lives and real feelings is unarguable; people are sued every day for libel and slander. Our defense as an encyclopedia is that we do not foster rumors or engage in original speculation, but that we report and collate what other people in reliable sources have already said. Does that make more sense? -- nae'blis 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mister Blis, I don't expect my postings to remain unchanged, nor do I expect anyone to ask permission to edit content. In fact, if you go back and read what I posted, you'll see that I wrote: "The whole point of Wikipedia is to allow an organic content evolution". Then go back and read what you wrote: "material that is unsourced should be removed immediately, then asked about for possible re-inclusion."

You are contradicting yourself. But your hypocrisy is beside the point. The stated purpose of Wikipedia is be the repository of all human knowledge. This is supposed to be an educational resource, and information relevent to the subject should be preserved. The first question anyone should ask themselves before making an edit is "Will this edit increase, or decrease the usefulness of this post". If the answer is decrease, the edit should not be performed. Your editing, by removing information and links has only decreased the usefulness of this post.

I don't think anyone is helped by purveying unsubstantiated information, and I do wish that Stefanie Williams would answer my email so that I can find out whether there is any substantiation of the additional heinous details of this awful crime. I'd email the Wiki author, but user "[username omitted by request on February 26, 2008]" has neither an email nor a user page.

So I'm left where I was yesterday. Unable to substantiate shocking allegations which are being disseminated far and wide -- even on Wikipedia.

As always, I'm open to suggestions.

MORE: According to Georgia real estate broker Tim Maitski, WorldNetDaily has not yet run this story because some of it is "not yet substantiated":

I emailed Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, a website that usually is not afraid to publish the stories like this. I asked him why this story never got mentioned on his site. He actually personally emailed me back and told me that they have been following this story from the beginning and are waiting to bring it out until the main claims in the story are a matter of public record. Right now some of the stuff being stated on various websites is not yet substantiated and they won't run with it until everything is. I respect them for this. If anyone will get the story out and get it out with more than just rumors, it will be WorldNetDaily.