Gyroscopic Investing

Andrei Schleifer is the Harvard economist who was sued for contravening the terms under which he was employed by the US government to advise on the privatizations in post Soviet Russia.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... ia_usa.pdf

Last year the wikipedia page about him had a section about the case. I've got a copy and paste from that old page:-

these individuals bought Russian stocks and GKOs while they were working on the country's privatization, which potentially contravened Harvard's contract with USAID

Since then, the wikipedia page has been converted into pretty much a hagiography. The edit history for the wiki page says;

  08:18, 19 October 2013? Wpeconjosef (talk | contribs)? . . (15,046 bytes) (+193)? . . (rewrite to emphasize academic work, decrease emphasis on lawsuit (interested readers can go through external link))

But the citation link is to a page with a pay wall and all we are left with on the wiki page is:-

In August 2005, Harvard University, Shleifer and the Justice department reached an agreement under which the university paid $26.5 million to settle the five-year-old lawsuit. Shleifer was also responsible for paying $2 million worth of damages, though he did not admit any wrongdoing.[7]

One thing that really stood out was that the wiki page says:-

Some of the public allegations concerning Shleifer and Summers drew considerable criticism from his close friends and collaborators. Edward Glaeser once stated to The Harvard Crimson that the Institutional Investor article "How Harvard Lost Russia" on Shleifer's role in the Harvard advisory program in Russia "is a potent piece of hate creation—not quite ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ but it's in that camp."

Now, to my mind, the comparison to ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ is a very very harsh slur. Has any one disputed anything that is in  the "How Harvard Lost Russia" article?
http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Ar ... .VKLmXl4gB
How can relating undisputed events of great public importance be compared to ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’  which was an anti-semitic fabricated hoax? What is the supposed connection? Is the allegation that there was some anti-semitic motivation behind the  "How Harvard Lost Russia" article? If so then that is an extremely serious allegation. Is wikipedia the place for vague slurs about very serious matters?

I'm just taken aback at how wikipedia editing seems to have become such  a battle ground on this.

stone wrote: I'm just taken aback at how wikipedia editing seems to have become such  a battle ground on this.

One of Wikipedia's core policies is to maintain a neutral point of view, but since anyone with a web browser can be a wikipedia editor (with no qualifications or training required) pretty much any article on anything remotely controversial has the distinct potential to become a battle ground.

rickb wrote:

stone wrote: I'm just taken aback at how wikipedia editing seems to have become such  a battle ground on this.

One of Wikipedia's core policies is to maintain a neutral point of view, but since anyone with a web browser can be a wikipedia editor (with no qualifications or training required) pretty much any article on anything remotely controversial has the distinct potential to become a battle ground.

rickb, your link gives just the sort of wikipedia view that I was hoping wikipedia had:

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

My impression is that the Andrei Schleifer fan club haven't been true to that ideal and have basically expunged much of the factual information that was in the old wikipedia page (and needs to be there) as well as putting in a direct inflamatory quote with the ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ comparison. But is that just my bias?

As a frequent editor on Wikipedia I empathize. I have been fighting a few battles with dedicated POV editors lately and it is frustrating. My best advice is to start on the article's talk page and bring the matter to the attention of experienced non-involved editors including maybe one or two Admins. Also you can post something on the talk page of any related Wiki projects (i.e.[[WP:ECONOMICS]] and maybe [[WP:ACADEMICS]]). Just be sure you don't come off as POV pushing in your own right. Keep the note as bland and neutral as you can and just say you are concerned about possible NPOV issues. You can also attach maintenance tags if you think there is some truly egregious issues.

Ad Orientem wrote: As a frequent editor on Wikipedia I empathize. I have been fighting a few battles with dedicated POV editors lately and it is frustrating. My best advice is to start on the article's talk page and bring the matter to the attention of experienced non-involved editors including maybe one or two Admins. Also you can post something on the talk page of any related Wiki projects (i.e.[[WP:ECONOMICS]] and maybe [[WP:ACADEMICS]]). Just be sure you don't come off as POV pushing in your own right. Keep the note as bland and neutral as you can and just say you are concerned about possible NPOV issues. You can also attach maintenance tags if you think there is some truly egregious issues.

Thanks for the advice. I've only ever been a passive reader of wikipedia up to now but I take your point that the quality of wikipedia depends on people taking the effort themselves. As a first step I've made an edit myself and if it gets expunged then I'll remonstrate in the way you advise.