John Edwards Affair: Mystery Editor Continues to Edit Rielle Hunter Wikipedia Page

Who is Editing Out Unpleasant Details From Wikipedia's Rielle Hunter entry?

Who is ALJDJDD?



Mystery Continues


While working on this morning's John Edwards Scandal: Who in the Edwards’ Campaign Ran the Cover Up? UPDATED, a note was received from DBKP's crack research department.

Our mystery Wikipedia editor came back just now And made these changes to the Rielle Hunter article. Basically removed all of the negative info about the father, inserted the father's birth year of 1934, and, most interestingly, cleaned up the info about Hunter's small film roles, deleting a reference to roles in the films Overboard and Deadly Addiction, but leaving the reference to the 1991 Denzel Washington film Ricochet.

One can only type one story at a time and this one got pushed back. In the meantime, about three hours ago, we were notified of another interesting development:

Catherine Yronwode had an interesting theory about our mystery WIkipedia editor that she explained here - that "ALJDJDD" may be an acronym for "Alias Lisa Jo Druck, James Druck's Daughter".

Among other things, yronwode posits a possible identity for the mystery editor:

User ALJDJDD, who claims in her edit summaries to be James Druck's daughter (ALJDJDD may be an acronym for "Alias Lisa Jo Druck, James Druck's Daughter"), has repeatedly deleted from the Rielle Hunter page all mention of James Druck's involvement in the horse-murder insurance fraud scheme, incluing the murder of Lisa's own horse, for which we have numerous reliable msm sources now. (Apparently ALJDJDD does not believe the confession of the FBI informer and horse-killer Tommy Burns, upon which all the sources are based, and prefers to think that her father is innocent of the crime or that no crime was committed.)

We have no proof that ALJDJDD is who she says she is (i.e. one of the four Druck daughters), but she has added a bunch of unsourced material, such as the year of James Druck's birth, the location where Lisa Jo Druk and Kip Hunter were married, and some IMDb-sourced data about Lisa Jo Hunter that we had previously overlooked due to the subject's several name changes.

We touched on the edits being made yesterday at the Rielle Hunter Wikipedia page, in "John Edwards Scandal: Rielle Hunter Editing Her Own Wikipedia Page - UPDATED".

[UPDATE NOTE 12:55 EDT - Our research indicates that "a closer look at the change made to the article by that user - in addition to deleting the information about the father, the editor changed the place of marriage to Kip Hunter from New York state to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. Not sure if this is true or false."

We will see.]

We also got a note that Rielle Hunter, born Lisa Jo Druck, has three other sisters than Melissa, who asked John Edwards on Saturday to "Stop Bad-mouthing Rielle Hunter - UPDATED".

According to The Palm Beach Post (see the last paragraph).

So there are several suspects for editing the Wikipedia article. The article also explains the "convicted criminal" part of the edit summary you quoted in your article.

The Palm Beach article, "Dad of Edwards' mistress had dark side" recounts a grisly tale of horse execution, fraud, insurance money and prison sentences. It's not very complimentary; one can see why a family member might want this information edited out of Wikipedia.

"They loved money! All of them watching out for themselves."

That's the Florida family environment fallen presidential wannabe John Edwards' mistress grew up in. So says Jupiter commodities trader Steve Smith, a longtime live-in boyfriend of one of Rielle Hunter's three sisters.

The article quotes "Jupiter commodities trader Steve Smith, a longtime live-in boyfriend of one of Rielle Hunter's three sisters" [designer, Jennifer Druck].

The Palm Beach article cites Sports Illustrated as a source.

In a 1992 cover story, Sports Illustrated named Druck an early figure in a frightening trend: The killing of show horses and ponies for insurance money.

IS Rielle Hunter editing her own Wikipedia page? Or, is it another of the Druck sisters?

Again, time will tell.

by Mondoreb
image: wikipedia

John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Nightline Lost Footage?

The Interview Footage Viewers Didn't See
Explains a Lot




We saw this video, "EXCLUSIVE! John Edwards Affair Interview, John Edwards reveals some affair bombshells in this FOD exclusive footage. We saw it while checking out Ain’t No Commenters Like Deceiver Commenters ‘Cause Deceiver Commenters Don’t Stop! and thought readers may like a break for humor.

IS this really lost footage from Edwards' Nightline appearance? Or is it what he would have said--if there were no consequences for his actions?

Watch and decide.





Sure to be a classic.

by Mondoreb

John Edwards Scandal: Rielle Hunter Editing Her Own Wikipedia Page?

"I deleated information about my father that was false. It was an accusation made by a convicted criminal. My father, James Druck was never investigated nor charged with any criminal activity."
--Wikipedia edit made August 23, 5:58 a.m.




Wikipedia and Rielle Hunter are back in the news.

It appears that Reille Hunter, unavailable for comment thus far in the John Edwards scandal, speaking through another means: namely, Wikipedia?

A few weeks ago, Wikipedia was in the news, after a series of online debates at the site had stifled all mention of Rielle Hunter and the Edwards' affair. [John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Debate at Wikipedia Rages and John Edwards Love Child: Wikipedia Editor Defends Go-Slow Policies On Edwards Entry]. Now, Wikipedia not only has a page devoted to "John Edwards' extramarital affair" but to "Rielle Hunter‎"


DBKP's crack research squad alerted us to an interesting edit at the on-line encyclopedia which appears to have been made by Rielle Hunter, or her sister, Melissa, on the "Rielle Hunter" page.

ALSO at DBKP: Click on banner to access 80 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal.

They emailed with a Heads Up!

Hunter (or her sister?) editing Rielle Hunter Wikipedia article

With the account name ALJDJDD -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ALJDJDD

Click on the "diff" link on the contributions page for the edits they made.

This is what the page looked like after the edit, at 05:58, 12 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Rielle Hunter‎

The notation, "(I deleated information about my father that was false. It was an accusation made by a convicted criminal. My father, James Druck was never investigated nor charged with any criminal activity.)" was added on the page. Rielle Hunter was born Lisa Druck.

And this is what the page looked like before the edit: hist) (diff) Rielle Hunter‎


Click image to enlarge.

Is Rielle Hunter, like millions of American prior to August 8, keeping up with news of the John Edwards scandal on-line?

It would appear that it's either Rielle Hunter or her sister, Melissa--or an internet 'troll'. The latter is also a possibility, as anyone who followed the Megan Meier story at DBKP knows.

The appearance of a troll and DBKP's involvement with that faux blog are detailed in:
"Megan Had it Coming Blog: HOAX!"

DBKP was going to monitor the situation and report later on it; however, with John Edwards giving the go-ahead to the major news organization on August 8 that the John Edwards scandal was now news, we no longer have that luxury.

More on that later.

For now, we'll only welcome the MSM to the story they felt was not news from October 2007 until August 8, 2008.

by Mondoreb


NOTE: ABC News did feel it was important enough to investigate the Edwards allegation in July. They are to be commended: they confronted Edwards--something not one reporter from the MSM did after October 2007--with their investigation and he, in turn, agreed to his Nightline appearance.

Better late than never--but at least someone in the MSM had the wherewithal to investigate Edwards at some point, as well as confront him about the affair.

John Edwards Scandal: Wikipedia Editor Defends Policies

William Beutler, an editor at Wikipedia, gives a cool, calm defense of Wikipedia editorial policies and how they affect the "John Edwards" entry in John Edwards Among the Wikipedians.

Yesterday's John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Debate at Wikipedia Rages mentioned the sometimes-heated debate at the on-line reference source over whether to include any mention of the "Love Child Scandal" or "Rielle Hunter" on Edwards' Wikipedia page. The debate can be followed at Talk: John Edwards

Beutler sets up what's happened to this point.

More than 26,000 words (!)* have been expended on the discussion page associated with the John Edwards encyclopedia entry since the National Enquirer posted a story claiming he was seen leaving a hotel room rented for Rielle Hunter (last week), the woman with whom they have alleged he fathered a child out of wedlock (last year). So far, there is no mention of this story in the article — let alone the existence of Ms. Hunter — and because it has been temporarily locked (see above), it doesn’t appear that anyone will. Not just yet, anyway.

I’ve now read about half the debate, which is the whole extent of it before new people start showing up and re-arguing old points. Based on my own knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what I’ve seen in the press, I’ve come to the conclusion that, even though it sure looks like Edwards’ goose is cooked, Wikipedia’s editors are currently doing the responsible thing by keeping it out of the article.

Getting to the defense of what some--including DBKP--have characterized as foot-dragging, Beutler explains:
"There are two reasons to proceed with caution, in addition to the truth remaining at large. One is Wikipedia’s strict guidelines for biographies of living persons and the other is that Wikipedia is a reference site, not a news site."

Patrick Ruffini, among others, is unimpressed. In a comment on the Beutler post, he noted: "If Edwards were a Republican, the National Enquirer scandal would be the first line of his Wikipedia entry, and anyone attempting to take it down would be immediately edited out."

By far, the most valid point made here is that Wikipedia is not a news site. It has no deadline to meet when including updates to already-published information. As Beutler pointed out, there's no deadlines to meet.

If this same strict standard is applied to all Wikipedia entries, then “What’s the rush?” is a good defense to charges of editorial bias and selective foot-dragging.

It will be something for Wiki-watchers to look for in the future.

All-in-all, a good defense of one side in a heated on-line debate.

DBKP will continue to follow the debate.

by Mondoreb

John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Debate at Wikipedia Rages

"Rielle Hunter"
"John Edwards Scandal"

If searching for information on the John Edwards scandal,
Scratch Wikipedia from the list of places to look.





A free-for-all has been raging at Wikipedia over whether to include information of the latest John Edwards Love Child news in the on-line reference source. The battle is between those who want a mention of the scandal on the "John Edwards" entry and those, who for various reasons, don't. It involves such topics as "National Enqurier reliability", "left wing bias" and whether to include information that "Hundreds of media outlets have reported on".

The back-and-forth can be seen at Talk: John Edwards and is, in some places, a fascinating look at the human prejudicial baggage--on both sides--that each editor brings to the debate.

I don't want to spill the beans on which way the debate is going, but, as of the time of this post, Wikipedia's "John Edwards" entry has no mention of the scandal which has been bubbling on the Internet for the past 10 months.

Newsbusters, [Wikipedia Disallows Any Mention of Alleged John Edwards Scandal ] and others, have written about Wikipedia joining the mainstream press in their information blackout of the John Edwards scandal.

Wikipedia, which allowed verb tenses for their Tim Russert entry to be changed from present to past tense about a half hour before the official announcement of his death, is suddenly going ultra legal in its refusal to allow their John Edwards entry to be updated with mention of the alleged scandal which was reported in the National Enquirer with many of the details confirmed by Fox News. Suddenly Wikipedia has become a stickler for confirmation detail before the Edwards entry can be updated. To get an idea of how much Wikipedia is twisting itself into a pretzel to justify their refusal to update their John Edwards entry, one needs only to look at their pained, but comedically entertaining, discussions of this matter in their “Tabloid scandal accusations” section:

At the top of the John Edwards page is this notice:

This page is currently protected from editing until July 30, 2008 or until disputes have been resolved.

"This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected."

We had made an earlier assumption that when Mainstream Media organizations were forced--by events beyond their control--to report on the John Edwards affair, that Wikipedia would be dragged along.

Kicking and screaming all the way, no doubt.

But, that hasn't happened.

To keep any information of the scandal from their users, the Stonewall-side of the Wiki debate depend on a circuitous defense of both hairs-splitting and angel-counting.

The Enquirer is not a reliable source. It's corroborated.

Well, not enough. Now the Times is reporting on it.

We're not a newspaper. We have to be sure. We have a lot of time on this.

There's no pictures. Well, we're going to wait.

As was noted, all fascinating stuff, if the reader is into behind-the-scenes looks at how policy is formed.

When the pictures emerge--both on-line and in the print editions of the Enquirer later this week--people searching for information on the affair will learn that Wikipedia, the reference source that made conventional encyclopedias outdated from the moment they were printed, is out-of-date itself. Wiki will then sadly join the MSM, where a small group who long to be gatekeepers of information for the rest of mankind, reside.

Wikipedia is at the top of the Internet reference mountain today. But, that position is not a given. A host of competing wikis have sprouted on the Internet recently. If Wikipedia thinks that they will always be Number One, regardless of policies which deny users information--controversial or not--they will learn a hard lesson.

They can ask about the lesson time they're at K-Mart, drink a Carling's Black Label beer or read the New York Times. All organizations which were, at one time, Number One in their respective fields.

by Mondoreb
image: dbkp file