Robert Spencer takes “A trip to the nuthouse“:
A few days ago you could have checked my biography at Wikipedia and found this:
Most have discredited Mr. Spencer’s views on Islam due to oft-exaggeration. It must also be noted that Mr. Spencer’s work is highly biased and influenced by his Jewish Ancestral viewpoints.
Of course, this has happened before. Jihad Watch News Editor Anne Crockett has noted here before that Wikipedia, since anyone can edit it, is absolutely worthless, and here is yet more evidence that she was correct: the Wikipedia editor above assumes that I speak about the roots of jihad violence within Islamic theology solely because I’m Jewish. That might make some small bit of sense except for one little catch: I’m not Jewish.
Spencer goes on to debunk numerous other fabrications. As he puts it:
Reading this latest morsel of Wikipedia baloney made me think that this sunny Sunday afternoon here in Secure Undisclosed Locationville might be a good time for me to do something I have been meaning to do for a long while: answer some critics. Now, these are people whom normally I would consider not worth answering; for the most part they are rather self-evidently nutty and unhinged. But when I was in Holland for the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference last February, I got in a conversation with Daniel Pipes about Internet pests, and he recommended answering them. Otherwise, he said, the charges would remain accessible on the Internet, no answer would be available, and in such cases sometimes the charges are picked up by more reputable sources, circulate into cleaner and better-lighted corners of the Internet, and take on a life of their own. Thus, he said, it was better to have the truth on record.