Howard Scott Edit

We should not use Howard Scott as a reference for this article. This is because the integrity and honesty of Scott as a source can be called into question. During the 1930s many false rumours circulated regarding Scott such as Scott gaining a PhD from the University of Berlin. These rumours that I had originated with Scott four he failed to correct. Some of these rumours appeared in official technocracy the incorporated publications. The fact that Scott either originated or had a continued such false rumours means anything the Scots says has to be questioned I can only be placed in the article is verified from reliable secondary sources. In fact, secondary sources should be preferred over primary sources anyway. Isenhand 05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is not true and was part of a disinformation effort at the time by the Hearst Corporation and the New York Times among others to discredit Scott. In other words made up propaganda. You are sourcing that from one book apparently... with no 3rd. party source at all, and a book that does not list the page number of chapter even. The link you removed is an official document, put out by Technocracy Incorporated. By removing it you are presenting only your view of the issues which conform to the book you self published here as author Andrew Wallace... http:DisableLink// Lu Lu is considered on many sites to be an automatic black listed link because it presents self published authors, and is known in the industry as a vanity press. It is not allowed for instance as a link on the main English wikipedia and many other sites, it is not appropriate for you to in effect advertise your book here... that is a conflict of interest... and the world does not recognize you as a notable author on subjects concerning Technocracy issues. You have never been written about except on your site that you and a couple other people control.
It is also noted that the site http:DisableLink// of which you are an admin... and the Director of, is also a black listed link on wikipedia. It was blacklisted as non notable spam... and you yourself were threatened with a block... as you persistently cut and pasted the same information over and over ... and the article you created was deleted for multiple reasons ... this is only public information. Here is the deletion log also
It is also noted that your information presentation has also been deleted from the simple English wikipedia also for the same reasons... and it appears that you have roamed the internet looking for sites to promote your book.. and your site... and your group.
Your group has also been an article for deletion as well as multiple European sites such as this
Scott had nothing to do with the above as you are phrasing it and attempting to draw a false picture... and I think you better have 3rd party sources before trashing the well respected leader of a group of people and ideas, that he led from 1918 to his death in 1970.
The above is biased information that conforms to your book ... in my opinion, that is sourced by two authors.. the only ones you repeatedly use, that were unrelated to the actual information, and as far as I know... those books are not well regarded. You are using secondary sources mostly of these two books. You are defaming a person here. That is not neutral or a good idea. It appears your information is not correct. You have removed one of the best information links of the early history of Technocracy that is an official document from Technocracy Incorporated and not an opinion made by Scott, it is put out by Technocracy Incorporated... and written by Scott... but the organization ok'd the essay article. Here is the link
It would appear that you are filtering information in a walled garden of articles to agree with information you present in your self published book, which you presented on the article page again... and which I have removed for one thing because you are in a conflict of interest... and it is not notable also. You are the Director of a group of about 8 bloggers... and an internet presence only... not a real social movement as Technocracy Incorporated is and your group is not endorsed or affiliated with the original group in any way ... also... according to the public record of the finances of your group you have around 8 paying members ... and you are, contrary to the NET article a Profit group (your self published book sales fund your projects)... or at least it says you are making a profit, with your pay pal etc... it is noted that the NET article here on wikia.. mentioned membership and open membership outside of Europe etc... which seems like spamming. Here is the public link of NETs finances and membership listed under NET ACCOUNTS... I think it is the second Pdf. here currently... it lists finances and expenses etc... again this is public information, which apparently was demanded by your group members. By using the articles to this purpose, for your group it is denigrating to the actual group of Technocracy Incorporated. To denigrate Howard Scott as you have done... and try to draw attention to your non notable opinion from your self published book and promote your group that is not connected in any way to the actual notable group... is really not a good idea. Please do not remove the link to History and Purpose of Technocracy. It is official information from the official site which is archived on the Technocracy Incorporated site. Also please do not post your self published and non notable book here again either. That is a conflict of interest. Even if it were posted by someone else ... it is not a good source of information. Here is the official Technocracy Incorporated site with the archived article on it. Tbonepickensetc 03:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
As stated before, information should come from reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should only be used if we have no secondary sources. Howard Scott’s integrity can be called into question from information supplied in secondary sources. Any information therefore, that comes from Howard Scott has to be called into question. Unless there are some reliable secondary sources to back up Howard Scott’s claims any information obtained from Scott should not be included. In the case of Gibbs, for example, where Scott claims him as the intellectual origins of technocracy. This appears to be a very later addition as it was pointed out in the 1930s but what Technocracy incorporated had to offer already existed. The Thermodynamic interpretation of socioeconomics use by technocracy incorporated was attributed to Soddy, not Gibbs. When confronted with this Scott did that make any attempt to trick you anything to Gibbs.
The information I present comes from reliable secondary sources. It is not my personal opinion and this can be verified by anybody who wishes to take out the books. I have had the books in as references so people can check the information if they so wish. The information presented in the book, written is the same as information presented here simply because it also comes on the same sources. To what is here is not my opinion by the information from others.
As far as the book is concerned, a book on technocracy is a book on technocracy regardless of who wrote it. And as for NET, but as a statement of fact.
Wikipedia presented an interesting exercise. Wikipedia is run by amateurs with various non experts making could contributions. It has become overrun with trolls and vandals which is why many of the good editors have left Wikipedia and on to other sites such as this one. It’s opinions are not authoritative. Wikipedia is a bit like it democracy / anarchy and its problems demonstrates why this current socioeconomics system is failing. It demonstrates why we need an alternative such as technocracy. Wikia that is a bit more like technocracy in that it has the potential to have an expert responsible for each page. Isenhand 05:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has guidelines such as this and this and this and this and this which prevents a single purpose editor from controlling information ... I would say that you are not only not an expert.. but that you are not notable in the context of the subject... with a self published vanity published book... and a membership of 8 people in a non notable internet presence site. That is not a a personal attack... To set yourself up as an expert is a false dichotomy here. Wikipedia is considered a very well run organization with extremely good oversight. No doubt because your NET article was deleted you are not happy with wikipedia but denigrating it here... seems pointless... it has a good reputation in general and strict guidelines of notability... which NET does not meet. I realize that this site wikia is very different... and will adjust as best I can to it... however non notability and conflict of interest is the issue on presenting NET as a part of a social movement when as pointed out before, your group is actually only 8 paid members on a site of which you are the sole director... here is the public record of that listed under Net Accounts.... this hardly is a social movement... and really 8 bloggers is a far cry from setting yourself up as an expert in the field. Mostly it appears the articles were created mostly by yourself to funnel people to the non notable NET site... half of which is devoted to various money making schemes. That may sound harsh... but it is not. This is just the way it appears. It also appears that you believe most everyone other than yourself to be a troll or vandal if they disagree with your edits... another point that is not made in good faith. Most people edit to good intention. Tbonepickensetc 14:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you both learn What Wikia is not. Wikia is not Wikipedia. Also, to see to Wikipedia, please use [[wikipedia:<Place Article Name Here>]]; all this url stuff is wasting space. --Michaeldsuarez 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Isenhand, I'm sorry to say this, but since searching for your book by IBSN number doesn't work on Special:BookSources. As a result, there isn't any way the average user can look up your book in order to verify its information. You may have to use another source in order to ensure that all user can found your sources. --Michaeldsuarez 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Then that's a problem with BookSources not with the sources themselves. I can get the two main books on technocracy quite easily in Sweden. One of the books was recently republished in the US as well. Besides, they are really the only sources on technocracy as its such a minor movement no one else has done much research into it. Have a look here : and here I would imagine there's a library catalogue for most libraries in any country where you can look up the books and borrow them.

Denigrating Howard ScottEdit

I protest the unfair treatment given Howard Scott... with Isenhand saying This is because the integrity and honesty of Scott as a source can be called into question. I have already mentioned that Howard Scott did not publish that it is an official document from Technocracy Incorporated, published many years ago and since, continuously published to the present, by that group.

I think that the only way any one can view Andrew Wallace's book is to buy it... and the Lu Lu link also sells his music tapes and calendars .. all to profit the group he directs... Here is the disabled link to it http:Disable// ... hence it would appear that a purpose of posting and connecting here, for Isenhand is to bring attention to his book, and to himself... and claim notability.. which he does not have in relation to Technocracy Incorporated or the Technocracy movement... a major conflict of interest. As to Isenhands book... Isbn numbers are purchased for self published authors... that means that the Isbn provided by Mr. Wallace is a purchased one... not provided by his publisher... and of course... any one.. can publish a book at Lu Lu... if they have the money. Copies are printed... only when ordered. As mentioned, many sites bar that website as a sourced any thing... (Lu lu can not be used period.. as a external link or a citation, as it is generally considered.. spam... and automatically unworthy of using.

Also the so called links he has used to defame Howard Scott... do not go any where or mention a page or chapter or any thing... just a book... that is not quoted... just somehow paraphrased by Isenhand... that Scott was somehow a fraud... this is terribly misleading, and not true. How it is this is being done, to what purpose, except to grandstand NET Director and spokesperson, and make a claim for Wallace as an interpreter of two secondary sources... never backed up by a primary or tertiary source, is unknown... but seems to be not good editing, in my opinion. Tbonepickensetc 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Wallace leaves a link to the website he controls and also to his book. Edit

One user is pretty much in control of the Technocracy wikia site now. That person is Isenhand or Andrew Wallace.... director of NET who originated the first of the articles. That person is now spamming his self penned and vanity press published book. In other words through mismanagement here at wikia... a user has either page protected or blocked other users from editing and is controlling with a brand of P.O.V. edits information that is leading eventually to his self published book... and its biased and non notable information.

Andrew Wallace or Isenhand is not a notable person in regard to his claim of being the leader of a social movement. He has tied his notability on trying to connect himself to the actual notable movement Technocracy Incorporated... which he disparages through out his wikia writings... and especially has promoted false and misleading information in regard to Howard Scott... the original groups founder and leader.

I suggest that if control of the information can not be disconnected from this one biased editor who has either blocked or page protected himself from others... that the entire set of information in the wiki be removed, and this site of articles be taken down. As long as Isenhand or Dr. Andrew Wallace is going to use wikia for a spam promotion site.... he, if the past is any indication, is not going to provide good, neutral, objective information... and is going to control .. manipulate.. and give misleading or false information as to actual information on the subject of Technocracy Technate design... and the history and present situation of connected ideas. I would appreciate a cold and hard look being given this whole series of articles with the view of either deleting the whole bunch now... or removing Isenhand from Administration. Thank you for your consideration. Tbonepickensetc 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.