In the early days of the Internet, Wales was very active in the Usenet newsgroup alt.philosophy.objectivism, and he had a hand in starting humanities.philosophy.objectivism.The latter newsgroup was formed with a moderator specifically to keep Neo-Techers out, as shown here in a Jimmy Wales post from 1996: https://groups.google.com/forum/#! Neo-Tech, provides breakthrough business techniques, systems, and paradigms.) Many objectivists who preferred low-effort, ivory-tower intellectual exercises on Usenet as opposed to in-the-trenches business efforts in the real world…who preferred showing off their “brilliance” in the low-effort, sum-zero online debate world instead of actualizing Objectivism in the challenging, value-building business world as Neo-Tech and alt.philosophy.objectisim, and they can be seen by going to those newsgroups https://groups.google.com/forum/#! Look at the posts made in both newsgroups back in the mid-90s. My deeper concern beyond the “Bi” stalkers on Wikipedia is whether the Wikipedia founder and a top administrator could be bias down deep….perhaps doing to Neo-Tech Philosophy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: Shlomif/Neo-Tech Remember, on my father’s Talk page Frank_R._Wallace users repeatedly request for more material on the Neo-Tech philosophy itself.Dramatizer (talk) , 5 March 2010 (UTC)You could do that, but within minutes, yes, minutes, some Asperger’s riddled nitwit would spring into action and edit it out, calling it “original research.” Forty-four minutes to Wapner….—Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) , 22 July 2010 (UTC) The edit wars described on my father’s Talk page above largely implicate Wikipedia editor “Bi”.A short, uncontroversial explanation of Neo-Tech should be acceptable. I certainly don’t know anything of the philosophy, and so I cannot contribute anything myself; so there’s your explanation.—Cast (talk) , 30 January 2011 (UTC)Well, the problem isn’t that those who know of Wallace are unaware of this.
We refused to speak to several reporters, for they were out to besmirch Neo-Tech. For decades we turned down all requests for interviews, for they were only attempting to smear us.
forum/alt.neo-tech and keying in the search bar “Jimmy Wales” (and you will get another set of his posts when you key in “Jimbo”). I explained that someone with a strong stalker-like obsession can destroy a person’s Wikipedia page, and that my father’s Wikipedia page and the Neo-Tech page and saw nothing wrong, saying he saw an open debate.
Neo-Tech from the early Internet days by going to https://groups.google.com/forum/#! Wallace’s Neo-Tech philosophy, which grew out of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Wales an email several years ago, after my father died, informing him that a Wikipedia editor who went by the name of “Bi” was destroying my father’s Wikipedia page, Wales called me.
Again, even the anti-business blog saw the “Bi” obsession to destroy Neo-Tech and Wallace despite the facts, and therefore made the remarkable move of deleting the entire thread of “Bi” against us. Wikipedia resists relatives, friends, and employees from contributing to an article out of concern that the subject would be favored, yet Wales saw no problem with a negative force so strong that it overwhelmed the Neo-Tech and Frank R. When I articulated this shortcoming to Jimmy Wales, he simply shrugged it off indicating that others can debate against the negative.
But he missed the fundamental point: that even with the rigorous debate on my father’s and Neo-Tech as evidenced today, years later, by the comments on my father’s Talk page Frank_R._Wallace .