Thursday, October 19, 2006

The PLAZOID censored from Wikipedia!!!

Apparently, "the PLAZOID" was the subject of an entry on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia (, which was deleted. A version of the encyclopedic entry can be found at:, and just in case it too gets censored, it is included below:

"The Plazoid is a 'zine and online blog (The Plazoid website) based out of Arcata, California that publishes articles related to homelessness, as well as issues of police brutality and social justice. The name is derived from a term used in reference to persons who hang out on the Plaza (Arcata's town square), Arcata's streets, the Arcata Community Forest and the Arcata Marsh. The Plazoid uses the term "unhoused" rather than homeless, due to a belief that the word "homeless" is used derogatorily. Since the spring of 2005 the Plazoid publishes and distributes a print version in the city of Arcata. The Plazoid has been, alegedly, hostile to The Arcata Eye, its pages often referring to the paper as the Arcata LEye. However, according to Kevin Hoover, the Eye has allegedly given the print version of the 'zine free advertising. Plazoid supporters say that the Plazoid never gave permission for this "free advertising" and assume it to be more anti-homeless propaganda. Hoover has allegedly also censored many letters from homeless and nonhomeless readers alike."

Wow, how controversial!!!

There is more! If you google "plazoid," you get this interesting dialogue:, including this little gem: "The nature of the POV is such: all of its focused either "against" (the IPs) or "for" (me: in that I'm not against) the newspaper publication the Arcata Eye. Some neccessary history: an online and print 'zine called the Plazoid was created in reaction to the Arcata Eye's aritcles and editorials. This controversy is explained, I hope fairly, on the Eye page. I believe that the IPs are either two of the writers who publish the Plazoid, or very close friends (others have suspected this as well, see comments about 1/3 down the page on Talk: Arcata, California). Thus, I believe they have a vested interest in pushing the POV that they do." and "Please investigate discreetly, I'm afraid my report of this will only inflame matters if known." let's take a look at "Talk: Arcata, California":

"Talk:Arcata, California
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User at, please do not edit my comments, reversing the meaning, as you did on Aug 30th. I've restored my origional comments, and paraphrased yours inline, as is the usual style, (see Wikipedia:Talk_page) Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In the culture and institutions section, 2nd paragraph, it says:
Work in Arcata consists largely of the dumpster-diving...
Dumpster-diving obviously isn't "work" in the usual sense, as in employment. Perhaps this should be rewritten and expanded to include details on the unemployment and homeless, as well as high occurance of dumpster-diving. Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Dumpster-diving *is* work in the usual sense, as in employment.

I disagree. Usual employment includes a employer and an employee. The employer expects the employee to conduct some work for some amount of compensation, usually money. Since a dumpster-diver does not have an employer, this is not employment, but it might be called an occupation. However, this is all beside the point. The real point of this that at the very begining of the paragraph dealing with employment, dumpster-diving is listed as the first item. This is leads the reader to the conclusion that most people in Arcata are unemployed and spend their days sifting through others trash. While I agree that Arcata may have a higher rate of dumpster-diving than many other US cities, it is my no means what the majority do on a daily basis. I have no objection to the inclusion of a note about dumpster-diving, but feel that it should be in it's correct context (unemployment), and backed by factual data. Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, but that is bullshit. What about the "self-employed"? I do not think that your paradigm of master-to-slave relationship is dominant in Arcata ("prevalant" maybe, but not dominant).

The 3rd paragraph is:
The city is dis-served by a weekly tabloid, the Arcata Eye. The newspaper is noted for its bigoted use of police reports to instigate violence against unhoused people while profiting from the entertainment value of sensationalized hate-mongering. In response, an independent publication, the Plazoid started to document civil and human rights abuses perpetrated against the unhoused.

Use of the word "dis-served" isn't really appropriate here as it is an opinion of the author which may or may not be a majority opinion. The "dis" part should probably be removed. Additionally, if the paper is, in fact, noted for it's bigoted police reports, can someone provide links to the notes? Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word "mis-served" is really appropriate here as it is a majority opinion. The "mis" part should probably be capitalized. Additionally, the paper is, in fact, noted for it's bigoted police reports, and it was disappointing to see the Arcata Eye use Wikipedia to advertise its un-journalistic atrocity.

The Wikipedia:NPOV page, says assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a publication called the Arcata Eye, it's articles are written for and about Arcata, it is printed on newsprint, I am unaware of it's dimensions. Hence I feel that the statment "The city is served by a weekly newspaper, the Arcata Eye" is factual. However, use of the word "mis-served" (or "dis-served") is an assertation of on opinion. One may assert that there *is* an opinion, but one should not assert that the opinion is correct or incorrect. Finally, this is a page about Arcata the city, not about the Arcata Eye publication. It should be enough to state that the newspaper exists. Discussions about the newspaper and allegations of bias, might be best placed on a page about the newspaper itself, such as has been done for the NY_Times Jrouvier 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, but if you think that the word "served" is nuetral, then you need to check your free on-line dictionary. The Arcata [L]Eye has done a great MISservice to the people of Arcata with its blatant hate-mongering and purposeful distortion of fact to misrepresent targeted residents of Arcata.

Then you don't use served OR disserved (I have changed the entry to use neither). Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, an encyclopedia, if you will, not a soapbox. Also, I've never heard of the Plazoid. Is it well-known enough to deserve mention? -Reisen

Upon second look, given the fact that you not only ext-linked the Plazoid, but that you spelled out the URL in the article, makes me think that perhaps you own the Plazoid and you are trying to hype it. That is not what Wikipedia is for, and it would certainly explain why in 18 years of Arcata life I've never heard of the Plazoid. The Plazoid is not a major part, or even noticable part, of Arcata life, and its mention shall be removed. It would, however, work fine to mention the Plazoid on a dedicated Arcata Eye page.

I appreciate the edits you have made to the main page (I myself am new to this and don't really know how to do things the "proper" way), however, I do have qualms. You obviously are allowing the Arcata Eye FREE ADVERTISING at this website, which, as you pointed out, is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia, especially given the questionable nature of the content of the Eye. As for the Plazoid (publication, name derived from slanderous term used in the Arcata Eye to disparage unhoused people and encourage violent acts against them), I am surprised that you have not heard of it or read an issue. It is almost always available at the Arcata Co-op, Solutions, and other places. It is only up to about issue number 8 (monthly), but the blogspot has had plenty of comments on it from Arcatans (one post had 42 posts!). Have you heard of the Humboldt Advocate? also a relatively new publication in Arcata. Why does the Arcata Eye deserve FREE ADVERTISING while any mention of these other publications are edited from this website?

The Arcata Eye deserves mention because it is a major Arcata publication. If I were writing a Eureka article, the Times Standard, the Lumberjack (blegh), (and the Tri-City Weekly, blegh blegh) would all deserve mention because they are well-known and generally worth mentioning along with any detailed explanation of the city. It's not advertising, it's worthwhile information. Now, if I mentioned the Eye without mentioning a publication of equal prevalence in the community, that would be incorrect. But the Eye and the Plazoid are really not comparable in popularity nor in knowledge of their existence. The Plazoid, it seems, exists mainly as a reaction to the Eye. Thus, it would be a perfect inclusion on an Eye-only page, but makes no sense on the Arcata one. -Reisen

I disagree. On Monday nights, the night before the new issue of the Arcat Eye comes out, look at the Eye vendboxes: THEY ARE FULL! Just because the Eye is well-funded and can afford to create volumous waste doesn't make it a "major publication." Look for a moment at the "letters to the editor" section. The Plazoid gets more comments at the blogspot than the Eye gets letters to the editor, and thus is MORE interactive with Arcatan than the Eye. ASK AROUND! I'll bet you find that alot of people have atleast heard of the Plazoid. Also check out the blogspot yourself ( There DEFINITELY is "WORTHWHILE INFORMATION" at the blogspot, complete with sources citations. Contrast that with the non-informative opinionated "stories" of the Arcata Eye. I don't think that the Arcat Eye reports "worthwhile information," or at least not at all ACCURATELY. But, yes, Hoover is well-funded (by advertisers, not interested paying customers!). So if you think that the amount of money behind the publication is more important than the content of the publication, then by all means, go ahead and mention the Arcata Eye. But don't edit out the Plazoid just because it isn't heavily funded."

ok ok ok....there is much more, too much more.
At any rate, it looks like the PLAZOID lost this battle. Oh well. Let me know what you think. Maybe someone can start a new Plazoid entry?

Thanks to the anonymous commentor who exposed this act of censorship.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Critical Analysis of the "Arcata Eye"


by Cash ULT

In his story, "People & Grizz 1,Tad 0 in tethering challenge – Oct. 10, 2006," Kevin Hoover cites the eveidence brought before Humboldt County Court that clearly demonstrates that Arcata's dog-tethering ordinance is selectively enforced against homeless people, then declares a "victory" when Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen rules in favor of the police.

Ironically, Hoover insinuates that Griz the dog also shares in this celebration of bigotry, inspite of the fact that this particular form of bigotry could spell his doom. Griz has never expressed any elation that might support Hoover's ridiculous assertations.

Unsurprisingly, Hoover has used his "newspaper" to distort reality and attempt to rile up more classist bigotry against local activist, tad.

My advice: don't believe the hype.