The egregious vandalism and misuse of my biography page by Wikipedia agenda editors continues.
I understand that cases like this matter little except to those who are libeled. However, I would argue that they are important to the extent they represent what’s going on across the increasingly-troubled Wikipedia platform.
Wikipedia has been “weaponized.”
Anonymous political and special interests control pages on behalf of paid clients. Devoted ideologues use their authority on Wikipedia to censor and controversialize ideas with which they disagree. There are attacks, libel, biases, false information and censorship.
In my instance, the Wikipedia editors have violated multiple Wikipedia policies over the years governing matters such as neutrality, libel and attribution.
And there’s nothing anybody can do about it.
The well-meaning Wikipedia editors– and there are many– are simply outwitted and overpowered by the bad guys.
As I have reported and discussed these matters publicly, anonymous Wikipedia agenda editors controlling my biographical page have mounted a campaign to attack me beyond my Wikipedia page.
“To put it bluntly, this is unacceptable behavior,” wrote a Wikipedia agenda editor in discussing my public objections to the false information and slander on my Wikipedia biographical page. “…some action needs to be taken.” (Toa Nidhiki05 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC))
Wikipedia editors have long been known to track down, troll and attack those who criticize them.
As I reported in my Full Measure investigation, some Wikipedia editors have even gotten together and tracked down personal details about someone they don’t like, figuring out where they travel, what they do in their spare time, and where they work– even calling their boss on the phone to try to get them in trouble. No kidding.
Not long after the “something must be done” threat against me by the Wikipedia editor, additional false and biased information was edited onto my Wikipedia biographical page, an attack blog was published against me, and Wikipedia interests came after me on Twitter.
The Twitter attackers included a Wikipedia editor @wikigamaliel who calls himself “Gamaliel@ALA” on Twitter.
@Wikigamaliel proceeded to state that he knows “how I feel” and “what I think” about certain topics based on my Twitter followers, whom he called “nutty.” (He received a “like” from @Wikimedia UK regarding his “nutty” comment about my followers. These are Wikipedia’s supposedly neutral arbiters of information.)
When some Twitter users then flagged extensive hate, profanity and bias in @Wikigamaliel’s recent Tweets on many subjects, he deleted some of the Tweets and blocked the users.
But he’s still editing away on my Wikipedia biographical page and, presumably, many others.
The Talk Pages
Wikipedia’s “talk” pages are arcane, to be sure, but they can provide a window into the bias, twisted justifications, and mangled logic used by Wikipedia agenda editors to make sure false and biased information stays on a page… and fair, truthful information is censored.
This is where matters of controversy are supposedly arbitrated and settled. Instead, it’s the place where the agenda editors band together and play games to beat back attempts to change their will.
For example, when I politely inquired on the “talk” page as to why someone had deleted my most recent Emmy nominations and awards, it launched a tortuous month long debate among the Wikipedia agenda editors and some well-meaning editors.
In the end, the discussion ended with: paralysis. The Wikipedia editors decided there was so much disagreement over this simple, easily-resolved point, that nothing should be changed. Of course, that was the goal all along of the agenda editors. They made sure there was a protracted discussion and no “consensus.” Without “consensus,” the edit will not be permitted.
(As an aside, the reason the awards I asked about were deleted is because they fight the Wikipedia agenda editors’ attempts to falsely portray me and my reporting as “conservative”; the awards included a daytime Emmy award and a news Emmy award for my undercover investigation into Republican fundraising.)
There are other awards and citations the Wikipedia agenda editors will not allow because the awards and citations disprove the false narrative that I am “anti-vaccine” or unscientific in my reporting.
And then there’s simply the absurd.
One lengthy discussion about me on Wikipedia’s talk page (attached to my biography) actually involved why it was supposedly okay to attribute a direct quote to me, though I had never said it.
After all, said the Wikipedia agenda editors, Snopes reported I said it, so even though I didn’t say it, it is okay to claim that I said it.
“It’s all the same,” claimed Wikipedia’s agenda editors.
Another absurd discussion among the Wikipedia editors controlling my biographical page talked about how they could tell how “I feel” based on items I retweet.
Yet I’m pretty sure the Wikipedia agenda editors realize that people often retweet items with which they disagree or on which they have formed no particular opinion. In fact, I often retweet items that are contrary to one another, so it’s difficult to understand how a sincere Wikipedia editor could claim to glean my “feelings” because of them. My twitter profile even explicitly states that retweets do not imply agreement.
And when I politely pointed out to Wikipedia editors an item of low hanging fruit that needed correcting– the false birth place they had listed for me– it unleashed a torrent of attacks and speculation by the uniformed Wikipedia editors such as “Why would she deny where she was born?”
Clearly I’m up to something nefarious.
In other words, Wikipedia editors will unskeptically rely on false, published information from strangers for no other reason than– well, it’s published– but then express unabashed suspicion of the source herself providing facts and offering documentary proof.
As Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger noted after separating himself from his original creation: Wikipedia is “broken beyond repair.”
Today’s status quo is a system whereby Wikipedia editors can make every kind of false claim and libelous accusation about someone they’ve never met, but go on the attack when the false information and bias are exposed.
What do you think? Leave your comments on this page.
Read the “Sharyl Attkisson Talk page” on Wikipedia by clicking the link below. Warning: you’re entering a world where reason and logic are turned on its head.