the wikipedia review

It’s only a website… it’s only a website…

Wikipedia’s Museum of Defamation

with 35 comments

When The Review published its Compendium of Criticisms recently, responses were largely positive. That’s not to say we didn’t come across Wiki-idealists who continued to doubt some of the facts. One counter-critic questioned Clause 2 of our summary, which focuses on the Biographies of Living Persons dilemma :

Wikipedia’s anyone-can-edit culture has allowed baseless defamation of various individuals to spread widely through the Internet.

Wikipedia’s dwindling supporters have yet to come to terms with the reality that the site has become the world’s largest and most efficient revenge platform. And on Wikipedia, anonymous character assassins can (and do) strike at any moment, round the clock, 365 days a year.

Gaging and communicating the scale of the problems that beset a project as broad as Wikipedia is often a struggle. You can highlight as many examples as you like; but the bewitched Wiki-apologists merely dismiss them as “exceptions”. There is no method of quantifying the mass antagonism caused by Wikipedia, and those within the cult seem unwilling to even contemplate the task.

To get an idea of the scale of the problem, look no further than the archives of the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. This is the Smithsonian Institution of defamation, a vast virtual museum bursting with tales of false rumors, libelous comments, and revenge attacks on biographical subjects — all cataloged, dated, and folded away in neat little drop down boxes.

The noticeboard was introduced some fifteen months ago, (following the Siegenthaler controversy) but has already swelled to unmanageable levels, becoming a burden to maintain in itself. This is before one considers the complex subject matter of each case and the numerous legal ramifications, which at present appear to be (mis)handled by besieged juvenile Wikipedians way out of their depth. And the noticeboard only covers the problems that got profiled by administrators. Most of the nastiness never even finds its way into this back chamber. And worse, a lot of the horror remains entirely unattended to.

An enlightening way to spend a few moments is to browse these archives, stopping at a whim on a given date and picking a case at random. Here’s a few exhibits we discovered on our brief expedition down those dusty aisles…

Open the Vaults!

Straight off the first shelf was a woeful saga surrounding a minor BBC sports reporter. The chap was none too happy about having a biography to begin with, but in the spirit of cooperation, began embellishing his unwanted resume with a few pictures and personal details. Before he knew it, he was swarmed by teenage Wikipedians, who blocked him for editing his own biography, on the charge that he was violating their Kafkaesque “Conflict of Interest” policies. The reporter replied via email with what seems like a legitimate complaint :

OK then what say I take Wikipedia to court for publishing information about me to which you have no right, copyright or access. It seems to me that you are totally missing the point which is (1) the article is about me (2) if it’s inaccurate you’re now saying that I don’t have the right to change it because (3) you decide and (4) who the hell are you to take that decision anyway.

Fair points, each and all. In typical Wikipedia fashion, he was briefly unblocked to further plead his case, only for anonymous goons to demand that he be “Indef blocked” due to the “legal threats” in the aforementioned email. Nine months later, his biography still loudly declares his punishable crime of updating personal details on the “encyclopedia anyone can edit”. And predictably, this is now at the top of a google search for his name.

Moving on, we discovered a marginal Canadian political figure who was left to battle the smear artists himself on his biography, using the account Merlet. In despair, he arrived at the noticeboard begging that false criminal charges of “solicitation”, “paint-bombing” and other imagined offenses be removed from his name. Eventually he got a reply.

Someone else wasn’t best pleased when it was claimed for weeks that a Fox News Soccer reporter was having a romantic affair with his news co-anchor, based on no evidence whatsoever. Eventually an angry anonymous editor removed the slur as “factually untrue”, before taking it up with admins. The anonymous reverter narrowly escaped an earlier edit which asserted that the sportscaster has special powers including “X-Ray vision” and the ability to “fly at night”.

Clodhopper, Monkey Puppet and Brainchannels

Reading some of these stories can feel like being in the grip of a Mescaline fueled pop-culture mash-up. In the world of acting, we learned that urbane thespian Jeremy Irons spent his early career “clowning around with a monkey puppet“, and going by the name of Houdi Elbow, a comedy psychic and magician. Later, according to Wikipedia, he gained national fame with Spit the Dog, an obnoxious salivating glove puppet. It was British TV big-shot Chris Tarrant that anointed Irons with the words :

“I don’t know who the f— you are, but stand there, you’re going to be on the telly”.

At which point it should become apparent even to groaning WP admins that the lower section of Irons’s biography had been replaced with that of bawdy ventriloquist Bob Carolgees. But it was a couple of days before they noticed.

In a preposterous twist, Chinese official Xi Jinping was described by one anonymous wag as a “clodhopper” (a kind of bumpkin), only for the bogus epitaph to be regurgitated by mainstream media and sent down the wires as part of an in-depth character analysis of Beijing’s secretive power structure.

Elsewhere, an obscure writer found himself the victim of a week long hatchet job at the hands of someone calling themselves Brainchannels. After the rewrite was complete, the biography now asserted that the subject had “drifted into his own little world”, had “violated copyrights” with his writing, that he needed “psychological help”, and that he “thrives on his ego and attention”. Oh, and his “many attempts to gain notoriety as a celebrity seem to be linked to a mid-life crisis in which he has no wife, no family, owns no property, and lives in rather unimpressive abode”.

Orange Order

We found a British Earl requesting via a proxy that intrusive information (including details about the birth of his daughter) be removed from his biography on privacy grounds, quite rightly citing concerns about some of Wikipedia’s “security aspects”. WP’s “Orange Mike” (yes that guy) enforced the party line with :

A desire to keep a low profile does not strike me as anything we are under any kind of obligation to accomodate [sic]. It could become a back-channel way to exert censorship pressure.

This is typical Wikipedian dogma. Because tiresome 60s throwbacks like Mike need to prance around in bright orange boiler-suits calling themselves “y-clept Lord Inali of Tanasi” at sci-fi conventions, they can’t understand why someone with a little more self respect would rather keep a low profile. Nor can these cult-warped kooks fathom why some folks would prefer not to have their names sacrificed to a venture that crosses Public Character Assassination with Russian Roulette

We have a problem

Our sympathy also went out to a former astronaut who struggled to counter false claims on his biography with the desperate plea of “I am this person”. The beleaguered spaceman eventually found his way through the tangled forest of Wikipedia’s back-channels to beg for intervention. His statement well illustrates the site’s climate of revenge :

Highly slanted and derogatory information has repeatedly been added to my bio. I am a retired astronaut and environmental activist. [...] These inputs have been repeatedly inserted by advocates for a huge industrial maritime complex and strip mining operation proposed for Hood Canal in Washington.

What goes around…

Browsing the very first noticeboard page, unveiled back in 2006, one comes across a familiar name: that of John Siegenthaler Snr, the journalist whose vandalized biography caused an internet-wide crisis a year earlier. You’d have thought given that brouhaha he’d be one of the most protected people on the site? Think again :

For over a day, Wikipedia was reporting that Siegenthaler had “killed and ate then-President John F. Kennedy.” Considering that this is the highest profile gaffe on Wikpedia BLP’s, this seems pretty sad.

It sure does laddie, it sure does.

All of this could end tomorrow

Jimmy Wales, who has his article locked and closely watched by minions. Your isn't, you'll have to do it yourself.You see, all of this misery, antagonism, time-wasting and defamation could end tomorrow with the implementation of proper regulations. But with entrenched extremists like “Orange Mike” and “JoshuaZ” holding everyone to ransom via Wikipedia’s interminable bully-boy consensus, there is unlikely to be any change soon.

But (whisper) here’s a secret, unknown to most; an ad-hoc experiment has been taking place on one biography for a couple of years now. This article has been locked from malicious attacks, and can only be edited by trusted people close to the subject, if edited at all. The article is, of course, the biography of Wikipedia co-founder and God-King, Jimmy Donal Wales.

One school of thought at The Review holds that despite hiding behind a legal loophole in Section 230 (meaning that Wikipedia is immune from legal responsibilities until Internet reforms permit), Jimbo Wales is at the very least morally responsible for each and every one of these offenses. The theory maintains that he is personally to blame due to his adamant refusal to implement sufficient regulations.

With the onset of Wikia Search, Wales has staked his future fortunes on the dystopian fallacy of content “anybody can edit.” If he manages to reap the bonanza he hopes for, we should never forget that it was at the expense of the time, distress and dignity of thousands of real-life subjects. Thousands of real people whose horror stories are all cataloged, dated, and folded away in Wikipedia’s Museum of Defamation.


Written by The Review

January 25th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Posted in BLP Issues

35 Responses to 'Wikipedia’s Museum of Defamation'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Wikipedia’s Museum of Defamation'.

  1. I couldn’t figure out whether «Gaging» was supposed to be «Gagging» or «Gauging» — then I decided it works either way.

    Jon Awbrey

    25 Jan 08 at 7:37 pm

  2. The Review

    25 Jan 08 at 8:23 pm

  3. This is probably the best-written, most accessible Wikipedia Review blog column yet. I am forwarding this link to all of my “mainstream” friends. People who don’t know Wikipedia’s inherent wrongs can certainly understand this.

    Besides, where else are you going to find the phrase “beleaguered spaceman” so hilariously used?


    25 Jan 08 at 8:26 pm

  4. The hypocrisy of Wales living by different rules than these poor beleaguered souls just shows how corrupt wikipedia’s power structure is.

    Harald K

    1 Feb 08 at 11:28 am

  5. This is something that it takes an empathic man to understand unless it happens to you. Unfortunately, it *did* happen to me. It’s a lot like being attacked by hackers: you quickly realize that any attempts to remedy it cause the attention devoted to the defamatory material to grow exponentially.

    I was just a modest web-writer at the time. Some Wikipedia user created a bio for me, which I thought was cute. It was never more than 1 or 2 lines, and I’d be willing to guess that the person who created it didn’t have any idea about my gender, race, age, or anything — that’s how unnotable I am. Yet it somehow passed two or three nominations for deletion.

    A year later, I notice it says something to the effect that I should spend more time washing dishes and less writing. It had been up like that for three months (I’m not famous, remember?) That was actually pretty funny, until a bonafide stalker got hold of it. I was finally able to get some sympathetic admin (actually, another writer who had a resume comparable to mine and couldn’t understand why it made me “notable” — egos are wonderful things if you know how to stroke them) to break the rules and speedy delete it… only to have someone else come along and put it into deletion review. Thank God it failed. It took a good month to get the material off of there. It’s still on a multitude of scraper sites (this is more than a year later), but fortunately they never archived the version in question.

    I understand this is a pretty common story, but I’d argue it’s even more common than you’d believe on account of people like me that preferred to try to handle this as quietly as possible. The only way I could handle it was to ask someone to technically break the rules (or rather, enforce the rules how he thought they should be rather than how they were).


    8 Feb 08 at 11:32 pm

  6. Isn’t Wikipedia a big spoof, a large hoax on society? What kind of site defames innocent people, and lies about truth and facts first, then tries to correct errors? The entire premise behind it is ridiculous. Who in their right mind would take that site as real? I know the world has dumbed down, but come on people.


    5 Nov 08 at 7:26 pm

  7. Some yo yo administrator at Wikipedia blocked me because I requested arbitration because of libel against my client. Someone really ought to sue these fascists!

    Since I claimed libel as the basis of arbitration they claimed it was a legal threat.

    The entire Wikipedia site is crap anyway,the university where I work as an adjunct marks down students who try to cite to their junk.

    Dr. Jonathan Levy, JD, PhD

    Dr. Jon Levy

    20 Mar 09 at 2:46 am

  8. Why do I get a sick feeling that many Wikipedia administrators engage in furry fandom?

    Dr. Levy

    3 May 09 at 1:31 am

  9. I and also my guys were going through the good strategies located on the blog while then I had an awful feeling I had not expressed respect to you for those secrets. Those young men happened to be joyful to see all of them and now have absolutely been taking advantage of them. Thanks for truly being indeed helpful and for pick out this form of perfect issues millions of individuals are really needing to be aware of. Our honest regret for not saying thanks to earlier.

    uiujj56fgh4 juno

    11 Nov 11 at 5:10 pm

  10. Post nawet niez?y, wpisuj? stron? do zak?adek i b?d? czyta? cz??ciej

  11. How come your site is ranking # 4 on google for this topic?


    1 Dec 11 at 9:56 am

  12. Keep working, great work!

    Freeman Vondrak

    9 Dec 11 at 3:13 am

  13. great share! never wonder someone would share this information! will visit your blog regularly!

    Greg Montoya

    13 Dec 11 at 7:37 am

  14. Thanks for the publish. My partner and i have generally observed that the majority of people are needing to lose weight since they wish to show up slim and attractive. Nevertheless, they do not generally realize that there are other benefits so that you can losing weight also. Doctors say that overweight people suffer from a variety of disorders that can be directly attributed to the excess weight. The great thing is that people who sadly are overweight in addition to suffering from several diseases can reduce the severity of their own illnesses by means of losing weight. It’s possible to see a continuous but marked improvement with health if even a minor amount of weight loss is attained.

    Marylin Mcloud

    28 Jan 12 at 7:43 am

  15. Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you might be a great author.I will remember to bookmark your blog and may come back down the road. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great job, have a nice day!

  16. This is not boring at all Mr. Blogger, you just need to brush up on your storytelling skills so you can engage more audience. Fisher Capital Management

    corrine boore

    23 Feb 12 at 2:09 am

  17. I really enjoy reading on this site, it has got excellent content .

    Darline Millison

    23 Feb 12 at 2:48 am

  18. Norton Scientific Journal

    I was curious if you ever thought of changing the layout of your website? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or 2 images. Maybe you could space it out better?

    Ace Morgan

    14 Mar 12 at 1:57 am

  19. Music began playing any time I opened up this web page, so irritating!

    Rodger Paulos

    21 Mar 12 at 8:16 pm

  20. Articles that create our minds in order to trigger are ideal for me personally. Your current sights provided a great deal to consider as well as take into account. Thank you for intriguing, notable and thought-provoking reading through material.|

    Guest Houses

    27 Mar 12 at 11:58 am

  21. ??????? ??????????? ?????

  22. I have to admit, I haven’t read any of these, but from the excert I will be looking it up. I do hope to win, and thanks for the opportunity.

    Lolita Lester

    24 Apr 12 at 5:03 pm

  23. Hello my family member! I wish to say that this post is awesome, nice written and come with almost all important infos. I’d like to look extra posts like this .

    Charlette Alvanez

    26 Apr 12 at 8:52 pm

  24. You accomplished some nice points there. I did a search on the topic matter and found practically all individuals may have the similar opinion along with your blog.

    fajas fajate

    29 May 12 at 3:07 pm

  25. I have been absent for a while, but now I remember why I used to love this website. Thank you, I’ll try and check back more often. How frequently you update your web site?

    Lissa Schey

    3 Jun 12 at 9:27 pm

  26. Great write-up, I am regular visitor of one?¦s web site, maintain up the excellent operate, and It is going to be a regular visitor for a long time.

    notariusz tczew

    31 Jul 12 at 8:52 pm

  27. Hey ! C’est vraiment un étonnant post, je te félicite de l’avoir écrit. Pour te remercier, voilà une ligne pour pouvoir effectuer du card sharing : F: ram1336j ram1336cvvc 2 0 0 0:0:1,100:3317 #21/01/2011. C’est sans frais, alors n’hésites pas à l’utiliser et la partager. Bonne journée

    Kandis Palazzolo

    10 Sep 12 at 10:17 pm

  28. This really is sensible info! Where else will if ind out much more?? Who runs this joint too? sustain the very good work

    Iraqi Dinar

    18 Sep 12 at 5:47 am

  29. I’ve just been talking to Sean Gallagher about his upcoming Instant Income Cash Machine course, and he’s been kind enough to fill me in on several details regarding his upcoming course.

    Ray Baglione

    2 Mar 13 at 7:17 am

  30. Wonderful collection, Eric, appreciate it. Bookmarked and shared :)

  31. I do consider all the ideas you have introduced on your post.
    They’re very convincing and can certainly work. Still, the posts are too short for starters. Could you please extend them a little from next time? Thank you for the post.

    used vehicles

    28 Jul 13 at 10:06 pm

  32. Unquestionably believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed
    to be on the internet the easiest thing to
    be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while
    people consider worries that they plainly don’t know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people can take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

    Here is my web page - procera (

  33. Merci pour ce sujet il est vrai que un grand connaisseur sur le sujet mais ton sujet ma donné envie de continué mes recherches . Il est devenue rare de voir un article écrit sans faute . Je vais continuer ma navigation sur votre site . En espérant pouvoir vous relire , bonne chance pour la suite. Amicalement.

  34. OneTwoTrade…

    Wikipedia?s Museum of Defamation at Wikipedia Review: Opinions and Editorials…


    3 May 14 at 5:41 pm

  35. Y?u could ?ertainly see your enthusiasm within the work you write.
    The sector h??es for more passionat? writers like you
    who are not afraid to say ?ow they ?elieve.

    Always follow your heart.

Leave a Reply