![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Sxeptomaniac |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 332 Joined: From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 3,542 ![]() |
Seems like I've been mostly adding the BLPs of various Glenn Beck victims to my watchlist lately. Beck followers love to fill the article of anyone mentioned by Beck lately with out-of-context quotes and Beck's accusations. SPA accounts work in teams with established Beck-promoting accounts(User:Drrll, for example), and various one-shot accounts and IPs.
The current favorite for BLP-violating attacks seems to be Frances Fox Piven, a professor who has been getting death threats thanks to Beck. The issue extends into the article for the Cloward-Piven strategy and her late husband, Richard Cloward. In the not-so-distant past, these others are among those targeted by Beck and similar fake news pundits (some of the attacks have been more publicized, giving them a bit more attention to the articles):
This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: |
![]() ![]() |
thekohser |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 10,274 Joined: Member No.: 911 ![]() |
This is far from a complete list, but this crap is starting to annoy me. It's not about information being (heaven forbid) wrong, but the maliciousness of these smear campaigns. The subjects of the articles sometimes don't even have any warning that they are being targeted. Beck just pulls their name and supposed crimes out of his ass, and his fanboys jump in line to try and make the articles reflect his bullshit. A good WikiSloth wouldn't care about this, Sxepto. Perhaps you ought to reconsider your dedication to a project that lacks accountability for enabling such easy smear campaigns and almost relishes the fact that there's no shortage of gullible volunteers who don't see the Big Picture, unawares that the con has been deliberately set up this way? Or, you can keep trying to "undo" the annoying crap. |
Sxeptomaniac |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 332 Joined: From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 3,542 ![]() |
A good WikiSloth wouldn't care about this, Sxepto. Perhaps you ought to reconsider your dedication to a project that lacks accountability for enabling such easy smear campaigns and almost relishes the fact that there's no shortage of gullible volunteers who don't see the Big Picture, unawares that the con has been deliberately set up this way? Or, you can keep trying to "undo" the annoying crap. If it were an article about some ancient history, religious topic, scientific topic, etc., I might get annoyed, but I could shrug it off and walk away. For example, I've found it difficult to do anything other than make the occasional suggestion on the Intelligent Design page; fighting out any major changes just doesn't appeal. I find it much more difficult to ignore it when human beings are being smeared unfairly. Knowing what's going on, and seeing too few step up to stop it, It's hard for me not to do something. Frances Fox Piven's page has been particularly nasty, and I'm really struggling to keep that Glen Beck bullshit contained into a few sentences, instead of multiple paragraphs and attacks all over the article. |
thekohser |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 10,274 Joined: Member No.: 911 ![]() |
...seeing too few step up to stop it... If everyone took their attitude, then Wikipedia might become just enough of a libelous cesspit that someone with deep pockets might finally challenge Section 230 on a deftly-managed combination of "right to privacy" and "public nuisance" angles, and then the problem would certainly go away, and nobody would have to fret about watching the "Glenn Beck's victims" articles any more. And, in the long run, wouldn't that be better for everyone? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |