![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
biographco |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 104 Joined: From: Los Angeles, CA. Member No.: 1,201 ![]() |
First, I want to thank the editors of the blog and say that there is such a need for this forum about Wikipedia, since this so called "Encyclopedia" is crawled by many other information websites and so many editors on Wikipedia truly have an agenda that is unfair and biased.
My company is a small independent film company and had been on Wikipedia for quite awhile with an article. Our company is a very old company, and has an exemplary reputation. We did not even post the first article but one of the Wiki-members did. The first article was fine and fairly accurate. However, in 2004 after our monument in Hollywood event, one editor appeared and became malicious with intent to harm the reputation of the company. This "Editor" also had a certain group of "Editors" that knew this person or he/she recruited them in an effort to discredit our company, and supply false information. We feel this was a personal attack and intent on harming the company's reputation for certain reasons. At the time, I was not that familiar with Wikipedia guidelines or standards, and one of our VP's was extremely upset and dared to defy this "Editor". This VP who had a previous Wikipedia account was promptly blocked. I admit our VP did go against some Wiki-policies. Our attorney then attempted to call and contact Wikipedia to resolve the issue, but without results. The article was further re-written, including ambiguous information and intentional inclusions to make the company look "Ridiculous" which is actually posted IN WRITING by one of the administrators, yes, that this was their intent and goal. Since this, we have not attempted to change anything, in-process of legal proceedings according to state and federal law. We also noticed that some other members of Wikipedia who were trying to correct the article contacted us on our information. These other editors also discovered that their was malicious intent against us, and were blocked as well by this other coalition of editors determined to discredit the company. This information we know of because of the blocked editors contacting our office. We also was recently hacked and even embezzlement of funds occurred by hacking that coincide with recent Wikipedia activity against the company. This has been already reported to the proper authorities, and we believe it may have been a Wikipedia person involved in this slanderous effort. Unfortunately, anyone attempting to correct the article about us is "Blocked" or "Banned". A monopoly of only a few associated editors now is able to include any false or harmful information without recourse. With this in mind, we have several options that we are in the process of initiating against Wikipedia and the foundation, some of it possibly criminal. It is sad that Wikipedia is a great idea but is monopolized and used for personal and sometimes hateful agendas against others without provocation. We want to make everyone aware of this and maybe this can be stopped before Wikipedia finally pushed too far, and will eventually be shut down for inappropriate activity. Please feel free to check out the Wikipedia article under "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company" and also read the "Talk" sections as well as the archive sections. We also encourage any kind of input on this subject. |
![]() ![]() |
Toledo |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Neophyte Group: Contributors Posts: 11 Joined: Member No.: 1,212 ![]() |
I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."
|
biographco |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 104 Joined: From: Los Angeles, CA. Member No.: 1,201 ![]() |
I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad." Toledo, I need to look it up, it has been awhile and when I find it I will list. Thanks again There's a saying in the legal profession: 'Truth is an absolute defense to defamation' If your lawyer is telling you that repeating factual information is libel, you probably need to consult with another lawyer. What we were going on is "Intent". If you state let's say, you wanted to one be an astrounaut, and possibly could if you were in the proper situation, you could. But, a certain group continued to barade you publicly on how "Stupid" you are, that you have no creditability, and so forth, that is just harassment with malicious intent. It IS true what you said, you DID want to become an astronaut, but the harassment that follows is what is the problem. If it is the intent of a person to discredit another by using information, the intent is there. Again I state, we may not have a chance in court. I do not know. There are alot of "If's" internet freedoms, etc. I do not know if we will go to court, altough we hold all options open. I do know that the more Wikipedia attempts is malicious towards the company for no reason, the better it is for us. I do believe there are alterior motives here. This post has been edited by biographco: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |