BLPs to watch: Glenn Beck's victims, Beck's dumbass followers are getting annoying Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

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):

• Nina Totenberg, an NPR personality. I just noticed this one.
• Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical who's feuded with Beck over the past year. As a result, there have been various smear attempts on his page, as well as his organization, Sojourners, and magazine by the same name.
• Cass Sunstein, who Beck groupies love to selectively quote from articles examining issues as if they were his ideas.
• George Soros, a philanthropist/billionaire who's supposedly some kind of sinister "puppetmaster", according to Beck. It seems there are enough people watching to keep Beck's nuttiness off this article, at least, but the history shows a lot of reverts.
• Mark Lloyd, who seems to have been fortunate to have dropped out of Beck's sights at this point.

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.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[thekohser]

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]

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]

...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?

[Sxeptomaniac]

...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?

Perhaps, but that would require turning a blind eye to something very wrong. In this case, the ends can not justify the means for me.

[HRIP7]

Perhaps, but that would require turning a blind eye to something very wrong. In this case, the ends can not justify the means for me.

That's how Wikipedia sucks you in. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Your turning up will result in another Beck fan joining the fray to undo your changes. Et voilà, two new "volunteers". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Thesis: The "popularity" of Wikipedia is (not least) a direct function of the degree to which people are appalled by what they read there. Just think of the number of people who first got sucked in by fixing spelling mistakes.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Perhaps, but that would require turning a blind eye to something very wrong. In this case, the ends can not justify the means for me.

That's how Wikipedia sucks you in. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Your turning up will result in another Beck fan joining the fray to undo your changes. Et voilà, two new "volunteers". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Thesis: The "popularity" of Wikipedia is (not least) a direct function of the degree to which people are appalled by what they read there. Just think of the number of people who first got sucked in by fixing spelling mistakes.

I've been a casual WP editor for years, and there's a fairly decent chance the other guy's a sockpuppet, so I think it's unlikely that your thesis fits very well in this case. Besides, the Beck followers show up and make one more attack whether they are reverted or not. At least by reverting and calling attention to the problem, it can be limited (especially considering it is the top Google hit for her name). Even after making the article a hit piece, they always have to go one step further.