The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> BLPs to watch: Glenn Beck's victims, Beck's dumbass followers are getting annoying
Sxeptomaniac
post Tue 25th January 2011, 8:03pm
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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: Tue 25th January 2011, 8:03pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 25th January 2011, 8:47pm
Post #2


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 25th January 2011, 3:03pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rhindle
post Tue 25th January 2011, 10:18pm
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon 30th Jun 2008, 8:51pm
Member No.: 6,834



This happens all the time. Find a politically contentious topic, people will look for sources to insert their preferred version of a particular article. The winners are those with the right admins on their side.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Tue 25th January 2011, 11:49pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 25th January 2011, 12:47pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 26th January 2011, 12:50am
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 25th January 2011, 6:49pm) *

...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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Wed 26th January 2011, 1:17am
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 25th January 2011, 4:50pm) *

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 25th January 2011, 6:49pm) *

...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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 26th January 2011, 4:06am
Post #7


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 25th January 2011, 8:17pm) *

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.


So, if Pol Pot kept a garden, and he kept taking a daily whiz on the daisies -- something "very wrong" indeed -- you would keep running out there at night with a watering can to neutralize the soil, but you wouldn't get involved in a plot to assassinate him, because the "ends can not justify the means"?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 26th January 2011, 5:16am
Post #8


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 25th January 2011, 9:06pm) *

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 25th January 2011, 8:17pm) *

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.


So, if Pol Pot kept a garden, and he kept taking a daily whiz on the daisies -- something "very wrong" indeed -- you would keep running out there at night with a watering can to neutralize the soil, but you wouldn't get involved in a plot to assassinate him, because the "ends can not justify the means"?

hmmm.gif Hypothetically?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Wed 26th January 2011, 11:30am
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 26th January 2011, 1:17am) *

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. evilgrin.gif

Your turning up will result in another Beck fan joining the fray to undo your changes. Et voilĂ , two new "volunteers". 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Wed 26th January 2011, 4:23pm
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Wed 26th January 2011, 3:30am) *

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 26th January 2011, 1:17am) *

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. evilgrin.gif

Your turning up will result in another Beck fan joining the fray to undo your changes. Et voilĂ , two new "volunteers". 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 26th January 2011, 8:53pm
Post #11


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 26th January 2011, 11:23am) *

I've been a casual WP editor for years...


Casual = fewer than 2,000 edits.

Keep doing that good work that you're doing, Sxepto. I'll continue to do my work, feeling sorry for you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Wed 26th January 2011, 10:44pm
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 26th January 2011, 12:53pm) *

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 26th January 2011, 11:23am) *

I've been a casual WP editor for years...


Casual = fewer than 2,000 edits.

Keep doing that good work that you're doing, Sxepto. I'll continue to do my work, feeling sorry for you.

... over the course of five years. By WP standards, that's not a lot.

I don't know why you'd feel sorry for me. I kill a little time now and then, and have helped address some wrongs occasionally. Yeah, it's caused me a few annoyances, but it's not as big an inconvenience as the hernia I got on a volunteer trail maintenance crew (that didn't stop me from having fun and returning to volunteer again, either).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Drrll
post Fri 2nd September 2011, 6:09am
Post #13


Neophyte


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue 23rd Aug 2011, 1:52pm
Member No.: 63,729

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Tue 25th January 2011, 4:03pm) *

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.


I saw my WP username used in the opening message of this thread as Sxeptomaniac's one and only example of an "established Beck-promoting account" of Beck's "dumbass followers," and of Beck's "fanboys."

Before making such baseless accusations against me on a high-visibility public forum, Sxeptomaniac could have at least bothered to make a little bit sure that his claims were correct by examining and presenting evidence from edit histories of article and Talk pages that I fit his accusations. Or, he could have bothered to discuss this with me on an article Talk page, my user Talk page, or an email before lobbing accusations publicly. Or, he could have bothered to discuss this issue with me privately in a response to my private TWR message I sent to him detailing why and how I don't fit his accusations. He looked at (in some fashion) my message 15 hours ago, but didn't respond in the slightest, having been on here again just 5 hours ago.

I am in no way a Beck fan and happen to have my own views about a small number of the multitude of individuals that Beck happens to go after. Perhaps next time Sxeptomaniac could base his accusation against WP editors on actual evidence, rather than conclusion-jumping.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Fri 2nd September 2011, 6:51am
Post #14


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Drrll @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 7:09am) *




If you were involved with the spreading Beck's crap across the site so that it got added to the Piven article and others like it then, Beck supporter or not, you ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Drrll
post Fri 2nd September 2011, 7:08am
Post #15


Neophyte


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue 23rd Aug 2011, 1:52pm
Member No.: 63,729

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 2:51am) *

QUOTE(Drrll @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 7:09am) *




If you were involved with the spreading Beck's crap across the site so that it got added to the Piven article and others like it then, Beck supporter or not, you ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.


No. How about looking at the relevant articles' history first before involving me in that?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Fri 2nd September 2011, 7:38am
Post #16


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Meh. I'm just having trouble caring any more. I feuded with the anti-ID people, the Bullshido people, the right-wing sycophants, and some other wackos in-between. My life has gotten busier the last year or so, and I'm just tired of the routine battles. Perhaps this is how WP will decline (I always expected it to happen eventually), as the nationalists and ideologues just wear down the reasonable people.

I've found other intellectually stimulating, less annoying ways to waste what spare time I have now and then. ( http://ancientlives.org for example)

I'll probably draw attention the occasional BLP if I run across a bad one, but I just don't feel like going through the hassle myself any more.

Drrl, knock yourself out.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 5 17, 11:17pm