Crystal Gail Mangum, notable for being a stripper!, Another "single-incident" BLP article Options

What is an article about a stripper who supposedly got raped by a college lacrosse team doing in Wikipedia???

Under Criminal history and credibility, it says :

Crystal Gail Mangum has a long history of mental problems and has been diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder.[17] She also has taken anti-psychotic medications such as Depakote and Seroquel.[18]

In 1996, she filed a police report that her 28 year old boyfriend (she was 18 years old) had sexually "shared" her with 3 of his friends 3 years earlier. Police dropped the matter when Mangum failed to provide a written report of the alleged incident.

In 2000, she was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, but not convicted. Court records indicate that her driver's license was revoked but do not indicate why.[19]

In 2002, she stole a taxi from a man to whom she was giving a lap dance. A high speed chase then ensued, and when the deputy chasing her approached the stolen taxi on foot, she tried to run over him. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and driving while impaired. She was sentenced to 3 weekends in detention.[20][21]

This is worse than anything in the National Enquirer. What is THIS doing in a serious encyclopedia??? And why is this blatent trivia considered to be notable??? Do school kids need to know this to do their homework???

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sun 13th May 2007, 8:10pm

Guess why her name was released to the papers and published?

....because it was already in Wiikipedia.... In fact, it looks as if it was leaked by Wikipedia itself.

That's what the the papers themselves say.

In Wednesday's coverage of the Duke lacrosse case, The News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.) for the first time identifies the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, of Durham, N.C., by name.

During the year since Mangum told police she was assaulted at a lacrosse team party, The N&O followed its longstanding policy of not naming claimants in sexual assault cases. This policy is accepted practice among most print and broadcast media in the United States.

The N&O has upheld this approach, which the newspaper has followed for at least 15 years, to avoid discouraging victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting such crimes. The N&O's policy regarding sexual assault claimants has rarely been challenged and we saw no reason to abandon the policy in the midst of a case.

In recent weeks The N&O's senior editors consulted a number of people with an interest in these issues, among them advocates for sexual assault victims, defense lawyers, current and former journalists, a district judge, journalism educators and ethics experts, in considering whether and under what circumstances to identify Mangum. No consensus emerged (my comment - rather ironic under the circumstances), but the conversations helped us consider essential questions about precedent and impact.

With the decision of the state attorney general's office to drop all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, no charge of rape or sexual assault exists. Mangum's claim has been vehemently denied by the three men indicted in the case and by their teammates, who believe they have been damaged by a false accusation. Attorney General Roy Cooper said his office concluded that the three are innocent.

Mangum also has been widely identified on the Internet, including on mainstream sites such as Wikipedia. Because of these circumstances, and in order to more fully report on the case and its aftermath, we decided to publish her name. Additionally, we will review our standing policy.

If you would like to weigh in on this decision and the broader issue of naming sexual assault claimants in criminal cases, go to our forum on "Naming accusers" at share.triangle.com and post your comments. We ask that you be civil and encourage you to include your name and town.

In other words, Wikipedia was one of the first media providers to actually use her name.

Interestingly enough, the articles written about the men involved in this trial all redirect to the main article page about the incident.

Why does she get singled out for an article and not the guys?

In other words, Wikipedia was one of the first media providers to actually use her name.

Interestingly enough, the articles written about the men involved in this trial all redirect to the main article page about the incident.

Why does she get singled out for an article and not the guys?

Jesus. This is the clearest evidence possible that Wikipedia IS a publication. When will "they" get it? Wikipedia knows this, but they are pulling one over on a lot of people.

This was an act of revenge. Which was able to be pulled off because Wikipedia has no standards for journalistic practices. Scary as all get-out.

To be fair, the guy's name's have been all over the press for over a year. They (or people who support them) must have lept with joy to get her name out there - to get even.

I agree that she should probably sue the hell out them for allowing this stuff to be posted.

But, what is an even bigger scandal is that her name, her criminal record and the contents of her body were released to the general public.

That's a tough call. She's not a sympathetic victim anymore. I think that the District Attorney (or someone close to that role) lost their job over this debacle (reminding that the Duke Coach for Lacrosse lost his job the year before fore the "cover up").

Its a lawsuit, but you get favor or interpretation based on good faith, and she's shattered hers.

This post has been edited by wikilove: Tue 15th May 2007, 3:29pm

She's not a sympathetic victim anymore.

I'm glad nobody was convicted of a crime they didn't commit. But I am certain that everytime some rich frat boys hire a stripper someone's a sympathetic victim. And it not the rich frat boys.

That applies to "candy strippers" as well.

She's not a sympathetic victim anymore.

I'm glad nobody was convicted of a crime they didn't commit. But I am certain that everytime some rich frat boys hire a stripper someone's a sympathetic victim. And it not the rich frat boys.

That applies to "candy strippers" as well.

I think I went to that movie at a drivein when I was at college, way back when.....

Well, leaving aside the "moral" issues, which are a lot bigger now that I understand what all the fuss was about (and yes, I was being honest when I said that I never heard of this where I am), I still fail to see what this person's psychiatric profile, criminal record, GPA and contents of all of her orifaces are doing in an encyclopedia. And regardless of who did it or not, if she's got an article, then the men involved should have articles as well. They don't. What does this say?

And the fact that the story was indeed leaked here is an angle that nobody's yet exploited. Wikipedia IS doing a lot of real-world harm to people, regardless of whether they're guilty or not, and people are able to hide behind an anonymous cloak to do their dirty work. This is some pretty conclusive and important evidence, IMHO

I still fail to see what this person's psychiatric profile, criminal record, GPA and contents of all of her orifaces are doing in an encyclopedia.

I don't mean to defend it, but even when she was still considered credible, her criminal record came up. As for what was in her body - that's kind of disgusting, but... it does figure into the information of what exonerated the guys. Their sperm samples for DNA testing were in the daily news, with their names attached, all last year.

And regardless of who did it or not, if she's got an article, then the men involved should have articles as well. They don't. What does this say?

They probably had them - or at least were part of the rape case story. Maybe they were deleted when the case went under. Their names were all over the press. But I get your point. Its a reversion back to the blame the victim stuff, which makes it hard for the next woman who really is in trouble.

And the fact that the story was indeed leaked here is an angle that nobody's yet exploited.

I think you mean "explored". They sure did exploit it.

Wikipedia IS doing a lot of real-world harm to people, regardless of whether they're guilty or not, and people are able to hide behind an anonymous cloak to do their dirty work. This is some pretty conclusive and important evidence, IMHO

I think that its perfect evidence that Wikipedia is a publication - and that it is evading normal publication standards. As for the editors, they are already liable - if anyone wants to go to the trouble.