You will note that his Wikipedia BLP looks as if it was written by a minion of his Texas megachurch.

(Whoever Theandyboyd (T-C-L-K-R-D) is, he's doing a good job of scrubbing this article.)

Please note the following statement:

That's all it says about the "controversy".

You can read more about Ed's "controversy" here, here, here, here. As you can see, Ed's greed has attracted more attention within the evangelical community than it has in the mainstream media. Only WFAA in Dallas has done any substantial reporting on this story.

Wikipedia remains just another cog in the exploitation machine.

Surprise, surprise!

"The Andy Boyd" turns out to have a Facebook, a Twitter and a blog.

Friends include Ed Young and members of Ed Young's congregation. Whatta surprise.

And, one "Andy Boyd" has posted positive things to Ed Young's blog.

Not a surprise. Greedy, grifting "Prosperity Gospel™" "pastors" are ten-a-penny in Texas, particularly in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metro areas. To catch any interest from the MSM, they have to be especially greedy, insane or stylish. Either that, or in the words of another famous Edwin, be "caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy". And Pastor Ed, he be stylin', yo (i.e., making cringe-worthy white boy gangsta rap videos). An' sho he needz da a-count numbas! He's got t'get PAID, dawg!

Got to love "The Museum of Idolatry", though. Pirate Christian Radio? Who knew?


. . . as it acts in turn to exploit others, an "exploit-o-rama" if you will. But this is simply what cults do. I discern little difference between "Prosperity Theology™" and Scientology; in the end it's all about pumping the numbers and $elling $alvation by the $hilling. Something tells me that Andy Boyd is not getting paid by "Creative Pastors" for his puffery any more than Jimbo or Sue are paying him. Still, Jimbo and Sue clearly lack the style of Pastor Ed "Bring Da Numbas" Young. Can you imagine them doing a pasty-face rap video for "free kulture" and "sharin' da nawlege"?

Meow, dawgz.

I'm not going to read your links to figure out the 'truth' about this guy, because he is of no interest to me, but the way it works with Wikipedia is fairly simple:
* If the subject is an obscure living person, then one persistent shill will usually win, because for most articles, nobody cares (like me with this guy).
* If the subject is a notable living person, then wikitruth rules.

Example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger

Contents:

* 1 Early life
o 1.1 Early adulthood
o 1.2 Move to the U.S.
* 2 Bodybuilding career
o 2.1 Strongman
o 2.2 Mr. Olympia
o 2.3 Steroid use
* 3 Acting career
* 4 Political career
o 4.1 Early politics
o 4.2 Governor of California
+ 4.2.1 Amendment of Three Strikes Law
+ 4.2.2 Ethics group named Schwarzenegger one of America's worst governors
o 4.3 Electoral history
o 4.4 Environmental record
* 5 Business career
o 5.1 Planet Hollywood
o 5.2 Net worth
* 6 Allegations of sexual and personal misconduct
* 7 Personal life
o 7.1 Accidents and medical issues
* 8 References
* 9 Bibliography
o 9.1 Interviews
o 9.2 Film
* 10 External links

In the case of Arnie, as is obvious from the contents above, the brand of 'truth' being peddled is one that sees him as a right-wing hate figure, and that's not going to change because it's embedded in the system

In the case of this pastor, nobody cares, so one of his congregation can easily push their own line, even though that line is against the system's line; the problem being that while the system is big enough to tell the world Arnie sucks, it's not big enough to do the same to all minor figures that they would hate if only they had the time.

While this guy sounds like a piece of work it needs to be kept in context. Overall Wikipedia is plagued by unsourced/unreliable negative information as well as irrelevant and disproportionate weight being given to marginal negative information. This amounts to a serious concern for people who never chose to have anything to do with the project. Compared to the BLP defamation problem the matter of Wikipedians game-playing to keep out proper negative information is mostly an internal matter of little wider concern. It makes me uncomfortable to see criticism that specific articles should be more negative.

Yes, that is the way it usually works in wikiland, unless someone here starts a thread on the article. Then someone from the cleanup crew of the Wikipedia Improvement Association swoops in and does a "cleanup" on the article to make it more compliant with WP "policy". As happened in this case. Again.


Another good point. Although there is evidence strongly suggesting that other evangelicals are correct in thinking that Ed Young is "a wolf let loose amongst the sheep", that doesn't mean it's okay to just dump that info into his BLP. WP has shown time and again that despite (or perhaps because of) its ridiculous "NPOV" policy, it simply cannot be trusted to give due weight and context to negative information on a BLP subject.

From Young's perspective, he is better off not having a BLP at all. I certainly had not heard of him before, and I have no idea if he is that well known outside of the DFW and Miami metro areas. I suspect that the longer his BLP stays around, the greater the chances of his eventually ending up in WP's own little Hall of Shame.

Which is to your credit, Bead.

This "WR effect" is entirely contingent on how powerful the perps are. There are some Rouge Admins that we have exposed up one side and down the other, but our readers who still frequent WP are pigeon-livered and lack gall to make oppression bitter.