Saturday, December 10, 2016

Copy of "How to Get Thrown Out of a Wikipedia Conference in Three Easy Steps"



How to Get Thrown Out of a Wikipedia Conference in Three Easy Steps
by Strelnikov
The setup was very simple: register under a fake name, take photos and video claiming to be this person (who is a journalist), conduct fake interviews, stay as long as I can, then send the information (photos, videos, notes) back to the guy who requested that I play Secret Squirrel in the first place, and the whole thing is done.

No such luck.

It began simply; I had gotten involved with a message board of ex-Wikipedians (Wikipediocracy) because the allowed discussion of non-Wikipedia online nonsense, and I had gone through a rough time with Reddit, so I brought that up. Unfortunately what I didn’t really know about Wikipedia was that it is an “online dramah” factory, and the people over at the Wikipediocracy message board were the sort of private email poison pen types who took to disliking people pretty quick and making certain they can ban or harass off anybody they didn’t take a shine to. I wasn’t liked for having a life outside of talking about Wikipedia, for taking about things in the “off topics” subforum, etc. My leaving Wikipediocracy was annoying, and in reprisal I started a blog titled Wikipedia Sucks! (And So Do It’s Critics.) I had made friends with Eric Barbour* on Wikipediocracy, he had written a book with Professor Edward Buckner and had this massive treasure trove of Wiki style articles in a private Wikipedia of all the miscreants and he would send me info and leads and I would turn that, plus some minor research angles done by myself, into articles for the blog. After two and a half years, I had cranked out 80-or-so articles on Wiki-pedophiles, ban warriors, sockpuppeters, Jimmy Wales’ goofy attempts to capitalize on Wikipedia, the paid-editor problem**, the war they had over Scientology articles, the smaller war they had on Lyndon LaRouche articles and a LaRouche supporter editor, etc. I had guest writers hammer away at their own targets, and I went off occasionally to deal with Reddit or Tumblr Nazis (yes, Nazis on Tumblr are a thing) and I ironically found out that more people are interested in Tumblr craziness than Wikipedia nonsense, which makes sense because Wikipedia has lost a large part of its pre-Great Recession luster; a lot of the edits are now done by programs called ‘bots, many of the old-timers from the golden period of 2003-2006 have ditched “the Project”, the newer people are constricted by the binding-but-not-binding reams of online “WikiLaw” and unwritten custom.
            
Mr. Barbour had clued me into the then-forthcoming Wikiconference North America, to be held inside the San Diego public library. Unfortunately, after I had left Wikipediocracy’s message board and  started blogging the work of Buckner and Barbour, one of the spookier/ultra-paranoid members, whom we only know as “tarantino” (no capitals) decided that this writer having a blog and being involved with a message board named after the blog (I didn’t set up the forum) was juust a little too much to take, and the scum outed me – my real name, my Wikipediocracy handle, my blog handle, one of my email addresses. The sysop, a San Diegan named William Burns (Wikipedia handle “StaniStani”; WO handle “Zoloft”) did nothing to stop the “leak”, even though I was no longer a member, or in contact with his group. Thus I had the problem of showing up to this conference….but as whom?  I kicked around being Greg Eichelberger, a former editor when I worked at The East County Californian, the El Cajon-based successor of the venerable Daily Californian. The only trick was that Eichelberger was hip-deep in the Mormon hinterlands and would have no reason to drive or fly 3,000 - 4,000 miles to a Wikipedia conference in a county he was sick of. And so I came to Joe Naiman, presently a writer at ECC, which was the worst mistake I could EVER make.
             
Joe Naiman and I had worked at Steve Saint’s East County Community Newspapers chain in the mid-90s; Saint thought that Joe was good at covering water district board meetings and Santee little league baseball games, but he found Joe’s attempts at doing restaurant reviews comical because he focused more on the silverware and wall decor then the actual food. I think Naiman is an extremely hard worker (he writes for three or four small news publications), but blinkered; he lives with his brother and yet gets around by public transportation and bumming rides even though his sibling has a car! Not that he can drive it; the guy doesn’t have a driver’s license! The good thing was that Naiman and I resemble each other (if you have bad vision and are looking at an ID photo of either of us without your glasses); Caucasian, dark hair, dark eyes, he has a beard but I don’t (and I could explain away any differences by saying I had shaved it off). I both left answering machine messages and an email outlining the plan with Naiman, but he never wrote back. I decided to continue the ruse anyway; I set up a fake email account, and Eric Barbour’s girlfriend sent Eventbrite the $25 to cover the full event.

Saturday, October 8.  I could have showed up at the Balboa Park meet they had on Friday, but I was busy. Instead I showed up at the library after lunch that day, only to find after I had parked in the basement that the front patio was empty of people wearing Wikiconference lanyards. I tried to take a long shot photo, sans flash, of a Wikipedia speech in a ground-floor conference room by the bookstore but the lighting conditions (high contrast) made the photo a blur. After that, I walked across the courtyard to the amphitheater where a large Woman in Grey was signing in a thin black lady who was wearing “conference semi-formal” clothes: dark jacket, black slacks, white shirt – which was interesting because it was a hot weekend and I was sweating wearing a sportcoat and slacks. When it came to my turn I told the Woman in Grey that I was Joe Naiman, she fumbled around on the table, “fooling around” with the tablet she was using for recordkeeping. She handed over an envelope with the name Joe Naiman – inside were some stickers, a black lanyard, and a plastic nametag to hang off the lanyard. She then told me that a person needed to speak with me. Very quickly the rotund figure of James Alexander appeared wearing jeans and a red-white-blue tartan shirt.  Unfortunately the “hidden” pen-camera I had in the front jacket pocket hadn’t come on when I mashed the RECORD-STOP button so I have no recording of our conversation, but it went something like this:

Him: We know you are J---e C----e and not Joe Naiman, please show your ID.
Me: I am Joe Naiman, and I don’t drive! [True for Naiman, not for me.] There’s been a mistake!
Him: We have a letter for J---e C-----e [white envelope with the name in ballpoint pen], here is a copy of what is in the envelope [holds out crumpled sheet saying I was banned and other key things I didn’t completely read].
Me: I’m not J---e C----e!
Him: [Back to the line of questioning like a good cop.]
Me:  [More denials of my name.]
….And on it went for at least five minutes. All the while a street-looking guy tried to defend me, with Alexander ignoring him completely. Man’s name is Paul Rollins and he’s allegedly on Facebook. His photo is on my blog.

Pretty much Alexander (in the strongest possible unspoken way) did not want me to go into the library, but I told him I was going in anyway and thus the Great Chase began…. . Wikiconference North America had a small number of Redshirts, docents/unarmed security guards/general flunkies each wearing black pants and the red Wikiconference t-shirts. I saw three Redshirts: the Filipino (?) guy whose name I never got [It was Andrew Lih - S.], the older blonde Sydney Poore (“FloNight” on Wikipedia; she hails from Kentucky), and the brunette Rosie Stephenson-Goodnight. They chased me from floor to floor, trying to get me into a corner where they could “force” me to get into a down elevator and out of the building.Along the way I noticed some of the Wikiconference attendees: the boyish Caucasian man with Downs Syndrome happily flipping through a smartphone, his lanyard signature unreadable; the wandering gangs of rail-thin Indian startup hipsters, all wearing the same dark t-shirts, jeans, and beards; the greybeards who seemed aloof from all of it. Finally I went to the top and went into the Wangenheim “Room” where I ran into Paul S. Wilson, aka “Paulscrawl” prepping for his presentation that day. I kept on saying that I was Joe Naiman and that there had been a mistake. He was completely baffed by the response of the organizers to keep me from attending the conference. After a short conversation he excused himself to return to his presentation prep. I decided to sit down at a table across from the Wangenheim collection and shoot photos with the camera sitting on top of my backpack. Nobody cared because it was a mixed crowd of civilians and Wikipedians. I got to see Karen Ingraffea (“Fluffernutter”) in the flesh, and the event organizer Kirill Lokshin hit the roof with the two female Redshirts after the Filipino Redshirt [Andrew Lih] left (he called them on his cell phone.) Lokshin said nothing, just gave me that “you’re ruining things, please get the hell out” look Eastern Europeans seem to have gotten down to an art form. When one of the Redshirts asked for ID, I took out their plastic badge with Naiman’s name on it, and Syndey Poore grimaced. I switched sides and took more photos, then left the floor.
             
Every time I moved floors they followed me, Mz. Poore constantly pleaded “Sir, please follow us to the lobby.” I ignored her, kept on trying to find more vantage points inside the building to take photos of Wikipedians. It didn’t work very well. Also I was on a time deadline; I only had about two hours before I had to start paying for parking, so I was running around like a madman. Remember that this was a public library I was being chased around in; it was a space they didn’t own in a town they didn’t have an office in – it is my town and my taxes paid for the library! At one point I misplaced the camera and had to run two floors up to get it back. It was a hot sweaty grind running and taking photos.
           
Finally I figured that I had done what I could so I let them escort me to the lobby in an elevator filled with Wikipedians suffering halitosis. On the ground floor Poore and Stephenson-Goodnight told me to wait….and Kirill Lokshin stormed up with James Alexander in tow. Kirill tried to “forehead press” me by taking his head and trying to press it against my forehead so he could menacingly state into my eyes and close range***, but I was wearing a baseball cap and he mashed his forehead into the brim. I was sarcastic the whole time while Lokshin was furious, and Alexander dour-faced.  I can’t remember what I said, but they wanted me to LEAVE IMMEDIATELY and claimed they were “close to calling the police” even though there was a security guard less than 100 feet away and Sydney Poole was still there. After a lot of back and forth that I wish I had on tape they literally walked me to the metal detector like some Scientologists throwing and undercover reporter out of a special event; Lokshin and Alexander mad-dog stared at me until I was out the door. As Poole stalked away I yelled “The money will run out! The VCs [venture capitalists] and the fanatics will stop giving you people the money!” Sydney gave me this smug smile and walked away; Lokshin and Alexander had already faded into the crowd.
             
While walking to the garage from the outside there was this short man wearing both suspenders and a belt, bringing to mind that line by Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time in the West “…the man can’t trust his own pants!” He was talking to this tall, tall guy dressed in black – of course that short guy was William “Monty” Burns. I shook his hand and said “I send greetings from the Man in Hell. I am not him.” Then I walked off, leaving him perplexed.
             
I called up Barbour and read the letter, a letter drafted by James Alexander which bans me from any editing of Wikipedia websites foreign or domestic, bans me from using the Wikimedia Foundation’s computers, and bans me from attending any Wiki-meetings in (implied) perpetuity. No mention of Wikipedia Sucks!, no long list of crimes, no claims that I was this handle or that sockpuppet – which makes perfect sense, because I never edited Wikipedia once. On Monday I called Joe Naiman and he was in, which is a rarity. I asked him if he had told Wikipedia that I was coming and he said “You went?” Pretty much he was obsessed that I was going to do something that would ruin his reputation, said “I don’t do undercover work – you do the undercover work” among other whinges and dodges. I sarcastically responded “thank you for nothing” and hung up.
             
Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have been around since 2001 – they have had fifteen years to get their act together concerning awful members, conferences, and dealing with a hostile press. I don’t think they have actually had to deal with somebody like me at a conference: a person whom they denied entrance and yet hung around taking photos for an intolerable 90 minutes or less. Looking back on it, I think I would have been better off just showing up as myself, not trying to enter the conference, taking photos on the sly, and playing dumb if they asked. That they made such a massive deal about me does not say good things about the Wikimedia Foundation; I did not disrupt their speeches, interrogate their guests, or play the showboating activist – all I did was take pictures.


*  This is the Eric Barbour of Metasonix, the rack-mounted tube distortion and tube synthesizer company. he got sucked into the wooly world of Wiki-criticism dealing with the idiot kids editing articles on radio tubes (British readers call them “valves”) and other technical subjects Barbour knew something about (he has a degree in Electrical Engineering). He does not suffer fools gladly, unless they are buying his equipment. In bulk.
** One of the many “crimes” on Wikipedia is to edit articles, usually articles on corporations or the biographies of famous/”notable” people, for pay as a ghostwriter. Wikipedia critic Greg Kohs has admitted to doing such editing, while people like Edward R. Fitzgerald have tweaked articles to the breaking point in order to promote their bosses (in Fitzgerald’s case it was off-Broadway dancer/choreographer David Gordon of the Pick-Up Performance Company, which employs Ed Fitzgerald as a stage manager.) Things that would be thrown out of a real encyclopedia for crossing lines of notability are included in Wikipedia under the insane concept that it isn’t a paper encyclopedia. More serious is the issue of Wiki-pedophiles hanging around the website trying to “groom” 10-year-old-boys and using the image subsite “Commons” for exchanging child pornography, but the WMF and Wikipedia have been desperately burying that sordid activity.
*** I wish that stupid pen camera had worked well. I should have turned the other camera over to video mode, and just let the chips fall where they may.


Friday, November 11, 2016

Wikipedia, We Have a Problem was yanked down....

.....so we are going to post articles from that site until Rome Viharo finds another place for his work.
[As of Halloween the site is back. Link.]





Wikipedia, Please delete my article: Deepak Chopra’s Wiki-War, Part 1


hqdefault

Deepak Chopra is a significant target of skeptic organizations, so his Wikipedia biography reflects common methods used by agenda-driven Wikipedia skeptics like no other.
Skeptic activism on Wikipedia is a perfect microcosm for how Wikipedia is abused by people with all kinds of agendas. When these editors dominate Wikipedia’s culture, they can corrupt any article. This corruption has grown into something much more disturbing than nerds arguing over sources and oxford commas. Only observers immersed in Wikipedia can spot the agendas hidden in plain sight within Wikipedia’s labyrinthine complexity.

In late December of 2013, right after I published a blog post detailing my experiences with Rupert Sheldrake’s Wikipedia biography, an associate of Deepak Chopra contacted me via Twitter. Chopra became one of many people dealing with a Wikipedia problem who reached out to me for advice.
Before then I was never a Deepak Chopra fan. I had no strong interest in Ayurvedic medicine or TM-style meditation, and I knew little to nothing about them. Never having read any of Chopra’s writing, I was probably mildly suspicious of him. Like most people, I imagine, I categorized him as an Oprah-type celebrity.

When Chopra contacted me I was immediately interested in his Wikipedia problem. Having dealt with agenda-driven skeptics in Rupert Sheldrake’s Wikipedia biography wiki-war, I was personally acquainted with what Chopra was complaining about. A wiki-war is a puzzling combination of arguing a legal case in court while trying to control the ‘conch’ in Lord of the Flies.

Whatever the problems in Sheldrake’s Wikipedia biography were, Chopra’s were nearly identical and far more severe. Chopra’s concerns about his biography were legitimate. The lead section of his Wikipedia biography framed him as a discredited crank, and Wikipedia editors had intentionally removed words that countered that narrative.

Even though Chopra is a licensed medical doctor, the lead sentence of his biography called him a ‘new age guru’ while denying him credit as a physician. The lead section also introduced suspicions about Chopra’s financial motivations. Besides blatantly violating Wikipedia’s own neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, his biography was also ‘crappy’ writing with awkward run-on sentences. This is typical of Wikipedia articles that have been heavily edited by skeptics pushing their point of view (POV). Wikipedia skeptics’ collective narrative voice just plain ‘sucks.’

Wikipedia skeptic activists go to extremes in a manner difficult for most people to imagine. Rupert Sheldrake’s Wikipedia biography proved that agenda-driven skeptics use Wikipedia biographies as pillories to defame and discredit anyone who espouses views outside scientific orthodoxy. This observation made me a pariah to many skeptic organizations and associated websites like Rational Wiki, which is devoted to exposing and debunking pseudoscience.

The Sheldrake biography wiki-war revealed that Wikipedia skeptics harass, intimidate, defame, libel, dox, ban, and, if possible, embarrass anyone who questions their Wikipedia tactics. Skeptics on Wikipedia are akin to extremists, the more extreme, the more they bully while ostensibly collaborating to edit Wikipedia. They label everyone as ‘with them or against them’ with no middle ground.

Regardless of what anyone believes about Chopra—I’ve never known anyone so loved by so many and so hated by an equal number—his detractors’ domination of his Wikipedia biography, an encyclopedia entry, so grossly contravened Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that I had no qualms about defending him solely based on that. Even if Chopra is a crank, Wikipedia editors were using his biography abusively for shockingly irresponsible editorializing.

At that time Chopra was so concerned about his Wikipedia biography that he considered taking legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia. I helped diffuse that situation by encouraging him to embrace the possibilities of how a responsible version of Wikipedia could work.
I began my Wikipedia work with Chopra by encouraging him to directly confront clear abuses by Wikipedia skeptic activists at his biography. By that time Chopra was too afraid to try resolving his Wikipedia problem himself. He had already been embarrassed by previous attempts by others to help resolve issues with his Wikipedia biography. A number of his associates thought it was impossible to correct his Wikipedia biography because they feared Wikipedia skeptic activists would respond by trying to further embarrass him. Chopra genuinely felt harassed by Wikipedia editors.

In March/April of 2014 reporters were asking Chopra, “Why do they hate you on Wikipedia?” He told me he was embarrassed because he had no answer.

Wikipedia, Please Delete My Article.

Chopra began by asking me if I thought he could get his Wikipedia biography deleted—and if so, could I help? He offered to pay any related costs and asked social media advice in case a public relations campaign became necessary to resolve his Wikipedia problem.

Anyone with a libelous, misleading, or harassing Wikipedia biography can petition the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. Despite Chopra’s desire to have his Wikipedia biography deleted, I suggested first having a representative propose corrections on his Wikipedia biography talk page, knowing full well that most of the Wikipedia editors there were skeptical detractors. This step is consistent with Wikipedia’s procedure for requesting deletion of a biography. I reasoned that if this approach succeeded he wouldn’t need to request deletion. If the approach failed, there would be a stronger case to present to the Wikimedia Foundation, and it would enhance any social media pressure that might be needed.

Chopra agreed to my plan of proposing changes on his Wikipedia biography talk page, and I became his Wikipedia media rep. I was transparent about this on Wikipedia. The gig didn’t pay much. Chopra offered a small monthly grant, far below my normal fee, but I was intrigued with issues on Wikipedia and inspired by his particular problem. Since my own case study dealt with Wikipedia harassment—and still does almost three years later—I was also itching to confront his Wikipedia problem for personal reasons.

Fascinated by the wiki-war problem, I previously decided to analyze one as a participant observer by editing in the Sheldrake biography wiki-war. I consciously steered clear of hotly contested topics, like Israel and Palestine, which are edited by fervent political operatives. My assumption that Wikipedia skeptic activists were harmless proved woefully wrong when they maneuvered to damage and defame me as expertly as any political activists could.

Enter SAS81, Chopra’s Wikipedia Media Rep

Returning to Wikipedia to facilitate a consensus resolution on Chopra’s Wikipedia biography entailed violating blocks on my previous accounts, ‘Tumbleman’ and ‘PhilosophyFellow,’ which I’d used to confront skeptic harassment and abuse. Wikipedia account blocks are notoriously impossible to have lifted, so I created a new Wikipedia account, ‘Chopra Media.’ After a Wikipedia administrator advised me not to use ‘Chopra’ in an account name, I changed the name to SAS81. SAS is shorthand for ‘Sages and Scientists,’ one of Chopra’s media channels at the time. A few members of his staff were already using that name off of Wikipedia, so I adopted it.

I strictly adhered to Wikipedia’s conflict of interest (COI), paid editing (PAID), and biographies of living persons (BLP) policies. My intention was to be transparent about my role on Wikipedia and to work within Wikipedia’s guidelines responsibly without violating Wikipedia’s integrity.

This means that

a.) I was working as a paid Wikipedia editor, and

b.) I had a conflict of interest on Chopra’s Wikipedia biography since I represented him.

c.) I was transparent about both those facts on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia’s rules allow subjects of Wikipedia biographies and their representatives to be involved in the Wikipedia editing process this way.

A Return to Wikipedia, and Confronting Skeptic Activists, Again

When I returned to Wikipedia as Chopra’s Wikipedia media representative, my first step was to go to his biography’s Wikipedia talk page to post that there were issues with Chopra’s biography.
Many of the editors involved with Chopra’s Wikipedia biography were the same skeptics I encountered when I edited Rupert Sheldrake’s Wikipedia biography as Tumbleman. I invited all the Wikipedia editors writing Chopra’s Wikipedia biography professionally discuss issues with it.

In the Sheldrake biography wiki-war I’d learned what to expect from hostile Wikipedia editors. Despite working with some of the same characters from Sheldrake’s Wikipedia biography, I engineered a total consensus on Chopra’s biography within six weeks. To achieve that I had to navigate through considerable pushback and harassment from many of those same editors. (In Parts 2 and 3 I detail my successful strategy, a blend of professional, friendly and confrontational consensus building.)

You’re Either with Us or against Us

Wikipedia skeptic activists so hate Chopra that they consider me guilty of promoting pseudoscience because I collaborated to create an even-handed version of Chopra’s Wikipedia biography. Tim Farley recently tweeted that another Chopra representative was ‘found out’ on Wikipedia, meaning me, though I never hid that I represented Chopra there.

Farley is one of many skeptic activists who attempt to create suspicion when none is warranted, one of their signature activities. The Rational Wiki website is notorious for spreading misinformation. It leverages the credibility of science and rationalism to spin damage control about the Wikipedia activities of activist skeptics. As a pro-science and politically progressive individual, I am embarrassed that Rational Wiki claims to represent a voice I share.

Similar to Farley’s attempt to discredit me, a Rational Wiki editor wrote that I disguised myself as Chopra’s media rep, another disingenuous lie. Rational Wiki even hosts a biography of me that warns readers that I’m a pseudoscience promoter and internet troll who writes ‘conspiracy theories’ about skeptic editors. Another Rational Wiki skeptic activist, sometimes known as Oliver Smith, impersonated me online to falsely associate me with creationism. He also claimed on various websites that I’m an internet predator who stalks and harasses Wikipedia editors.

The same Rational Wiki editor also used a photo of me in India wearing a Coca Cola shirt, which he claimed meant ‘cocaine,’ to manufacture a blog post titled, ‘Rome Viharo, paranoid drug user,’ which libelously states I have a cocaine habit. When I complained about that blog post ‘Oliver Smith’ declared I have a ‘persecution complex.’ Rational Wiki editors then added that fictitious ‘persecution complex’ to my biography without any psychological or medical evidence to support it. Considering that part of Rational Wiki’s mission is to expose quack medicine, it’s outrageous that my biography features a counterfactual psychological diagnosis.

Wikipedia and Rational Wiki skeptic editors haven’t posted any robust rebuttal or evidence-based counter narrative to my Wikipedia, We Have a Problem blog posts which expose their lack of ethics on Wikipedia. They have not apologized, issued retractions, or ceased their irresponsible, sloppy publishing. Instead, their disappointing, adolescent response was to repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, try to discredit me and this blog by twisting facts into fiction.

My work with Chopra also brought me unexpected rewards. For his part Chopra was curious about my efforts on this blog, Wikipedia, We Have a Problem, and my online collaborative project aiki.wiki. He asked if I was looking for an aiki.wiki business partner. Though I wasn’t, he generously offered me a grant to continue working on aiki.wiki, which I gladly accepted. Chopra’s responsiveness and attention surprised me.
Working with Chopra was both interesting and fun. Chopra exposed me to a broader world of ideas, problems, and opportunities, and I met some very interesting people while working with him. My first impression of Chopra was that he was very forthcoming and unusually responsive for such a huge celebrity who receives equal parts adoration and contempt. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Chopra’s intentions, motivations, ideas, or ethics, he is a fascinating and complex human being.

Chopra became more engaged with my brand of ‘wiki-enthusiasm’ and ‘wiki-idealism’ after I demonstrated that my core strategy worked on Wikipedia. Before Chopra moved on from his concerns with Wikipedia, he took up my optimism in his Huffington Post article, ‘Wikipedia, A New Perspective on an Old Problem.’
He then encouraged me to apply my strategy to a much broader issue than his Wikipedia biography. Within 45 days of beginning to work with Chopra I began building a collaborative online library designed as both as a database of worldwide mind-body scholarship and a companion to Wikipedia. This was named the Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository (ISHAR). Unlike Wikipedia’s software which naively caters to the darker side of human nature, I designed ISHAR incorporate a  sophisticated collaborative architecture to solve many broad Wikipedia problems. (My  work on ISHAR will be covered more in Parts 3 and 4.)

In addition to my biography, Rational Wiki hosts Chopra’s biography, as well as an article on the Chopra Foundation’s ISHAR project that I was the original architect for. To this day Rational Wiki misinforms readers about ISHAR, and the issues raised on this blog, not to mention me.

To my enduring ire, skeptic activists use Google’s search engine optimization (SEO) as a weapon by creating bombastic, misleading headlines about me, often not representing my views or work. Rational Wiki editors re-post them to boost the headlines’ Google search rankings. This dangerous form of harassment and libel can happen to anyone who edits Wikipedia.

Agenda-driven Wikipedia editors, routinely use Wikipedia, Rational Wiki, and other web platforms to spin truth into deception below the radar of public scrutiny.

Coming soon: In Part 2 read about the arc of skeptic harassment I encountered on Chopra’s Wikipedia biography while using the SAS81 account.

***



‘Skeptics’ and ‘Skepticism’ as mentioned in this study


be-skeptical-question-everything

The context of this case study into harassment occurring on wikis and my own personal  dispute mentions editors that were encountered on Wikipedia and Rational Wiki whom are self declared ‘skeptics’, and this should be clarified.

The words ‘skepticism’, being ‘skeptical’, and being a ‘skeptic’ have a variance in meaning that can cause misunderstanding in this study easily.

Obviously most educated and professional people are natural skeptics. I believe myself to be a skeptical person too. ‘Skepticism’ is a word to denote a general agnosticism of any claim without evidence.
This is not how the word ‘skeptic’ is used in this study.
.

Skeptical Activism

.
Skepticism in this study is activism. Skeptical activism is it’s own ideological movement that has many organizations, proponents, speakers, and bloggers. I call them skeptics because that is how they refer to themselves.
‘Skeptics’ in this study refer to those individuals whom adhere to the ‘skeptical’ movement as an ideology of some form and are active in promoting their worldview, common to any ideology or social group, and act as a group with meet ups, conferences, social networks and events.

Specifically the ‘skeptics’ as mentioned in this study are a small collective of editors on Wikipedia, and a predominant collection of editors on Rational Wiki.

The behaviors of skeptic activists that I have encountered in this study are probably more influenced by privileged young white male angst rather than any true philosophical ideology, but that is just my personal impression.
.

This study is not an indictment of Skeptical Activism or more broadly ideological skepticism in general

.
This study is not an attack on the ideology of skepticism or scientism.
Much of work ‘skeptic activism’ seeks to perform are  genuine social services, and are helpful in exposing ‘frauds’ in fortune teller scams or quack research. Skeptic activists such as James Randi and Penn and Teller have a strong credibility for this reason. Additionally, Skeptical activism provides a strong voice against religious fundamentalism and their attempts to interfere with science in public education.  I believe this is valuable.
This study has nothing to do with the subject matters or individuals on Wikipedia these activists were engaged in. This study is not informed or paid for by alternative medical research, psi or any fringe scientific research, or any known or unknown researchers or groups of researchers in that area. 
This study just happens to deal with a small handful of skeptical activists on a Wikipedia article and details the tactics they use on Wikipedia to control an article.

Since this is a very active online group – I use this group’s activities on Rational Wiki and Encyclopedia Dramatica, even Reddit – to show the effects of toxic consensus building and the effects of online harassment and the steps online users can take in a ‘wiki war’.
.

Skeptical activists and ‘pseudoscience’.

.
The skeptical movement, like most ideological movements, also have their ‘enemies’ and opponents. The two individuals that I worked with to assist in them resolving their wiki wars are two of these such people, Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra.

Skeptics are avowed to exposing claims that exceed what they believe to be the scientific orthodoxy, making Deepak Chopra a mainstream celebrity deferred as a charlatan by skeptic organizations and Rupert Sheldrake’s credibility as a Cambridge biologist is deferred to as pseudoscience. Both individuals do indeed exceed current scientific orthodoxy, and my experience showed me that skeptic activists are very reactionary and ‘pseudo scientist’ becomes more of a derogatory term used to discredit individuals instead of a reasoned word applying the philosophy of science to ideas, not people.
Words like ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘pseudoscientist’ are often used as pejoratives to frame the points of view of those skeptics  disagree with, sometimes even used as a weasel word to discredit an idea or individual. Although once a descriptive word more applicable in the philosophy of science, the word ‘pseudoscience’ is now a term of discredit and ill repute.

For example, in my case – many of these skeptic activists publish articles on me and a discrediting term for me is a ‘promoter of pseudoscience’, although I work in media and technology and simply edited on Wikipedia on two biographies of individuals they somewhat demonize.

Skeptic activists call those that have other view points the ‘woo’ or ‘true believers’.  Based on my experience, you or anyone you know can get this label if you’re interested in at least one of large palate of ideas from pop or Jungian psychology, philosophical dualism, philosophical holism, ‘alternative’ medicine like Chinese medicine or Ayurveda, any form of spirituality, religion, yoga, martial arts, indigenous beliefs or practices, meditation practices, futurism, fringe sciences,  such as ‘cold fusion’, and of course psi, psychics, ghosts, supernatural big foot and lock ness monsters.

Making this cultural problem complex, there is a wide variety of different points of view, acceptance, cultural and academic viewpoints in many of these areas skeptic activists are prone to find. While ‘skepticism’ may be an organized movement with a consistent voice that centers around a scientific orthodoxy  – the realm they consider ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘woo’ is the exact opposite, having countless voices, perspectives, cultural biases, and philosophical backgrounds.
.

Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism, a ‘sub culture’ war happening online.

.
A pejorative term for the skeptical movement is called ‘pseudoskepticism’ – inferring that a ‘skeptical’ point of view is biased towards a strict philosophical materialism, physicalism, or scientism and not a genuine brand of philosophical skepticism. This is also sometimes referred to as ‘scientism’, a belief system that is comprised soley within the boundaries of orthodox science.

This term when used infers that many in the activist skeptic movement are not truly skeptics as they are not skeptical about their own ideology, just the ideologies of all other belief systems, creating a cultural war between philosophical materialists and everyone else. Often bigotry is cited against these type of activists.  [1], [2], [3], [4]

These distinctions are necessary to understand the tensions landscape of editors and abuses involved.
.

I’m biased too (but I try not to be)

.
Honestly, one of the experiences that bothered me so much in this story is that I was being harassed online simply because I was suspected of having views that do not conform to scientific orthodoxy, which to me was a little Orwellian but utterly fascinating from a cultural perspective. At one point one Wikipedia editor suggested I was involved with a cult, citing Deepak Chopra.

I think it’s ridiculous I even need to defend my own beliefs. Luckily for me, I’ve hardly any. As the author of this study and blog, my own bias of course may easily effect my own judgements, so I thought it fair to disclose my own philosophical point of view on these issues that cross over into the two biographies I edited on Wikipedia. I’m an agnostic from the Robert Anton Wilson perspective – I am not just agnostic about religion, I am agnostic about everything. I identify myself as an agnostic humanist. But only if I had to, or I was asked.  Or if anyone cared. No one cares.

Except for about a dozen or so anonymous individuals editing Wikipedia and Rational Wiki influencing public and social opinion on a large number of articles found on the web that call themselves ‘skeptics’. The charge that I, as a laymen, was a ‘promoter of pseudoscience’ and a ‘true believer’ have been used to discredit myself along with a handful of other editors on Wikipedia.

***



Tim Farley – it’s time to be honest about activism on Wikipedia


tim-headshot-img_0038

.

An inconvenient truth for Tim Farley?

.
Tim Farley does not seem to want to be honest about what’s been happening on Rupert Sheldrake’s article on Wikipedia. Neither does prominent skeptic Jerry Coyne in his article in the New Republic. Either does Susan Gerbic, leader of the skeptic activist organization Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW).

According to Tim Farley, Susan Gerbic, and Jerry Coyne, what’s been happening on Sheldrake’s article is the result of dedicated and disinterested Wikipedia editors who are simply battling with pro pseudoscience and Sheldrake ‘fanboys’ tirelessly with the full support of Wikipedia’s pillar of neutrality. That’s simply a factually incorrect statement for any of them to endorse.

I know Tim Farley and skeptic activism has done some good work, and many of the issues he has played a role in exposing I actually endorse, especially the issue of child vaccinations. The problem I have with Tim and skeptic activism is the usage of ‘dirty tricks’ on Wikipedia they use to make their case in a cultural war. It’s harmful.

I’m hoping Tim Farley can be transparent and reflective about what’s happening. In principle, what is happening there is wrong. It’s political and social activism and it’s extending the skeptical movement beyond its sphere of relevance into something a bit darker. That’s the issue I’m raising concerns with. I speak as a pro science progressive, a rational agnostic and humanist. Like Tim Farley, I’m a fan of space, science, and jazz. I’m a white male professional in my 40’s. I’m in his demographic. I’m the type of person he should want his arguments to target.

In reality, and as the evidence clearly shows in the many links and diffs used on this site – what happened on Rupert Sheldrake’s biography was indeed harassment by skeptic activists on Wikipedia towards other editors on the article. It’s not a judgement or indictment of the skeptical movement. It’s simply what the evidence shows. It is the clear case of detractors of a living person taking over the voice of his biography so it reads like their personal point of view.

Isn’t skeptic activism a conflict of interest too?

.
Tim Farley writes a number of shocking things on his blog that makes the exposure of this issue almost too easy. Tim’s a pretty media saavy guy, he knows his environment at a decent level. He gets how to work Wikipedia. On his blog he writes about the Conflict of Interest policy.

Wikipedia attempts to present a neutral and accurate representation of the world. But naturally there are those who would seek to distort this to suit their own ends – be those commercial, political or even pseudoscientific.

Tim suggests it can be commercial, political or even pseudoscientific, but fails to mention that its *anything* that is not portrayed in a neutral and disinterested manner. This means any ideology or worldview. That any worldview could take control of the word neutrality and have them apply it solely to their own agenda is not a direction I think Wikipedia was ever intended to take. For any group not to simply be aware that they are the proud owners of an ideology an entirely other complicated matter.
.

Dirty Trick Tip #2 from Tim Farley

.
Tim goes on to mention a SPA, or a ‘single purpose account’ that could show a conflict of interest.
To avoid this issue ever occurring to skeptic activists online, Tim suggests

I always advise skeptics to avoid the perception of being an SPA by contributing to non-skeptic-related parts of Wikipedia. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule against being an SPA, accounts which behave this way are often justifiably the target of suspicion of conflict of interest.

So Tim himself is upfront on how to game Wikipedia. Skeptics can mask their own COI by simply editing a few other articles in addition to their target articles in question. I’m wondering if Tim believes that advice is relevant to any SPA or just SPAs that serve sceptic activism.

I’m surprised that Vzaak’s own SPA on the Sheldrake article never came into question. Vzaak joined Wikipedia in July 2013. The first 200 edits alone were directly to Sheldrake’s article. The next 1500 edits or so were all predominantly skeptic articles. See for yourself. Does it matter if Vzaak was a member of GSoW? Hardly. The issue is skeptical activism extending beyond it’s sphere of relevance and into something darker.

You can tell Vzaak took Tim’s advice because here and there you will find random sprinkles of editing articles on classical composers. The interesting question is what is Vzaak hiding?

Ironically, Tim’s blog’s last question on the subject is from my point of view remarkably ironic – and I shall just leave it as it’s own reflection as evidence that skeptic activism on Wikipedia really needs a good look in the mirror.

Could the accuser be guilty of the very thing they accused?


[Post under construction.]

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Random

This school is like a jar of dog farts; the funk will knock you down and make your children scream in agony. Buildings look like an abandoned abattoir, wiseass street kids sneak in and vandalize things, they rent out rooms to another school. When I walked past the place I heard "faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaart" and assumed it was the pastor's wife.

 
- a community member (one star out of five given)

Review of the now-defunct La Mesa Christian School at 9407 Jericho Road in Southern California. Found on greatschools.org.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Zombie blog "Esq. Never" (law school scambusting)

One of a number of "scambusting" blogs on the perils of a legal education, "Esq. Never" last posted in January. The post before that was in 2012. Some quotes from the last post, "The Bell Tolls for the Scam":

"One of the ironies of (at one point) anonymously managing  a blog lamenting the plight of dejected law grads is that I achieved a certain level of fame – most likely the greatest celebrity I will ever experience in my life.
No, it didn’t amount to the fame of a well-known legal scholar nor of even some of my other former “scam blogger” contemporaries. Nevertheless, I certainly never expected to be interviewed or profiled by the National Jurist or the Wall Street Journal.

It was, of course, ironic because all of the attention was directed towards a pseudonymous caricature, and instead of heralding success, it was a byproduct of my miserable condition.
Nevertheless, my anti-LS scam compatriots and I were usually one side of a story that also featured at least one apologist for the reigning system – whether law school dean, an ABA representative, or just a general mercenary for the machine.

In those days, condescending and dismissive remarks were the norm. I remember one dean bemoaning that LS critics tended to make the most noise because they were the most displeased. She further asserted that the majority of graduates were happily and quietly pursuing post-JD endeavors.

We now know this to be nonsense. In the years that have elapsed since this and other blogs have gone dormant, the mainline media has recognized that something is amiss as class after class of law grads are thrust into the unemployment grinder.

The Washington Post, the New York Times, and Slate have all run stories to this effect. If they don’t fully endorse the idea that the law school cartel is managing  a full blown scam, they are at least exploring the repercussions of saddling freshly minted JD’s with mind blowing debt while the schools shout ‘caveat emptor’ and hungrily look towards the next harvest.

Sure, every now and then an apologist pops his head up from the trenches in order to predict the imminent recovery of the legal market or to offer an unpersuasive case for paying the equivalent of three or four Mercedes for an unmarketable degree.

Nobody is buying it, though."

Even more:

".....It remains to be seen whether the closing of a few law schools will either result in institution wide reform – more practical coursework, lower tuition, and fewer semesters – or simply a reduction in the number of “firms” in this saturated sector.

For the time being, however, law schools have to grapple with the present economics of reduced demand for their services.

With fewer prospective students, law schools only have two unpleasant choices: Reduce tuition and hack away at the scam’s raison d'être or attempt to retain the present cash flow and torpedo the prestige to which these pseudo-august institutions so jealously cling.

There really is no other choice. Bread and circuses won’t fly anymore. If prospective students are unpersuaded that there are ample legal jobs available, no amount of moot court rooms with mahogany benches and cutting edge technology is going to drive them in.

If enrollment continues to decline, maintaining both high academic standards and fiscal solvency will be a difficult feat. There will be a smaller and smaller pool of quality applicants, who will be on the lookout for either bargains or true prestige.

Prospective students will still be courted heavily with scholarship offers from schools that at one time would have been far outside of their leagues. It’s unlikely that the “pedigree” of a top 50 or even 25 school would be enticing in comparison.

As enrollment tanks, this will be a very costly strategy to pursue. Cutting costs could mitigate the impact of decreased revenue from tuition, but less impressive facilities and fewer perks like lavish moot court trips could make law school an even more miserable environment.

Moreover, cutting faculty could mean the availability of fewer interesting courses, and a reduced support staff would likely result in delays in important administrative tasks (transcript requests; graduation verification).
I’m certainly not advocating retaining the largesse of the cartel, but for students with shorter-term time preferences, the loss of such immediate perquisites could serve as disincentives to matriculation.
While reducing tuition either directly or more subtly via increased financial aid is a costly endeavor, sacrificing student quality could be an even more dangerous game.

Schools somewhere in the middle can tolerate poorer LSAT scores and GPA’s for a while. They just need to hope that their peer institutions need to make similar sacrifices, and they can at least hold their relative place in the LS pecking order – for whatever that’s worth.

While the mid-tier schools can try to wait out the rough seas in their metaphorical dinghies of reduced academic standards – awaiting either miraculous salvation or the final storm to take them under – the bottom feeder schools don’t have such luxury."

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Russian Twitter: Мuд Роисси @Fake_MIDRF (Mud Roissi)

A joke on the actual Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministerstvo inostrannykh del) of the Russian Federation Twitter account, Mud Roissi jokes about what is going on in the Russian government and the world. Recently they did a few tweets on a new Russian "State Wikipedia" they've been talking about for two years:



If you are willing to highlight reams of tweets to stick into Google translate, interesting stuff occasionally comes out.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Copy of "MORE IMPORTANT THAN WIKIPEDIA: "ICANN Can't", a Guest Post by E.A. Barbour"

Because he's always looking at things under the radar, things that are barely noticed are massive mountains to E.A. Barbour, who shares with us the fiasco of the forthcoming ICANN internet takeover.


ICANN Can't

By E.A. Barbour

What is ICANN? It's the special organization which is being given control of all the domain-name assignments and technical standards which the Internet depends on. It was created in 1998 out of whole cloth, because original ARPANET sysop Jon Postel was "overworked". ICANN is essentially a nonprofit government contractor which exists by fiat order of the Department Of Commerce. The Net was opened to the public in 1994 and domain names were handled by Postel and other ARPANET sysops for the first four years. (Amusingly, right in the middle of setting up ICANN, Postel died of "undetected cardiac problems".) And its first chair was Esther Dyson, venture capitalist and one of the most connected women in Silicon Valley (plus an early cheerleader for Wikipedia). A later chair was Postel's fellow "Original Internet Father" Vint Cerf; whose display case at home is bulging with bowling trophies given to him by the computer industry for his magical awesomeness. His ass tastes like fine wine, judging by the millions of kisses he's gotten since the 1980s.

For two decades the system for Internet domains has more-or-less worked passably well. The US government, its contractors, and other large corporations worked with ICANN to keep the DNS/IANA system running. Although here have been complaints about large registrars like Network Solutions/VeriSign, RegisterFly, and GoDaddy, nothing was deemed "problematic" enough to call for major reform of the "system". It was open enough to make open-source cheerleaders happy and it was stable enough to keep corporations and other major financial interests content (and profitable). New domains and systems were introduced to keep things flowing. The gold-rush of the early Web insured that people were willing to allow laissez-faire--until recently. When the US federal government stated that it wished to get rid of all domain control, and have ICANN handle it exclusively. Although little reported anywhere else in the media, these Register articles give some pause.

This happened right in the middle of the US government handing over the final governance controls to ICANN. Under the government's relatively benign control since the 1980s, the Internet grew with a remarkable level of free speech, openness and freedom from graft. These stories suggest that when ICANN has full control over TLDs and governance, they will start acting like FIFA or the Olympic Committee -- playing favorites, taking bribes, and covering everything up. And the product will decline. (And most "customers" won't care, as long as they get their damned football games/websites.)

Thus:

Last month it was reported that the transition of the IANA to ICANN control is being fought by the Republicans. It was even put in the2016 GOP official platform. Not many people noticed or commented on it. Of course it's being blamed on outgoing president Obama, and of course it's being used as a "political football". Admittedly the GOP is full of shit and this is merely a pretext. But one still has to wonder; once domain-name controls are fully in the hands of ICANN, what will happen to them? No one seems to know---or care.

I suspect we have already seen the best days of the Internet. Its future will likely be a dark, broken Third World chaos with dominance by large corporations. Getting a domain name will probably involve paying large bribes to creepy outfits with no fixed address. Legs will be broken and heads will be chopped. And DNS lookup will get more and more unreliable. Just like getting a Class A broadcast license from the FCC, or a taxi license in New York City. The rot is inevitable when big money and monopoly control is involved, and one small organization has the keys.

BTW, there's a Wikipedia angle here. The ICANN article itself was greatly expanded in the last 3 years, mostly by a succession of random-looking IP addresses and SPAs. And if someone tries to insert information of a negative nature, an anonymous  administrator named "Cenarium" removes it. Cenarium is a vandalism patroller who evidently has some knowledge of advanced mathematics. A very weird combination.

And that's not all. The WMF has very close relations with the Berkman Center at Harvard (Jimbo Wales is a "Fellow" thereof), the EFF, Creative Commons, and the Sunlight Foundation. The number of "common friends" they have in these organizations is truly remarkable: Berkman's Wendy Seltzer was an ICANN delegate, MIT professor Ethan Zuckerman has connections to the EFF and is on the WMF Board of Advisors, Jonathan Zittrain cofounded the "Chilling Effects" group with Wendy Seltzer and is on the EFF Board. Rebecca MacKinnon and Peter Suber are on the WMF Board of Advisors and also Berkman Center fellows. (MacKinnon edits her own Wikipedia bio with apparent impunity.) Tamar Frankel, a lawyer who helped set up ICANN in the first place, is also a Berkman fellow. All of these connected people have Wikipedia biographies, which are carefully watched by Wikipedia insiders.

More? Harald Alvestrand, a former ICANN Board member and current Google employee, is a Wikipedia administrator AND has been allowed to edit his own Wikipedia bio. Former WMF Trustee and current WMF Advisor Matt Halprin (his seat was bought for him by his boss Pierre Omidyar) was also on the Board of the Sunlight Foundation--with Esther Dyson and former WMF Director Sue Gardner. On the Advisory Board at Sunlight: Jimmy Wales. Also on Sunlight's Board, as well as the WMF Board of Advisors: Craig Newmark of Craigslist. And I won't even get into the Google connections. You get the idea.

The WMF is already corrupt in third-world ways. Some of these "free culture" Internet organizations have built-in conflicts of financial interest. Is it really surprising that ICANN is likely to go the same way?

_____________________

Comments:

Plus: Vigilant, you suck. Ha.
ReplyDelete
Replies
  1. He's trying as hard as he can.