[As of Halloween the site is back. Link.]
Wikipedia, Please delete my article: Deepak Chopra’s Wiki-War, Part 1
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
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
.
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.
.
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.
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.]
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete