.....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.]
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.
***
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.
***
.
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.]
Kensington Video
