The Weiler Psi

Parapsychology Journalism: The People, The Theory, The Science, The Skeptics

Chopra Vs. The Wikipedia Trolls, er, Editors


Yesterday, Deepak Chopra’s organization made an attempt to get him fair representation on his Wikipedia biography.  This is the statement in full:

Deepak Chopra editors: Binksternet Mishash Bgwhite TheRedPenOfDoom Alexbrn, Lacolorstudio, Xanthis, Rjwilmsi, De-charlatan, Vzaak, Barney the barney barney, KiethBob, John of Reading, Roxy the dog, Afterwriting, Fcp, WikiDan61, Charhenderton, Anomalocaris, HMSSolent, QuackGuru, Philip Cross, Ajo102688, Feross, QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, Nonnyme, Mastcell

Hello. I am a representative from Chopra Media. We have genuine concerns about this article. This has been an issue for sometime and we were not sure of the best way to approach this problem as Wikipedia is very complex to new comers. We want to do this the right way. We apologize for any previous fumbles that may have occurred or will occur. please don’t bite the newbies :)

I am here to address inaccuracies and the inappropriate misframing of Deepak Chopra’s biography on Wikipedia and seek the assistance of neutral and experienced Wikipedians to help.

The article itself mentions that Dr. Chopra is a magnet for criticism but fails to mention that the entire article on Wikipedia is serving only this purpose. Most paragraphs support the framing of Dr Chopra from the point of view of skepticism and criticisms frame every section – and this is before we even get to the section called Skepticism.

I want to make clear we do not find issue with the publications criticisms of Deepak Chopra as a matter of biographical record on Wikipedia. We also understand the balance between WP: BLP and WP:FRINGE. Our concern is the weight of these criticisms in relationship with other points of view and reputable sources. Dr Chopra is a world leader in mind body healing and represents view points of millions of people and many distinct cultures. We find the viewpoints expressed here and framed as factually neutral to be disrespectful to many other worldviews and cultures. For the purposes of human dignity and respect we request this article be reviewed and framed neutrally. We believe Wikipedia’s five pillars and general guidelines for a BLP already protect and cover what we request.

We are not interested in nor are we requesting white-washing his biography for promotional or PR related purposes. We get it. We understand the issue of neutrality on Wikipedia and value many of the principles.

For example, the lead sentence frames Dr. Chopra as a new age guru on one hand and simply a ‘practitioner’ of alternative medicine. Not only is this disrespectful (in some contexts this is a pejorative, and sometimes even a racist pejorative) – it also fails to inform the reader the full picture of who Dr Chopra is, what his ideas are and what his contributions are. Yet President Bill Clinton reference to Dr Chopra as a ‘pioneer of alternative medicine’ is a notable source. And it is indeed accurate to the role Dr. Chopra has played as a world leader in mind body healing. Why is that quote buried at the bottom of the article while the caricature using pejoratives is floating at the top?

First and foremost, Dr. Chopra is a physician – licensed in both western medicine and alternative medicine.

We believe the nature of this article is to serve to the discredit not only of Dr. Chopra – but to discredit the philosophy and practices of world religions, worldviews, and millions of people of all different cultures.

How would the community advise us proceeding to make the article better? ChopraMedia (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have highlighted some of the editors in blue.  Those are part of the crowd that gave Sheldrake’s biography so much trouble.  In other words, it’s all the usual suspects and then some.  Wikipedia has a reputation for being disrespectful to experts, and this was no exception.  The response to this consisted mainly of requests for more information, but there were a couple of gems interspersed that indicated which way the wind was going to blow:

The framing of the content of the article from from the skepticism / mainstream academic views is what the article must do to comply with our policy WP:NPOV particularly subsections WP:UNDUE / WP:VALID etc. — TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I’ll translate:  What he’s saying here is that Wikipedia will judge the article according to the reactionary ideologue skeptic point of view, which they insist is mainstream and therefore a neutral point of view.

ChopraMedia The answer to your problem is threefold. Sources, sources and sources. Every editor here would be happy to help you, based on any reliable sources you may have. -Roxy the dog

Translated:  We will sadly find all of your sources to be inadequate because they don’t reflected the “neutral” point of view which we have defined by gaming the system to arbitrarily apply the Wikipedia pseudoscience and fringe guidelines to you, which cannot be removed by any amount of contrary evidence.  Since we’ve stuck you with these labels, this allows us to dismiss your sources no matter how good they are.

Having written about this very problem in my book, I can say with some certainty that what is going to happen next is fairly predictable.  He will get the Sheldrake treatment.  At least one person appears to be already building a case to get this editor banned.

ChopraMedia, Could I ask for a clear explanation of what exactly “Chopra Media” is, and your function there? Is it for example the case that you are being employed or contracted to edit this article on Chopra’s behalf? I take it you are aware of the guidance at WP:COI? (and WP:ADVOCACY is a useful supplement). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)–

COI stands for conflict of interest.  That might be true if Chopramedia were editing the biography itself, but this is a talk page and the rules are being followed.

While I certainly understand that such an inaccurate and defamatory article should be contested, it is frankly a complete waste of time.  With so many ideologues on the page, there is no chance at all that anything about this hatchet job biography will change for the better.  A persistent effort on Chopra’s behalf will most likely only result in many people getting banned as “fringe” editors.  It’s how Wikipedia really works.

But this problem goes much deeper.  I recently supported a petition in support of energy medicine, which has now received nearly 9,000 signatures.  Jimmy Wales response?

“No, you have to be kidding me,” he writes. “Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.”
“Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
“What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of ‘true scientific discourse’. It isn’t.”

Of course this work has been published in scientific journals and evidence has been demonstrated through replicated scientific experiments, but Wales clearly isn’t letting facts get in his way.  The criticisms of Wikipedia have been going on for many years, and this provides some explanation as to why he’s insensitive to them.  He’s an ideologue himself.  Wikipedia is ideologically opposed to alternative medicine and that puts Deepak Chopra in their crosshairs.

I was surprised to see just how deep this problem is.  Here’s a quote from an article from the group “A Voice for Men” that seeks to counter what it perceives as over-the-top institutional bias against men.  They have a point of course.  In the U.S. for example, men lose custody battles for children in divorce proceedings unless the mother is an out-of-control psychotic homeless drug dealing addict doing bondage porn for the Mafia.  Even then it’s a toss up.  Here’s what they had to say about Wikipedia:

It used to be that with Wikipedia, all you had to worry about were errors written by people who didn’t know what they were talking about. Nowadays you don’t just have to contend with mistakes on Wikipedia, though. You also have to contend with overt censorship, bullying, and ideological thuggery–all of it invisible on the front pages of Wikipedia, but which can be seen on Talk, Revision, and Blacklist pages all over Wikipedia, by the people who control what the general public sees on the front pages.

Sound familiar?  yet another legitimate point of view is shut out of the conversation.  Wikipedia is being used as a soapbox for a particular point of view.  The very thing that was supposed to never happen and that they are supposedly guarding against has become standard practice.

I suggest that everyone who is interested in Wiki editing without the trolls move on over to Citizendium.  It’s a Wikipedia competitor that actively discourages the horrible behavior that has become so commonplace on Wikipedia.  A lot of people want to change Wikipedia for the better, and they have my sympathy, but I personally regard this as way too difficult.  It seems to be a better idea to simply render it irrelevant by providing a more accurate encyclopedia elsewhere.  Wikipedia articles can be ported over and their glaring mistakes corrected without writing a whole new article.

Getting back to Deepak Chopra, I wish him the best.  He’s a successful businessman, but he’s so much more than that.  I’ve gotten to know a bit more about him lately through things that happen behind the scenes and I’ve seen that his desire to help people is a fundamental part of his character. He is literally doing everything he possibly can to make the world a better place.  We need more people like him.  I would very much like to see his Wikipedia page represent him fairly.  He deserves as much.

But I’m not holding my breath.

 

About these ads

31 comments on “Chopra Vs. The Wikipedia Trolls, er, Editors

  1. Stephen
    July 3, 2014

    G’day — it’s a delight to find this blog.
    Some time back I had a run-in with the wikipedians on the subject of Zeno’s Paradoxes.
    I offered (some of the text) in this article http://beliefinstitute.com/article/congruent-solutions-zenos-paradoxes
    I was subsequently banned (as you say above, now to be considered “a badge of honour”).
    What astonished me was the exceptional lack of intellectual rigour, offered by the editors, and when I called for mediation, the mediators themselves showed clear bias that was inexcusable and showed a level of incompetence that beggared belief.
    That experience motivated me to seek arguments that, irrefutably, demolishes their standard mechanical universe world-view.
    I’m pleased to announce that those arguments are exceptionally simple, and irrefutably valid, robust and timeless.
    I’ve written about them here http://beliefdoctor.com/the-modern-superstitions-of-science-and-religion.html
    Long story short: there is not one scientist on this, or any other planet that can explain physical movement without reference to, or reliance on meta-physical processes.
    Not one, now or ever.
    For very simple reasons, that cannot be invalidated, ever.
    Their mechanical, deterministic world-view is about to fall off a (philosophical) cliff, inelegantly crashing to the ground. I welcome others to expedite their fall, for the benefit of one and all.

  2. John Amenta (@jamenta)
    June 1, 2014

    I just looked at Russell Targ’s Wikipedia page and the Guerilla Skeptics have done a hatchet job on his page as well. What a POV lynch mob.

    I think one of the ways these guys are getting away with what they are doing is somehow they were able to form a Wikipedia committee to label parapsychological research as a “pseudoscience” – which makes the false and unsubstantiated claim that none of the research in psi (over the last century) has adhered to valid scientific methods, and lacks supporting scientific evidence. This has been the argument the Skeptics have fallen back on ad nauseum, with rarely ever looking seriously at the actual research done in a rational, non biased, objective manner.

    They have then used this “pseudoskepticism” labeling to shut down any other opposing viewpoints on Wikipedia – especially by any single editor types that haven’t been as organized as these guerilla skeptics have been. It is also remarkable too that while they can easily ban anyone with an opposing viewpoint when the slightest altercation appears – many of these same guerilla skeptics, who hide behind their anonymity, can make outrageous statements like this below – without breaking a sweat in possibly becoming banned:

    “ROFL Thats pretty hilarious, but i wouldnt give up your day job. — TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)”

    This is a quote from Russell Targ’s talk page, with one of the usual suspects – perhaps one of the more extreme members of these guerillas. Any other editor on a talk page making fun of someone like Mr. Red Pen of Doom – would be given a quick warning (or even temporary ban) for the kind of ridicule being made here.

    What is even more remarkable is that the of Skeptic’s Society do none of the scientific research themselves. They actually have it somewhere in their society charter. They gain their credibility by enlisting well known names in science who have, for the most part, also have not performed any long term research in psi.

    The Society is primarily in the business of PR and media advocacy, that claims any kind of research in psi is “unscientific” – simply because the subject is psi (pretty much). To label these guys as “pseudoskeptics” and unscientific, is ironically, a bitter truth. They neither practice science nor are they real skeptics, since they hide behind a rigid ideology and question nothing beyond their ideological fundamentalism.

    But far worse – in my opinion, is the kind of activity they have organized now for the last few years? On Wikipedia. Literally introducing their own jaundiced guerilla skeptics viewpoint on all related psi articles, and literally conducting defamatory writing on living and dead scientific researchers in psi, including Targ or Sheldrake or Stevenson.

    If they’re fundamentalism has been limited to their own web pages, I don’t think it would be such a big deal. But given how widely Wikipedia consulted (whether it should be or not) – the kind of NPOV ideological fundamentalism being spread is enormously dangerous to the advancement of real scientific work in psi.

  3. Tom Butler
    May 25, 2014

    In many ways, we have handed our detractors our sward. In my efforts to find a way to reason with the Wikipedia skeptics, I have tried to see our paranormal community from their perspective. It is not a pretty picture.

    In my 14 years of co-directing the ATransC, I have encountered many parapsychologists who are as skeptical about Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC) as the mainstream is of psi. As ITC detractors, they have also been as resistant to reason, and like mainstream skeptics, ignore good evidence.

    Apparently in an effort to look as scientific as possible, it is vogue for parapsychologists to us statistical analysis on virtually everything in parapsychology … even at the expense of good communication. In fact, much of what we call paranormal is mostly spontaneous and not easily induced. An outlier is a data point that falls so far from the mean that it must be discarded in order to conduct the statistical analysis of research data. The result has been that good scientific methodology adopted from by the mainstream has failed to provide a realistic picture of some paranormal phenomena.

    As an example, Type 1, Class A examples of audio ITC (Electronic Voice Phenomena) are very rare and would be seen as extreme outliers (http://atransc.org/bp/Classification). We funded a study in which the few Class A examples were apparently discarded as outliers in the analysis. In a similar way, we have found the tendency to ignore lay people’s input can result in the mistaking of data sets which are mostly devoid of phenomena as “good data.” A “failure to replicate” report resulted.

    The majority of subject matter specialists in thing paranormal do not have an advanced academic degree. There is a culturally enforced academic-layperson partition separating those who study from those who experience. The majority of parapsychologists are first psychologists. ITC is a technology intensive phenomena and requires at least a fair understanding of the technology to distinguish artifacts from phenomena. The result has been that many research projects are conducted by people who are simply not qualified to develop a proper protocol or analyze the resulting data.

    Along this line, in that research project we funded, the “scientists” seemed to ignore our suggestions and warnings about the nature of the phenomena as “commentary.” In the first “failure to replicate” report we encountered, the psychologist used college students for data collection, rather than qualified practitioners. We now have a situation in which another psychologist appears to be preparing to discard good data because of apparent researcher fear–a different form of the “filed draw” problem.

    I can go on, but I think you will see my point. All of these conditions makes it impossible to consolidate a cohesive community and present a unified front to the mainstream public. According to Wikipedia rules, only the mainstream is reliable and credibility is establish there by the number of citations. Would you risk citing studies conducted by amateur playing at being scientists, whether they have a degree or not?

    One last point. I have often noted that you can tell dogmatic skeptics by how they talk of others. Name-calling comes easy for them because they have nothing else. It is important that we remain on the high road.

    • John Amenta (@jamenta)
      May 25, 2014

      The high road with thugs? Who have deliberately ignored the last 100 years of research in psi? Who have deliberately ruined the biographies of many good human beings on Wikipedia, just because they can?

      No dice.

  4. John Amenta (@jamenta)
    April 15, 2014

    Deepak and his organization should take these guys to court. The level of defamatory-misleading material could be used to make a strong legal case against Wikipedia – and the wide public presence (and damage) it can do to someone and their reputation. He should work with Sheldrake and others who have been much maligned by this small cabal of anonymous assholes.

    • Tom Butler
      April 19, 2014

      It would be interesting to see the parapsychological associations start a defense fund for a class action suit. As it stands now, each offended party more or less gives up and the skeptics move on to the next. No one can fight a horde by themselves, yet they are all in the same cross hairs.

      You and I can try to help, but as Craig points out, we are just pushing the rope so to speak. In law, it is the offended party who must lodge the complaint.

    • robert
      April 20, 2014

      I just want to point out that John Amenta has been blocked and banned from editing Wikipedia on a number of sock puppet accounts:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jamenta

      He has a history of leaving legal and even death threats to people on Wikipedia, now believer or skeptic doesn’t come into this – this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. It’s only fair that you report both sides of the “story”. Believers who are on your side Craig are not immune from doing things wrong in these matters. You talk about skeptics playing dirty tricks but there are uses on your side also doing this. Please show me a skeptic who has been threatening people over these matters? It seems to me it is only some of the believers doing this. I will not make a big issue out of it but it’s happened.

      BTW Craig – Tim Farley has commented on you and the controversy here:

      http://www.donotlink.com/gt2

      I would be interested if you are going to reply to him in a further post on your blog. I would like to know if you believe what he has said is wrong or not. Regards.

      • craigweiler
        April 21, 2014

        Hi Robert,
        Given the total control the dominant skeptics have on Wikipedia and their propensity for banning people that disagree with them, all this shows is that John was on the wrong side of the debate.

        The fact that he was accused of bad behavior is meaningless unfortunately, because we cannot trust the system that adjudicated this. It’s simply too easy to accuse people of sock puppetry and then assign various evils to them and make it stick.

        If you want examples, go to the website “Wikipedia, We Have a Problem.”

        I’m aware of Farley’s blog post. These are old arguments and don’t address the relevant issues. There is no point in my responding.

      • Tom Butler
        April 21, 2014

        And here you are Robert, casting aspersions from behind what is probably a fictitious name.

        • craigweiler
          April 21, 2014

          At this point, the fact that John Amenta has been banned from Wikipedia is more a badge of honor than anything else.

          • John Amenta (@jamenta)
            May 24, 2014

            Thanks Craig. It’s really outrageous what these pseudoskeptic thugs have done to many of the very dedicated individuals who have spent their lifetimes studying psi phenomena. Their hatchet job fingerprints are all over Ian Stevenson’s biography (calling him a gullible individual and citing 2nd hand sources – and denigrating him subtly in almost every paragraph of what is a truly heinous defamatory piece these thugs have concocted). Frederic Myers – these guys wasted no time in going into his personal life and their summary of his some of his major works is the amateur show of despicableness. Leonora Piper, Sheldrake, and ground zero currently is Chopra – and he’s putting up a fight as he should.

            I do find interesting that these thugs have yet to take on Carl Jung or the Society for Psychical Research Wikipedia pages (for the most part, though apparently some tenuous tentacles were attempted with the SPR). Most likely it shows that they really are cowards or Wales must have told them to not touch Jung. Who knows. So they beat up on either dead psychical researchers or ones who are fairly easy targets for them – like the juvenile bullies they are.

            They have made a mockery of the paranormal page, lumping in valid scientific work with UFO’s, Crop Circles, etc. They cite only skeptical sources denigrate a small token example (cherry pickd) for any of the valid research that has been done over the last century. They do not discuss any of the serious debates or give an even handed view of what proponents of the reality of psi have put forward. The neutrality is a crock of shit in my opinion. With the blessing of Wales no doubt.

            I am really pissed. What is even more over the top – is this very heinous accusation by Robert here on your website that I have made “death threats”. I have never EVER made a death threat in my entire life. This kind of accusation is not only cruel and despicable, it is dangerous to me – that it is being spread by people who seem to think they have every right to libel human beings, and slant public knowledge with their fucking arrogance.

            • craigweiler
              May 24, 2014

              I couldn’t agree more.

              I’ve had my own run in’s with these trolls so I’m quite aware that I should not take any of their accusations seriously. Their behavior is a stain on Wikipedia.

              I allowed the comment to stand because I wanted to show the utter crap that people have to put up with when they try to edit on that platform. Pure lies and slander.

              It’s amazing what they get away with.

      • John Amenta (@jamenta)
        May 24, 2014

        I have never made death threats. And I never threatened to sue anyone, I said you pseudoskeptic assholes ought to be sued for libel, and the way you have harassed anyone who has attempted to contribute to a topic that you and your pseudoskeptic thug friends seem to think you know all there is to know about – and that anyone who disagrees with you should be quickly harassed or banned.

        I do consider a badge of honor to have been banned by a group of medieval hoodlums – a group of individual who have nothing to do with open inquiry or science and everything to do with denigrating, banning, and shutting down any opinion that differs from a thug organization and a thug ideology. A thug organization that has unfortunately, been given free reign on Wikipedia to do what they will, while the founder Jimmy Wales pretends he doesn’t know what the fuck is going on. The guy is the biggest hypocrite in existence right now.

        In my mind, your deliberate defamatory activity is among the worst kind of intellectual endeavors and most despicable. It is not even scientific – it is a kind of fundamentalism of the worst kind.

        I hope someone with deep pockets does go after you guys. Before you destroy the biographies of more good people. If you didn’t have the green light from Wales, you fuckers would not have lasted a day.

  5. Tom Butler
    April 11, 2014

    An important point that might have been missed in earlier comments is that the Wikipedia rules requiring credible sources does often translate as peer reviewed journals, but an important caveat is that those journals must be mainstream. Any bioenergy or alternative healing journal would be considered “not mainstream” by the dominant group of skeptical editors (DGSE) and therefore not allowed as a reference.

    Also, there has been an administrative action which addressed pseudoscience. The decisions were pretty neutral and allowed room for reasonable discussion of subjects deemed pseudoscience by the DGSE. However, the DGSE have made it so that they can ban an opposing editor for simply suggesting that such a subject should be given fair treatment.

    That is how they finally banned me from editing the Sheldrake article. The precedence is there for them to simply close the discussion about any such subject so as to give the appearance of happiness in Wikipedia land.

    Chopra’s work would be considered pseudoscience.

    • Mark
      April 12, 2014

      It reminds me of that statement: “All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” Wikipedia proponents can talk all they want about “credible sources,” but who gets to decide what “credible” means? It seems to be either the Wikipedia leadership, or, if the leadership does not care, the group that is the most driven to have their vision of “credible” foisted onto the parts of Wikipedia that the group cares about.

  6. i too have some small problems with deepak BUT i am thrilled that he (and/or his organization) wades into the swamp waters surrounding reactionary skepticism.

    why am i thrilled ? because this guy has the media machine behind him. he’s a mogul of sorts and does represent a lot of people.

    he has the clout to write or ghost write articles appearing in all kinds of venues that people will read. sure, tons of people shudder at his very presence, but many others hang off his word.

    don’t be surprised if he disses wikipedia on oprah one day.

    • craigweiler
      April 11, 2014

      If all Chopra is doing is gathering evidence to show Wikipedia bias, then he’s welcome to it. If he’s trying to actually change the page for the better, then he’s wasting his time.

      • robert
        April 20, 2014

        Craig,

        Tim Farley at Virtual Skeptics has done a video commentary about you, you are mentioned 27 minutes in.

        http://www.donotlink.com/gGb

        Virtual Skeptics #84 – 4/16/2014

        What’s your response to this?

  7. Mark
    April 11, 2014

    I can’t say that I’m a big fan of Chopra, but he seems to mean well, if nothing else. I don’t think he deserves this kind of treatment, but neither do so many others.

    Did I miss something about this peer-reviewed process? What does that have to do with proper representation on Wikipedia? Maybe he’s suggesting that you have to have peer-review under your belt before Wikipedia can treat you respectfully. I’d like to see them put that in writing as part of their policy.

    • craigweiler
      April 11, 2014

      No, this was a rebuttal I made to Jimmy Wales’s comment that Energy Healing has no peer reviewed studies.

      Wikipedia is in the pocket of ideologue skeptics who insist that evidence doesn’t exist despite the fact that it does.

      • Mark
        April 11, 2014

        I get what you’re saying Craig. Maybe I didn’t articulate myself properly. I was saying that even if the pseudoskeptics were right (which they’re not) that there is no peer-reviewed evidence – well, they still need to get their facts right and come at it from a neutral point of view – I mean, if they were to care about Wikipedia rules, which they don’t.

        • craigweiler
          April 11, 2014

          So true.

  8. David Bentley
    April 11, 2014

    Wikipedia like neighbours, having nothing to do with them.

  9. Derek Stephen McPhail
    April 11, 2014

    am very supportive of the efforts to confront Wikipedia on their ” reactionary ideologue skeptic point of view, which they insist is mainstream and therefore a neutral point of view.”; and, am glad, in the specific case of “Deepak Chopra’s biography on Wikipedia”, that he has the support of his “Chopra Media” to attempt to do so.

    however, it’s unfortunate there are many other victims, who are deceased, and unable to make a case for a fair presentation of their life’s work, for example, such “lunatic charlatans”, as: “Edgar Casey”, “Zecharia Sitchin”, or “Laurence Gardner”.

    good on you for having gone to the trouble to write a book about this issue; as well as, create a forum to encourage commentary on the materialistic editing biases supported and perpetuated by creator, Jimmy Wales”.

    ironically, seems that Wales’ personal karma is coming back to bite him in the ass on other levels: http://www.wired.com/2008/03/scandal-in-wiki/.

    • craigweiler
      April 11, 2014

      That article was from awhile ago, but the more I learn, the less it surprises me.

    • Mark
      April 11, 2014

      Craig, feel free to not approve this comment if you think that I’m taking us too far off-topic, but I hate Wales, as well as that Canadian Ann Coulter wannabe that is mentioned in the Wired article linked to above, so I’m going to pile on by posting a link to this article about Rachel Marsden:

      http://www.salon.com/2007/03/29/marsden/

      I’m not the biggest fan of salon.com, but I have to admit that they did a number on this girl. It’s been a while since I read the article, and I’m not going to reread the article right now, but if my memory serves me right, here are some highlights:

      – Marsden probably lied about getting raped.

      – Marsden probably conned feminists into believing her story about getting raped.

      – Marsden stabbed those same feminists in the back by becoming a right-wing commentator and railing against, among other things, feminism.

      – Marsden was accused of stalking several men.

      – Marsden was convicted of stalking one man.

      – Fox News hired Marsden after all of that, despite the fact that they knew about “her past.”

      If anyone wants to read the article and believes that those bullet points are wrong, feel free to comment.

      After all of that, the superior critical thinking mind of Jimmy Wales (sarcasm) decided to get involved in a sexual relationship with this girl. It should not be much of a surprise that, after the sex ended, Marsden decided to put Wales’s semen-stained clothes on EBay.

      • craigweiler
        April 11, 2014

        Mark,
        You’ve made it clear that this is your opinion and you point out what you’re not sure about. You linked to the article so that people can check for themselves.

        Based on that I have no problem with this comment.

  10. Syl
    April 11, 2014

    It’s interesting: Contrast the tone of intro. in the English Wikipedia with the French one below (translated in English with Google translate and then cursorily improved by hand).

    ———-

    Deepak Chopra, born 22 October 1946 in New Delhi, U.S. citizen of Indian origin, is an endocrinologist physician, thinker, speaker and bestselling writer on the topics of spirituality and alternative medicine.

    Before launching his own career, Chopra has been an assistant leading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi until their separation in 1994 following a personal dispute , which he gave details about just after the death of Maharishi in 20084. Though the movement of Transcendental Meditation has explicitly asked its members to ignore it and not make contact with him, Chopra has always publicly expressed his respect to his former master.

    He has published many books on personal development , spirituality and New Age alternative medicine in combination with certain theories of quantum physics. 10 million of his books have been sold in 30 languages.

    He became a friend and advisor to many celebrities such as Madonna and Demi Moore. He was also a friend of Michael Jackson, who he advised on health issues, and was asked by the media after his death, in particular to comment on medical controversies that have surrounded this death.

    Very popular in India and the United States, where he established a health center based on Ayurveda Californie13 , he is mainly influenced by Hinduism and draws particularly in some of his early works on the Bhagavad Gita , the Vedanta and Sufism.

    In 1999, he was ranked among the 100 most influential personalities of the century by Time magazine. With $ 15 million of annual profits from his books , seminars and products , it is often called the “health guru ” of to United State.

    ———-

    I’d say it’s how a balanced presentation of facts should look really like. I hope this clearly shows how much ideologically manipulated the English speaking WP is.

    FYI France is very far away to be a country where alternative medicines have it easy.

  11. Marcel Cairo
    April 11, 2014

    Keep up the great reporting.

  12. marcustanthony
    April 11, 2014

    “What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of ‘true scientific discourse’. It isn’t.”

    There you have it. Pure, detached, unemotive scientific objectivity. Pass me another test tube, professor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on April 11, 2014 by in Psi Wars, Wikipedia and tagged , , , , , .
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 559 other followers

%d bloggers like this: