Image 01 Image 03

Manipulating Wikipedia

Manipulating Wikipedia

In the continuing on-line war, Brett Kimberlin’s Wikipedia entry which documented his history has been taken down, and get this, the excuse given is that Kimberlin was the victim of a harrassment campaign.

Patrick Frey, the victim of a true harrassment campaign, has the story:

I have described Brett Kimberlin’s campaign of harassment against his critics as “brass-knuckles reputation management.” The idea is to intimidate and harass anyone daring to bring up Kimberlin’s extensive criminal history. There are other examples I’m aware of that can’t be fully told for various reasons, although I hope the victims choose to tell them.

But one of the most concerning aspects of this reputation maintenance campaign is the way history is rewritten. And one example of that is the way that Kimberlin’s Wikipedia entry was whisked away from view on September 14, 2011….

The idea that there is a harassment campaign against Brett Kimberlin is a reputation management theory that has been pushed for months by Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, and Ron Brynaert — three people who engaged in the extraoardinary and very real harassment campaign against myself and other critics of Brett Kimberlin.

So where did the Wikipedia editor get the idea that there was a harassment campaign against Brett Kimberlin? In early May 2012, I decided to write the editor, Richard Symonds, and ask why the page was deleted….

Frey details the rest of the story in his exchange of e-mails.  Read it.

And don’t trust Wikipedia on anything controversial, it easily is manipulated.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Wikipedia? Is that a source somebody really needs for referance?

radiofreeca | May 27, 2012 at 1:07 pm

If Wikipedia said there were 7 days in the week, I’d check a calendar. Don’t believe anything on wikipedia – there’s nothing trivial enough that somebody won’t spend their life trying to change what’s posted. Especially if it’s true.

    Ragspierre in reply to radiofreeca. | May 27, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    A truly consistent liar is totally reliable.

    Wiki is OFTEN a good resource.

    BUT ALWAYS “let the buyer beware”. It is on the reader to check the references cited.

    If nothing else, it is a source of threads by which to untangle the skein.

casualobserver | May 27, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Wikipedia, like many of the social networking tools of today, keep proving they are really incapable of handling these types of situations in fair and balanced ways. At some point, judgments must be made by the sites. They almost always get it wrong out of the gate.

One thing Wikipedia does do is let you know if there has been a lot of change to the entry. You scroll ‘way, ‘way down…..

I use it for quick reference to noncontroversial information, and as a starting place to find real starting places.

“trust Wikipedia”


Good one, Prof.

I teach undergraduate criminal justice and refuse to allow it as the source for anything in my class beyond using it to get an idea about what a topic is about.

I always point out to my students that there was a journalist from Tennessee who went to Wikipedia and read his obituary.

True story.

Midwest Rhino | May 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Wikipedia is great for very basic, non-political type overviews. But it is certainly not a scholastic source, though it might have useful references.

But Wikipedia, Snopes, Facebook, Google, You-Tube … all seem to lean left in what is allowed. It might just be that the left is more caustic and squeaky, and it is easier to give in to them.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Midwest Rhino. | May 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    It’s more likely that a higher percentage of those on the left simply don’t have a life outside of their political obsession.

      G Joubert in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | May 27, 2012 at 7:08 pm

      Or, another way of putting it, their political obsessions become their whole lives. Most significantly, their political philosophy becomes a placeholder in the void in their psyches where religion belongs.

I have personal experience at how Wikipedia can be manipulated

    creeper in reply to myiq2xu. | May 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Good to “see” you, myiq2xu. I have always enjoyed your thoughtful comments and we seem to have followed similar paths.

    Evidently you have poked a stick into the hornets’ nest. Thinking for yourself is discouraged among the left and they’ll swat you if you show signs of sentient behavior. I learned that the hard way.

    I find it mind-boggling that Wikipedia would remove the factual article about Kimberlin while allowing this character assassination of you to remain.

    Please continue to post here. Your thoughts are always worthy of consideration.

It’s common knowledge that Wiki(anything)pedia is no more trustworthy than a gossiping neighbor..

But far too many deem Snopes as the ultimate arbiter of the truth.

If “the truth shall set you free”, it’s no wonder why Progressives spend their waking hours trying to hide it.

NC Mountain Girl is right – the life of a leftist is their leftism. An unhappy, angry brigade of people.

The ironic thing is that if they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams (they did once, when the Soviets won the Russian revolution in 1917)they’re still going to be a lost people, because their problem in feeling inadequate is a chronic one — and they’re going to find themselves living in the very dicatorship they claimed to have been rebelling against. The additional irony will be that those who didn’t wind up in the elite will be sentenced to a perpetual struggle to eat.

The left has become a magnet for chronic malcontents and self-destructive people (just about everyone in show business)regardless of their wealth. The elite of the left know this well, and exploit it. Hence, they live to inflitrate and corrupt every source of information. Hence, the destruction of Wikipedia.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to | May 27, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    I don’t know that this is about the Left. I have met members of the USSR Communist Party & officials & they were nothing like the Left in the West.

    If these Komrades had had a Wiki they would not bother to do little interventions they would just arrange an interview with the contributor & then send him on a long holiday to rethink their ways. If they ever returned they would be in a state that could only be descibed as a blank . The Russians had a word to describe this .

    Try & see the difference . A Soviet Kimberlin would not have made it out of jail. He would have been executed or falllen victim to tB or Aids.

Read Frey’s account of his correspondence with the Wikipedia “volunteer editor.” But make sure the sun is out and you’re around family or friends. It’s rather chilling.

And that’s why Wikipedia continues to not be an acceptable source in any academic or even grade school papers.

Wikipedia is fakeopedia.

[…] Legal Insurrection. Assholes, Corruption, Dumbasses, Hypocrisy, Incompetence, Lies and Liars, Terrorism, Whackjobs […]

Jim Treacher went through a similar brouhaha with Wikipedia over the “Obama Eats Dog” entry. The left always makes sure they have their own in positions to control the flow of information.

Kimberlin’s “brass-knuckled management” of his reputation has all but insured he his violent history would be brought to the attention of those funding his 501c3. Psychopathology always works that way. That Kimberlin has proven himself capable of using the same tactics with both the right and the left shouldn’t be too surprising. I agree with Patterico, this guy is really using the left but has taken none of their ideology to heart.

One has to wonder if this volunteer Wikipedia editor has been intimidated in some way as well. A Wikipedia entry is quite likely to be among the first search items found when a potential donor performs even a cursory investigation before cutting a check. Hence, the information contained in a Wikipedia entry is probably the most potent.

Of course it is quite possible the editor is also blinded by ideology which would render him a pretty pathetic creature. I’d prefer to give him some benefit of the doubt – at least until he has proven himself unworthy of that consideration.

When students are assigned a research paper in one of my classes I tell then that Wikipedia is not allowed as a source. It is too unreliable and easily manipulated.

Wikipedia is a lousy source. The problem is when someone gullible relies on the information on the site and gets Progressive bias regarding the subject matter.
It’s a great propaganda tool for the left.

Naaa. Wikipedia is totally legit –
Look at their entry on Fauxcohontas:
Warren listed herself as a Native American in the Association of American Law Schools directory of law professors, from 1986 to 1995. The Brown campaign and the Native American Rights Fund questioned her motives for the claim and its propriety.[41][42][43][44][45] Genealogist Chris Child at the New England Historic Genealogical Society has researched Warren’s claimed native ancestry and states that more research has to be done to make a full determination.[46][47][46][48] Warren said that she had heard family stories about her Cherokee ancestors her entire life (“my mother told me so”[49]) and had hoped it would create opportunities to meet people like her. But according to Warren, such opportunities never materialized and she eventually “stopped checking it off”. [50]

I believe the author of this entry is Elizabeth Warren

BannedbytheGuardian | May 27, 2012 at 8:11 pm

The tools to insert your own variations on the subject is open for you guys also.

Just get in & change the article. Be smart -don’t just go in en masse -trickle the editing out over a month in a co – ordinated manner. That way it goes under the radar.

It is a gem of a hobby !

On Symonds’s talk page
, someone writes:

Your a tool

edit: You’re


Wikipedia is very good in computer science, so-so in hard science and heavily biased in any of the philosophical fields.