Skeptic activism on Wikipedia Update:
If you type into Google search certain search terms that relate to missions on Wikipedia by skeptic activists who edit there, you’re likely to see a search ad, asking you to join their cause and jump in and start editing Wikipedia.
Admittedly taking their cue from Scientology, which promotes a similar method – and placing ‘media buying’ into Tim Farley’s ‘skeptic toolchest’, skeptic activists are getting more sophisticated with their meatpuppet skeptic army on Wikipedia via Google Adwords, shown above.
Once an activist has begun their agenda based editing on Wikipedia, Tim Farley has lots of advice for them about the best ways to conceal that conflict of interest too. Oi! Let’s hope they don’t learn about content marketing.
As readers of this site may know, Farley has been exposed for being a ‘damage control guy’ for skeptic activism on Wikipedia’s Sheldrake article by faking data regarding Wikipedia editors on his blog Skeptools and promoted the harassment of yours truly on Rational Wiki.
Farley has additionally acted as the go between with Wikipedia editor Manul and Jerry Coyne creating a very misleading ‘fluff’ piece on Wikipedia to damage control skeptic editors harassing activity on Sheldrake’s Wikipedia article in the New Republic.
Now that the spotlight has been on Tim for his activity – he shrugs off criticism as nothing more than “trolling” specifically because I’m too verbose and my posts are too long for him to read. Isn’t that a high standard for harassing someone on the internet?
Susan Gerbic, Sock Puppet?
In further skeptic activism on Wikipedia news, Susan Gerbic of ‘Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia’ fame admitted in a podcast on ‘Reality Check‘ that she has a number of fake Facebook accounts and used a fake Facebook account to reach out to Rupert Sheldrake’s friend list on Facebook, pretending to be a supporter.
Ouch, Susan, you should have spoken to Tim Farley before you admitted that.
Another name for a ‘fake’ account is also called a sock puppet. It’s also against Facebook’s term of service. Indeed, I think your admittance of this operation could even be called, dare I say, ‘trolling’ and sock puppetting Facebook?
While GSoW tries to paint the picture that they are remarkable Wikipedians – they may want to start checking their violations on Facebook, who would also probably love their media buying dollars too.
I think what Susan did was harmless, human, and maybe even funny from a certain perspective. I only bring this up to highlight an extreme prejudice against other editors on Wikipedia who are often supressed by other Wikipedia editors for making these types of charges against them, often unfounded.
I hope Susan understands that her community treats opposing viewpoints very harshly for doing far less, and I hope she can speak out against the editor suppression happening from inside her community who would be willing to destroy someone’s reputation for something she felt safe admitting to.
Susan Gerbic’s revelation is found at the 21:00 mark in the interview, check it out.