The Weaponization of Wikipedia

The egregious vandalism and misuse of my biography page by Wikipedia agenda editors continues.

I understand that cases like this matter little except to those who are slandered. However, I would argue that they are important to the extent they represent what’s going on across the increasingly-troubled Wikipedia platform.

Wikipedia has been “weaponized.”

Anonymous political and special interests control pages on behalf of paid clients. Devoted ideologues use their authority on Wikipedia to censor and controversialize ideas with which they disagree. There are attacks, slander, biases, false information and censorship.

In my instance, the Wikipedia editors have violated multiple Wikipedia policies over the years governing matters such as neutrality, slander and attribution.

And there’s nothing anybody can do about it.

The well-meaning Wikipedia editors– and there are many– are simply outwitted and overpowered by the bad guys.

As I have reported and discussed these matters publicly, anonymous Wikipedia agenda editors controlling my biographical page have mounted a campaign to attack me beyond my Wikipedia page.

“To put it bluntly, this is unacceptable behavior,” wrote a Wikipedia agenda editor in discussing my public objections to the false information and slander on my Wikipedia biographical page. “…some action needs to be taken.” (Toa Nidhiki05 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC))

Wikipedia editors have long been known to track down, troll and attack those who criticize them.

As I reported in my Full Measure investigation, some Wikipedia editors have even gotten together and tracked down personal details about someone they don’t like, figuring out where they travel, what they do in their spare time, and where they work– even calling their boss on the phone to try to get them in trouble. No kidding.

Not long after the “something must be done” threat against me by the Wikipedia editor, additional false and biased information was edited onto my Wikipedia biographical page, an attack blog was published against me, and Wikipedia interests came after me on Twitter.

The Twitter attackers included a Wikipedia editor @wikigamaliel who calls himself “Gamaliel@ALA” on Twitter.

@Wikigamaliel proceeded to state that he knows “how I feel” and “what I think” about certain topics based on my Twitter followers, whom he called “nutty.” (He received a “like” from @Wikimedia UK regarding his “nutty” comment about my followers. These are Wikipedia’s supposedly neutral arbiters of information.)

When some Twitter users then flagged extensive hate, profanity and bias in @Wikigamaliel’s recent Tweets on many subjects, he deleted some of the Tweets and blocked the users.

But he’s still editing away on my Wikipedia biographical page and, presumably, many others.

The Talk Pages

Wikipedia’s “talk” pages are arcane, to be sure, but they can provide a window into the bias, twisted justifications, and mangled logic used by Wikipedia agenda editors to make sure false and biased information stays on a page… and fair, truthful information is censored.

This is where matters of controversy are supposedly arbitrated and settled. Instead, it’s the place where the agenda editors band together and play games to beat back attempts to...

Read More HERE