Saturday, August 23, 2008

Wikipedia Article

The following is a comment submitted by FGF. I found this information interesting and with her permission, I am moving it to the home page for everyone to view.

I think I love the Wikipedia dude assigned to monitor the J&K article.

GWoP has a designated poster "in charge" of monitoring the J&K Wikipedia entry. She's constantly altering it (and having her alterations reversed, of course). They've been trying to add a "controversy" section to air all their "grievances," but it doesn't stay posted for very long. The entry in its proper form is straightforward and neutral, without a positive or negative slant. Overly positive posts by fans are also deemed unnecessary and removed at times.

I was browsing the "history" section, where you can see the changes made and occasionally the Wiki wonks make comments. I saw this one and laughed my fool head off because it was directed at a particular GWoP poster who is vile, distasteful and I'm sure qualifies as a legitimate cyberstalker. I think a lot of you can guess her identity without my help.

Anyway, back to the Wiki guy. This is what he posted and I love him. I hope she got banned, too."Please keep your own personal nastiness about whether Kate has a man-trapping vagina and tricked poor Jon into having sex with her to yourself. It's libel.


BWAH. I want to kiss him. And that poster soooo deserves it. She's certifiably nuts and the rest of them just enable and encourage the crazy. She actually makes me fear for the Gosselin's safety at times.

LOVE IT. Rock on, Wiki guy.


FGF said...

Linda added a few Wiki comments in the Open Discussion thread which were good, too:

"it's not all that controversial these days to stop working when you have a child, especially six,"

"This paragraph has a tone in which one is to conclude that asking for charity is a bad thing, which, again, is not set in neutrality. It comes off as people being scandalized that charity is even being asked, or received"

"I fail to see any controversy regarding Jon working from home as opposed to working in an office."

"It is also not a crime to become motivational speakers."

"The National Enquirer is not a reliable source."

Total and complete BWAH on the last one!

Here are a few more courtesy of the Wiki wonks:

"Semi-protecting to keep group of disruptive SPA's from further disruption with new accounts."

Yeah, because harassing the mods at Wikipedia by repeatedly slamming them with the same crap (but changing your ISP) is a great way to get them on your good side. I lost count the amount of times that "revert back to pre-vandalism version" was sited.

Upon further review of the "discussion" section of the J&K+8, I found this declaration by our favorite unstable GWoPPER. The same poster that was smacked down by the wiki wonks I originally sited:

"If you knew how much IRE this show stirs in the States, you wouldnt take issue. The fact is, the show IS about THEM, its a REALITY show. Their life IS the focus. They arent acting. Its THEM. So THEY are controversial, the show is about them... Simple!

OH my GAWD! There IS so MUCH more EMPHASIS if YOU capitalize EVERY other WORD to MAKE your POINT. Even IF all IT does IS confirm THAT you're A shrill, ABUSIVE whack-job (KINDA like YOU all CLAIM Kate IS).

Honey, the only IRE being stirred up is on your blog. It's funny how they believe in their own (self-generated)"publicity."

Here's another plea to the Wiki wonks to let the haters have their way:

"Kate's rather unorthodox and, let's face it, sometimes downright abusive ways of treating her children (with her obsession with cleanliness) and especially her husband Jon, whom she slaps and then BLAMES Jon for it, have garnered negative criticism and controversy from the show's viewers. What I find to be most shameful is that such things are not at ALL mentioned in this article, which to me seems tantamount to whitewashing."

Because someone if saying "no" to the haters, it's "whitewashing." Just like any show where Kate and the kids are happy and smiling is "damage control.'

But when you can't have your way, there's always condescension:

I do hope this can be worked in somehow, and I'm positive numerous other articles exist on this subject. At least one is mentioned in this one here. I would do it myself, but am fearful they would just be removed like the entire section was a month ago, and in addition, I'm not sure of the article's reliability. Frankly, it's embarrassing to have such criticism excluded. I do hope Kate herself isn't a big editor of this article.

Because when message boards and blogs are closed, it's always Jon and Kate who are behind it. It's never because of the pain in the ass the harassers cause the people that run the show.

This appeared after Wiki pulled the "controversy" section of the J&K article.

"As it stands now, a few of us decided that it should be moved due to its bias and lack of credible citations:

In other words, just because you declare it so, doesn't make it right, or credible.

More Wiki wonks:

"I don't watch the show, don't have that channel, but whether what he says is accurate or not, it's not a reliable source. That's the problem. There's plenty of criticism and opinion, but it's just not coming from reliable sources. If we can gather some of those, then we'll be able to get this section back in the article. But, until then, there won't be such a section."

Right on, Wikipedia. It's too bad that you too have to deal with the crazy.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I never realized how these were written and monitored before.

Stevenson said...

I wrote the entire Wikipedia entry, including the positive and neutral statements. To completely erase the controversy is misleading, as the controversy does, indeed, exist. I was not "sent" to do the piece and no one told me what to write. As I am a professional writer, every single statement I made was backed up with a "Wikipedia acceptable" source. They were under no "civil liability for libel". Perhaps the LISTED sources were, but as a writer that's not my problem. Their website is as accurate as a published piece in the Reading Eagle, according to Wikipedia, so that was the standard I kept.

I was not banned, and I continue to write for Wikipedia.

Have a good day.

Fanny said...

Ummm, okay, so who wrote the one that is posted on gwop? It says that the entry had been edited and the writer banned. Are you "Steph"? Are there two entries for them? Help me out here.

FGF said...

The person who changed the article and included the part about Kate having a man trapping vagina and that Jon was tricked into having sex with her to reproduce was a vandal, not the original author. A vandal who is a very vocal member of GWoP. Her name is listed right next to the Wiki smack down. It's the same name she uses at GWop and the "super seekret message board" attached to GWoP. Her name begins with a "P" and tasteless comments like that are right up her alley.

As for whether the exclusion of the controversy section is "misleading" or not, I think I'll defer to the Wiki guys, YOUR SOURCES ARE NOT CREDITABLE ENOUGH.

Guinevere said...

I remember reading some of the Wikipedia background stuff a month or two ago - I wasn't ever really aware that those logs were public, even though I probably look stuff up on Wikipedia a dozen times a week. It did make for interesting reading, and confirmed what I already knew; that some people have a definite agenda where the Gosselins are concerned.

There are so many things that offend me about the anti-Gosselin crowd, but I think the whole "man-trapping vagina" business might just take the cake. Considering that I'm 99% sure that almost every regular poster on GWoP is female, the misogyny is breathtaking. And depressing. Geez, both Jon and Kate are responsible for their own choices, just like the rest of us. What gets me is that I doubt this is even meant as much of a defense of Jon; it's just that some posters hate Kate so very, very much that they go out of their way to blame everything on her.

Fanny said...

The one on gwop was submitted by "steph" who claims to have written the entire article. She says that she's been banned. I've seen preesi post as preesi on gwop and her name is also on the wiki site, so I doubt she'd change it for the submission on gwop.

I personally think "Stevenson" is full of it, and is trying to defend the crap that DID get her banned. "Stevenson" also claims to be a writer, as does the "steph" that has taken credit for the wiki entry.

So "Stevenson", are you the "Steph" that submitted that article or is she just stealing your thunder?

Peeley said...

I find it sad that an entire group of people gets lumped into the same category as one well rather fanatical individual.

Guinevere said...

You know the saying, "You lay down with dogs...."

Anonymous said...

I see the fleas!! There are thousands. Hopping all around me.

Anonymous said...

Dear god-- we all know Wikipedia is oh so very credible in and of itself. From bogus credentials for reviewers to monetary donations to "change" articles to just erroneous information, Wikipedia has as much weight on truth as a feather.

nomoredrama said...

Yeah, Stevenson wrote the article...and he/she just happens to frequent blogs dedicated to the show on a regular basis....I think I'll go look for the loch ness monster now.

I haven't read the Wiki entries....I don't really use it but what Stevenson says doesn't make sense and, as one of my favorite TV judges says "If Something doesn't make sense, its usually not true"

Anonymous said...

What doesn't make sense?

I might ad that my writing never including anything about a man-trapping vagina or Jon being tricked. Men can't be "tricked" into a pregnancy...that's why condoms exist. (I am all about men taking responsibility for themselves) Certainly Jon knew Kate was taking fertility drugs. I also don't think either one of them anticipated having sextuplets. They may well have not minded having twins again, but that is all speculation. But I DO want to clear that up...if it was written, it wasn't me. (However, it also isn't libel. Libel would have to mean that someone intentionally lied about someone and caused them injury. Of course, that should not have been written, but it also is not libel. And as another poster said, Wikipedia is not the same as Encyclopedia Brittanica...they are relying on people who may or may not know what they are talking about to write articles. Print encyclopedias seek out their own writers)
As for no drama, how can I be the writer in one paragraph and then not the writer in the second paragraph?
I am still writing on Wikipedia. I am working a new stub as we speak. I was initially banned, appealed it, and won. I don't care enough about that particular article to go back and do anything with it, but I just don't appreciate you saying I am crazy, a stalker, etc. I am only responding here to set it straight. You seem to relish gossiping about me, who you don't even know, while criticizing others for gossiping. It is human nature, but I just felt the need to defend your "libel" towards me.


Anonymous said...

Ahhhhh I just went to the Wikipedia J&K page and I was clicking around, I didnt edit anything but a page came up that said I am now banned. I felt like my 6 yr old son, who asks all sweet and innocent "what did I do" when he gets in trouble.

nomoredrama said...

I don't recall calling you a stalker or crazy...In fact, I said Yeah, Stevenson wrote the article...and he/she just happens to frequent blogs dedicated to the show on a regular basis....I think I'll go look for the loch ness monster now.

I haven't read the Wiki entries....I don't really use it but what Stevenson says doesn't make sense and, as one of my favorite TV judges says "If Something doesn't make sense, its usually not true"

Please tell me where you see "crazy" or "stalker" stated or even implied. On the other hand, I regularly call GWoPer's stalkers (because they are)...are you a GWOPer? If not, then what are you talking about?

What didn't make sense? This:
I was not banned, and I continue to write for Wikipedia.

See that, my friend, was an "untruth." Or did I misread your last post that said
I was initially banned, appealed it, and won.

When you misrepresent the facts, and forget that there are people who have the back story, it's going to look shady and your credibility will be questioned. Another thing the TV judge says: "If you tell the truth, you don't have to have a good memory"
That being said, what you said in your second post does make more sense...and even seems more feasible that you are the writer.

Just an aside...I found it just a little strange that you just happened to find this blog. Maybe I'm not in on the writers world or what goes on behind the scenes but do most writers stay involved in the happenings of things they wrote months after it was written? And strange that, as if, on cue, you found this site and posted a "correction." The timing was a bit suspicious is all.

Seems like there is probably more to the story than you are telling...but honestly, I really don't care all that much.

Anonymous said...

On the front page, it says that the writer is "worried for the Gosselins safety" and "She's certifiably nuts and the rest of them (who are them?) just enable and encourage the crazy. She actually makes me fear for the Gosselin's safety at times."

I did not say YOU said it, only that it was said. I only questioned YOU about YOUR comment.

Anyway, I was not "banned", as in permanently banned. One of the lower level "editors" banned me, and it was lifted by a higher level editor. So it depends on the definition of banned. I also never said anything close to libel, as everything I wrote was documented. What is on the site currently is actually a lower standard of documentation that I had in much of the "controversy" section. Most of the first paragraphs were from the Gosselin's website. That information is only as good as their word. It could be accurate, it might not be. But that standard, according to the lower level editor, is higher than the Lt.Governor of Pennsylvania's website.

Again, I never said anything untrue. But, I imagine Wikipedia WILL eventually have to deal with some of the things in the "controversy" section. Like the college fund/no college fund question. They say on their site they have none, yet the Lt. Governor of PA says that she opened some up for them in a press conference on their first birthday. SO who is telling the truth? I don't know...I just put it out there.

nomoredrama said...

I did not say YOU said it, only that it was said. I only questioned YOU about YOUR comment.
OOOKKK. But can you at least understand the confusion when the paragraph started out with "as for no drama"

Anyway, I was not "banned", as in permanently banned.
I understand what you are saying but it seems like a semantics game. But yes, does make it more convincing that you are a writer :-)

The libel comments were written by someone at Wiki from what i know (I haven't actually read the history)
So, it seems like at least some of your anger should be directed towards them. There had to be a reason for the banning. One that proved to be debatable (since you were reinstated) but a reason nonetheless. I'm not asking you to hash it out. It's none of my business.

As for the college funds, etc...the website has not been updated in quite some time. The college funds from PA, who knows how much is actually in theme. It costs a lot to send kids to college these days.