A4M Sues Wikipedia – Quackbuster(?) PropagandistsTargeted…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Tuesday, September 24th, 2009

On August 19th, 2009 the American Association of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) filed suit in a New York State Supreme Court against the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., (solely as a nominal Defendant) and John or Jane Does 1-10.  The Complaint Number is 09111917.

This is a very important case to the anyone involved in health care anywhere in the world..  Why?  Because Wikipedia articles about health care have turned Wikipedia into a PROPAGANDA MACHINE – with the full knowledge, and cooperation, of the management of both the Wikipedia Project, and the Wikimedia Foundation.  Wikipedia is the fourth ranked website on Planet Earth.

More, the abuse is so obvious, and so extensive, I strongly suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation’s claims of “funding by donations” is an outright lie.  I believe that a good case can be made that some, if not all, of Wikimedia’s so-called “Anonymous Contributions”  (the majority of contributions) are, in fact, “Fee for Service Contracts” in disguise, initiated by those controlling and paying for the writing of the articles.

In short, I believe that Wikipedia is a fraud.  Because Wikipedia ranks so high in “hits,” links from Wikipedia to a scurrilous website give that site first page positioning on search engines.  So, the “Fee for Service”people get a double benefit:  (a)  They control health care articles on the fourth ranked website in the world, and (b)  they get top search engine positioning for the rest of their propaganda.

What propaganda is…

SourceWatch.org says: “Propagandists use a variety of propaganda techniques to influence opinions and to avoid the truth. Often these techniques rely on some element of censorship or manipulation, either omitting significant information or distorting it.”

A favorite tactic used by the Wikipedia conspirators is “Name Calling”..  SourceWatch.org defines it as:“Name-calling is a form of ad hominem attack that draws a vague equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea. By linking the person or idea being attacked to a negative symbol, the propagandist hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.”  It is similar to “Demonizing the Opposition.”

Floyd J. McKay of CommonDreams.org says in his article “Propaganda: America’s Psychological Warriors:”

“At its root, propaganda plays on emotions, often defying reason and facts in order to reach into the psyche of the audience. Propaganda is a mind game — the skillful propagandist plays with your deepest emotions, exploiting your greatest fears and prejudices.”

“Successful propaganda uses elementary tools such as labeling and fear-mongering and repeats a simple message over and over, until it is drilled into the heads of the audience. Once embedded, it often remains long after evidence has discredited it — witness the fact that millions of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were connected, and an Iraqi was among the 9/11 terrorists.”

A good write-up on the subject can be found at http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

The A4M v Wikimedia complaint says…

“This defamation action rises out of an ongoing campaign by anonymous editors on the website (http://www.en.wikipedia.org), a free encyclopedia on the internet available to the public, to disparage A4M and its two founders, Dr. Goldman and Dr. Klatz, by posting false and defamatory information about the medical credentials of Dr. Goldman and Dr. Klatz, A4M’s scientific qualifications, and the research findings in the field of anti-aging medicine by A4m’s founders and members.”

The A4M v Wikimedia complaint also says…

“Upon information and belief, Defendants John or Jane Does 1 through 10 (“Defendants)” are anonymous editors of the A4M website entry on Wikipedia, located at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine), attached to in its entirety as Exhibit A, who have posted false and damaging information, as alleged herein, about Plaintiffs on the web page cited above.  The true identities of the Defendants are currently unknown to Plaintiffs, but plaintiffs believe that information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification of each anonymous Defendants’ true name and identity.”

So, what happened to A4M on Wikipedia…

On June 21st, 2006 a Wikipedia Editor named Benbest created the first article about A4M.  It was warm, friendly, and accurate.  The article stayed that way until late 2007.  You can read the original article by clicking here.

On October 17th, 2008 the assault on A4M began with an edit by an unknown person using the hidden ID adding a misrepresentative sentence claiming “The A4M is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, which currently recognizes 130 medical specialties in the US, but has tried to establish anti-aging medicine as a specialty.”  And, there the editing war began between those wanting an honest article and those who wanted A4M presented in the worst possible light.

For the most part, those that sought to deride A4M did so from a hidden identity.  And, when supporters of A4M went into the article to set the record straight one of the A4M detractors (Keepcalmandcarryon) called on the usual trick of getting those people that disagreed with him/her banned permanently from Wikipedia.  At that point the article became a simple “hit piece” against A4M, reading like something on the crackpot quackwatch website.

After the lawsuit was filed, suddenly, a new editor appeared named TimVickers.  Vickers is actually not an editor, but a Wikipedia administrator with direct ties to Wikimedia management..  I suspect he was brought in to solidify Wikipedia’s legal position.  He has kept the “hit piece” article the same.

If you want to see a history of the Wikipedia A4M article editing wars click here.  If you know what to look for you’ll  find some of the “quackbuster” regulars sliming through the pages…

This is the case to watch.

Stay tuned…

Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate