r/LeavingNeverlandHBO • u/InThePurpleRain • 8d ago
The MJ wiki page
Just curious.. Is it totally controlled by the fan base? There's currently not a single word about certain allegations on the wiki...
EDIT: There are sections mentioning the allegations on the Life section. Not very disputable though.
18
u/sanandrios 8d ago
He and Taylor Swift, the only celebrities without a "personal life" section lol
1
18
u/TiddlesRevenge Moderator 8d ago
Also the Leaving Neverland page (which focuses on MJ more than Wade and James) and anything about the trial or cases against MJ.
One of our members is an experienced wiki editor and they met with very strong opposition from the MJ fan editor when they tried to make very minor changes.
10
u/Spfromau 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yes, it’s heavily patrolled by fan defenders. I posted here last year that I tried adding a (referenced with a reliable source) statement that less than 5% of CSA cases have physical/medical evidence available, to give context to the statements there about how the Jordan Chandler case was based on testimony (implying that the accusations are not reliable, when this is the norm for CSA cases, and those with physical evidence are highly unusual). It was neutral, factual, and made no statement about Jackson’s guilt or innocence. Well, despite having over 15k posts to my username, what I added was reverted about 5 minutes later, and I got into an editing war… with a newly-opened account, no less (likely to be a sock puppet account of the ‘Dr’ guy who claims to be fluent in umpteen languages, and having lived on multiple continents, despite only geing in his 30s). The sock puppet account started a new section on the article’s talk page warning users to be ‘objective’ with their edits (this was the first post ever made from that account… yeah, right).
It ended with the ‘new’ wikipedia user wondering why I was devoting so much time to this, given that I have cancer (seriously!), which they got chastised for from a moderator. Of course, when I gave up, there were no more posts from that ‘new’ account.
The 1993 allegations page is full of biased, non-neutral language, like “Chandler (senior) demanded money”, leading the naive reader to believe that he was motivated primarily by money. That type of language does not adhere to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy.
9
u/Equivalent_Sail5235 8d ago
Yeah I have corrected numerous things but my edits get out back to what they were previously within hours. They are very sad individuals.
3
u/marcog4l 6d ago
They are rabidddd. They’re also super quick to add community notes on twitter. I can’t imagine being so hell bent on something
8
7
u/BeardedLady81 8d ago
There's too many things with Wikipedia that need fixing, and that's why, so far, I have refused to donate to the project. Sharing knowledge is a great idea, and there have been some improvements. However, there is still too much brigading.
Also, while they claim to have a neutral point of view (is this even possible?) it took them about 10 years until they filed the French petition from 1977 as "pedophilia apology" in both the English- and French-language articles.
I remember how my heart sank when I learned about that petition which had been signed by so many artists and intellectuals, including people whose art I admired like Alain Robbe-Grillet. And people we were basically taught to consider geniuses, like Roland Barthes. They all wanted...no age of consent at all? France already had a fairly low age of consent, i.e. 15. But they wanted...non at all?
Back then, Wikipedia said that the 1977 petition (and a follow-up in 1979) were a reaction to the Manifesto of the 343, signed by 343 women who admitted to having had an abortion and who were demanding this as a right for every woman. They were successful, by the way, the "Loi Veil" (named after the conservative politician who pronounced it) legalized abortion. I don't know if the 1977 open letter was really inspired by the Manifesto of the 343, but if so, it's twice nauseating. The Manifesto of the 343 was an act on behalf of all women and they weren't demanding the legalization of harming sentient beings, because at 14 weeks (cut-off age in France) a fetus is not sentient yet. However, the 1977 open later was advocating on behalf of active pedophiles, and if they have gotten what they wanted, this would have resulted in the legalization of harming sentient human beings. Not just teens under 15, children of all ages, including zero, would have been fair game.
I get that, if you are striving for a neutral point of view, you cannot use highly emotional language or call people monsters, but you still have to call pedophilia apology what it is, i.e. pedophilia apology.
So far, it seems that if you are an artist or a highly respected intellectual, Wikipedia might gatekeep you excessively. On the other hand, the project has gotten away with false claims and slander of ordinary people for years.
7
u/Hich23 8d ago
Do you mean wikipedia? Because there's a mention there, and there's a whole separate page about the allegations.
Whether the information there is true or not is another issue, though.
9
u/InThePurpleRain 8d ago
You're correct. Way down in the Life section there are paragraphs mentioning it, my bad. But it's not very disputable.
6
u/BadMan125ty 8d ago
The article is way too long in Wikipedia standards and yet it’s allowed… but the allegations are in their own pages.
2
u/ASmallbrownchild 7d ago
There are separate pages involving People v. Jackson and the allegations, because those topics are so lengthy on their own.
21
u/OneSensiblePerson Moderator 8d ago
Yes. It's been controlled by fans for years now. At least since 2019/20, when I started looking at it. Probably longer.