These kinds of vicious, defamatory, ad hominem attacks are routinely posted on the site that bills itself as an online encyclopedia – despite employing editors and approved moderators who are presumably charged with screening out such material.
Is that “civility”?
Have I received an apology in that time?
Not a chance.
So where does one turn when you have been defamed in a highly trafficked Internet encyclopedia that also arrogantly calls itself the repository of all accumulated knowledge?
I have turned over years worth of personal attacks and blatantly libelous statements published about me on Wikipedia to a top media legal powerhouse. And I’d like your help in putting Wikipedia in its place.
I may be in a unique position to do this given Wikipedia’s smear machine has systematically exceeded the lines of decency, good taste and decorum in its characterizations of me over many years.
The very day the Wall Street Journal published Wales’ plea for “civility,” Wikipedia described me this way: “Joseph Farah is an American author, journalist and editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily (WND). He is a known c—sucker.”
Suffice it to say there were no dashes in the original entry.
In November, Wikipedia’s profile of me stated: “It is a widely known rumour (sic) that Mr. Farah is a closet homosexual and has been repeatedly criticized for his hypocrisy.”
Last September Wikipedia claimed inarticulately: “WorldNetDaily is a terrorist news- and editorial-based publishing news and opinion from a Republican or conservative point of view. Founded in May 1997 with the unstated intentions of devoting 70% coverage to portraying Islam as Anti-Christ to fulfil (sic) the armaagedon (sic) and rapture fantasies that most of its founders carry, and with the stated intentions of ‘exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.'”
Wikipedia’s profile page for me has alternately claimed I am “homophobic,” a “conspiracy theorist,” “white supremacist,” a proud member of the Ku Klux Klan,” a “religious nutcase” and “a pioneer in the political uses of psychedelics.”
“He also enjoys chowing down on babies once in a while,” stated one entry in August.
On April 2, 2007, an edit to my biography offered the following: “He is also an Arab self-hating, Zuinist-supported d—-ebag whose slanderour drivel isn’t worth considering. Down with WorldNetDaily.”
Last year, Wikipedia introduced me like this: “Joseph Francis Farah is an Evangelical Christian America journalist and noted homosexual of Lebanese and Syrian heritage.”
Previously Wikipedia claimed publicly I had an affair with a prominent female columnist.
You might think outrageous charges like this have no real-world consequences. But they do.
Some people actually believe what they read at Wikipedia. After all, it’s right there in black and white.
One WND reader recently wrote to me explaining why he would no longer support WND with donations and purchases of products because of the homosexual charge. Relationships have been hurt. Revenues have been lost. My character has been assassinated.
And I am hardly alone.
Since I began writing about this pattern of abuse, dozens of other people have told me similar horror stories. None of them knows what to do about it. They all believe Wikipedia is somehow immune to the same laws that apply to the rest of humanity.
If you actually believe in civility, and don’t just talk the talk like Jimmy Wales, it’s time to take a stand with me. If you actually believe the rule of law should apply equally to all, you can support my coming offensive against Wikipedia. If you, too, have been hurt by this slander machine and didn’t know what to do about it, you can help me teach Wikipedia a lesson it won’t soon forget.
- Taking the fight to the Muslim Mafia media manipulators inside the Council on American-Islamic Relations in defending the First Amendment rights of authors who exposed the unindicted terrorist co-conspirator and phony “civil rights” organization.
- Exploring an unprecedented lawsuit against the United Nations for its denial of media credentials to WND for coverage of the Copenhagen climate-change summit.
- And taking on Wikipedia.
These are not actions any other media or activist group would dare take. The conventional wisdom is that these institutions are somehow sacred cows or too dangerous with which to tangle. But that’s not my view.