Community for discussion of the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland and related topics. Please keep debate/commentary respectful and be mindful that this is a community in support of James, Wade and all other victims.
Has anybody read this? I took a glance at this and straight away it looks like it has been edited by Michael Jackson stans. I have drawn a red ring around parapgraphs that I find particularly suspicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_files_on_Michael_Jackson
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
![r/hockey - [Omar] Scrum at the end of the Leafs Panthers games after a later hit. Panthers fans proceed to throw rats on the ice.](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/VT-Z4nlkVzVxtuWTpdz-At10jUpDSDthI44PegMgRcA.jpg)
I used to be a prolific Wikipedia editor, and have made over 15k edits, mostly related to music chart positions and adding references for these. Unfortunately, certain ‘big’ artists have devoted fans watching their pages like hawks and reverting anything they don’t like or agree with. I don’t think I feel like getting into an edit war with MJ fans over this article, but I am not surprised in the least. The point of Wikipedia is that it is meant to present a neutral account of the topic. Die-hard fans should not be cherry-picking information as though the page was a PR exercise.
That was my thought, too. Even if I could edit, I don’t have the time or energy to get into spats with strangers and check articles multiple times every day.
The people that control celebrity Wikipedia entries have a fanatical drive that I just can’t match.
Imagine if all of them put their energy and passion into something worthwhile; they could really make a difference. Instead they spend it on defending a dead child molester. The world is full of crazies.
Anyone can edit pages on Wikipedia. On protected pages, though, you (from memory) need to be logged into an account that is at least 30 days old and may require a certain number of edits in the user’s history (though it’s not a huge amount). This is done to prevent trolls/vandalism. You could get to the number of edits by fixing up minor things like spelling or punctuation errors on other pages.
Oh, that’s good to know. Might need to resurrect my account.
Is there any way to apply for independent fact checking when there is disagreement about something that is written on a Wikipedia page?
If someone wants me to make specific edits to this Wikipedia page, I can do so, though it would make it easier for me if you outline here (or in message) what needs changing specifically (I am feeling lazy at the moment). I can see, for starters, that there are several unsourced claims in the highlighted text that could be tagged as such.
FBI provided technical and investigative assistance … between 1993 and 1994 … between 2004 and 2005”. This represents 2 years of technical assistance.
https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson
https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-thisweek-michael-jackson-files.mp3/view
Ex-FBI agent Brad Garrett, however,tells a very different story. Within thevideo, he states:
"When you look at the filesthat have become available,they are files where the FBIhas been asked by the policeto help them with certainaspects of the case. Theyare really not operationalFBI cases. For example,coming to the FBI becausethey have forensiccapabilities with computers,to mirror image hard drivesso they can look at theevidence inside of acomputer, or asking forinvestigative strategies orinterview strategies. Sothese really are supportfunctions where the FBI wereinvolved in the case. Theother side of course are thethreats, which wereoperational cases."
Yes, they removed the word "separately" from between the two investigations to make it sound like they were investigating him between those times as well.
Disputes are often discussed on an article’s discussion page. I have in the past reported accounts/IP address users for breaking rules, but if it’s not a clear case of abuse/vandalism, you would normally first try to resolve the issue on th user’s talk page. You wouldn’t e.g. accuse someone of being a stan there if you wanted to appear neutral yourself.
Yes, you are correct. The MJ-related Wikipedia pages are all locked and controlled by a fan called TruthGuardian (or something equally ridiculous).
It’s all written to be extremely misleading, and it’s a major reason why people believe the “10 year FBI investigation” lie.
The Leaving Neverland page has an entire section devoted to explaining that MJ’s streams and music sales actually went up after LN was released (therefore, innocent or something).
What a bunch of scumbags. Is there anything that can be done to kick this prick out of anything MJ-related?
Unfortunately not. I don’t have a track record of editing Wikipedia pages so I can’t touch the locked articles. Check out the editing history and discussion pages for each article. It looks like a real battle.
It’s really not good.
I don’t give a fuck what they write on YouTube and Reddit etc. but Wikipedia for all its faults is a trusted source of information and knowledge by most people.
I’m not going to be the one to spend all my time putting up a fight about it but I wish some hero/heroes would come along and sort this shit out.
EDIT: Dear Lord, look at this page
That actually needs sorted, just the first few paragraphs/lines even, it’s so blatantly been edited by Jackson fans. It fucking actually disgusts me.
As somebody who knows the cases fairly well, I had the same reaction. It’s written to emphasize the fan talking points rather than reality. Unfortunately, people trust Wikipedia more than they should, but the fault lies with the defenders who are knowingly manipulating the platform.
Yes, he was found not guilty. But that was only against one accuser. No, the FBI didn’t find anything incriminating. But they never investigated MJ.
Lying by omission is still lying.
u/TiddlesRevenge already covered how the page is controlled and monitored constantly by fans. Taking the time to read the actual files (and it really doesn't take that long) shows how dishonest the Wiki page is, but people will still default to Wiki in many cases, unfortunately. The disinformation about MJ is one of many examples of why you really can't rely on Wikipedia too much.
What I'll add is that the page isn't just misleading; it includes flat-out falsehoods. The FBI did not begin monitoring MJ in 1992. The investigation into the mentally unwell stalker/letter-writer occurred in 1992. They were investigating that man. The FBI never investigated MJ at all and didn’t participate in in state investigations beyond providing assistance with specific tasks (e.g., providing logistical support to the state detectives who went to the Philippines to interview the Quindoys) detailed in the files
MJ Wikipedia pages are extensively edited by his fans. I created an account to correct some of their lies. Those corrections are undone within a couple of days at most.
Another comment by the same person (I 100 % believe it)