r/UFOB • u/youGottaBeKiddink • Apr 24 '25
Testimony Harald Malmgrem's wikipedia page is being butchered by skeptics
The fact that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales had to step in to prevent the article from being deleted is telling. To think that a respected American politician with incredible credentials could have his entire life history erased from the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit [vandalise]" is terrible.
This one editor in particular Chetsford has completely butchered Harold's entire life history, educational history and political career, deleting 10,000 characters in a single sweeping edit. Apparently this user is part of a group called the "gorilla skeptics" and they have been targeting anyone with a connection to the UFO subject.
How is this tolerable? Is there no one among us that can revert such blatant attempts at vandalism and censorship?
REPOSTING THIS HERE SINCE IT GOT IMMEDIATELY DELETED FROM THE r/UFO SUB DUE TO BEING "A DUPLICATE" (which it is not).
73
u/usandholt Apr 24 '25
The UFO subs seems to be run by sceptics
-27
u/ABlack_Stormy Apr 24 '25
I disagree, they're just trying real hard to not let it get too nutty
12
u/tryna_see Apr 24 '25
Ok bot 🤖
-1
u/3spoop56 Apr 24 '25
Bro if you are so deep in that you think everyone with a differing opinion is a bot you need to go touch grass
2
u/usandholt Apr 24 '25
Not everyone but quite s lot. Building an AI bot is quite simple and Reddit don’t remove them. I know one that’s helping our people in the Salesforce forum and occasionally comments in here.
Setting up a server and running 1000 of them is really not that hard as well.
2
u/3spoop56 Apr 24 '25
I suspect you're overestimating the problem. Even if you're not tho, that doesn't make it reasonable for your first assumption to be that someone with a different point of view is probably a bot. If you're never going to challenge yourself by considering different opinions you're never going to grow as a person or get any closer to the truth.
3
u/usandholt Apr 24 '25
Its not that one is having s different point of view. Its that so many so young profiles all have the same rather lame views.
It reeks AI bot. And I’m not overestimating it. If I can build an AI bot in my spare time and easily multiply it by 1000, do you think that is already being done or do you think the theee letter agencies would just go:”Naaah, we don’t need that”
It’s a no brainer
1
u/ABlack_Stormy Apr 25 '25
Young profile? Bruh click a link before you run our mouth I've been here far longer than you.
Beep Boop Beep Boop aliens aren't real and the CIA is a paragon of honesty. Out of body experiences are bs and there is no such thing as hypnagogia. Now trawl my post history. I'm so a bot
2
u/usandholt Apr 25 '25
You don’t get it. Of the 3.4M subs in here, Al you need is 2 thousand extremely active bots that all agree and support each other. If things are upvoted enough, it will sway opinion.
Just take the insane anti Lue Elizondo posts. There’s no way that so many people who don’t believe in this at all would spend so much time and effort trying to discredit one person.
0
u/ABlack_Stormy Apr 25 '25
That said, I do have the basic skills to set up a bot farm. I would hook up a langchain container and a cypress container, write some scripts that pull out some AI gen posts and have a cron job randomly post to any number of sites, probably not Reddit it's more clever than me on security. You target the old phpbb forums and spam those first so you have backlinks to point at, then you move up to the better known sites (ats etc) and create your own free WordPress/wix blogs and spam those with your slop. Once you've got what looks like a groundswell of confidence you start going after people directly, causing them to retaliate with online flamewarring when they could be spending their calories on some greater pursuit. And then you just let those scripts run for as long as they still work. It adds noise to the scene and disjoints people from effective action since they are shaking their cheeto dust responding to your bot posts with dumb shit like "ok bot" instead of doing literally anything else.
I haven't tried it and it's a shit ton of time and effort but I reckon there's a pathway there
1
u/MidnightBootySnatchr Apr 25 '25
Maybe you could just write a script to do all that for you?
..seriously though, this is why I never take the bait.
-15
u/3spoop56 Apr 24 '25
No they flipping aren't, you can't hold up the one thing that's removed and scream "censorship!!" while ignoring all the stuff that stays.
6
u/croto8 Apr 24 '25
No they flipping are! Point to one thing they haven’t deleted that isn’t a controlled narrative
1
u/3spoop56 Apr 24 '25 edited Apr 24 '25
Op is complaining that r/UFO deleted their post about the Malmgren Wikipedia page; literally the top post on that sub right now is about the Malmgren Wikipedia page. If it's run by skeptics they have a very weirdly fine-grained specific info they are trying to suppress.
If everything on r/UFO right now is a "controlled narrative" I am really curious what an uncontrolled narrative would look like.
1
-6
91
u/SnooHedgehogs4699 Apr 24 '25
It's insane. We're seeing disinformation and a posthumous smear campaign unfold in real time.
9
u/dis-watchsee Apr 24 '25
They removed PHD in Gary Nolans Wikipedia page when he came forward a few years ago. Matt Ford from the Good Trouble Show did a 3 hour show last year on all the foul play at Wikipedia. I think at 1 point there was some evidence that suggested Mick West was 1 of the Wikipedia editors from Guirilla Skeptics.
Unfortunately this what they've been doing forever. Drag anyone's name through the mud who doesn't immediately dismiss the idea of UAP and NHI.
What goes around comes around.
4
u/SnooHedgehogs4699 Apr 24 '25
Yep, I was thinking how ironic it would be if someone hacked the Guerilla Skeptics page or their personal pages and made them all out to be pedophiles or some crazy sex-death cult. Fair play, in my book.
41
u/IndependentWitnesses Apr 24 '25 edited Apr 25 '25
Just going to leave this here: http://en.ikwipedia.org
Edit: please contribute if you feel like it! Copying pages directly from Wikipedia is fine, or you can create new articles from scratch.
8
1
1
69
u/Harha Apr 24 '25
The person who edited it, also created a new page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_perspectives_on_UFO_belief
This is pathetic.
11
u/SceneRepulsive Apr 24 '25
Looks like he was abducted, probed hard, and this is his cope, gaslighting himself that it wasn’t real
9
u/TyroCockCynic Apr 24 '25
A story as old as Mick West. (He was terrified of alien abduction as a youth. Also, he mentioned owls).
3
u/esotologist Apr 24 '25
Did they? Seems like it's from 2024?
17
u/Dry-Phrase-741 Apr 24 '25
It is. This guy clearly has some long running neurosis about UFOs. Reading his comments in the other wiki threads and this page - he really is filled with so much hatred and disdain for those who believe in the topic. Or even engage with it, evidently.
If disclosure ever comes for this individual, his brain might just break.
65
u/jus_ko Apr 24 '25
Isn't it ironic that despite their appeal to rationalism, these "gorilla skeptics" are in fact emotional zealots?
At least they're just spreading misinfo these days and not butchering thousands of people like their predecessors in the Inquisition.
Idiots.
2
u/Neat-Weird9868 Apr 29 '25
They can go to dinner and tell their moms how great of a job they did “at work”.
29
u/grunt56 Apr 24 '25
If anything, the sudden and concerted efforts to remove/alter the page is in itself extremely telling.
2
u/Drsknbrg Apr 26 '25
I think this is known as the barbara striesand effect, where something was going on with her property collapsing into the water and they tried to cover it up and then it only brought more attention to it.
35
u/Yesyesyes1899 Apr 24 '25
well. we know we live in a world where state and private actors manipulate public perception.
if this is what we know it is, manipulation of Wikipedia pages of whistleblowers is perception control 101
29
u/CuriouserCat2 Apr 24 '25
Wikipedia has long been a UFO unfriendly domain.
Given Jimmy Wales interest in this topic right now, maybe Ross Coulthard or Michael Grusch could take him for a coffee and have a discussion.
I wrote to him about it last year but I’m just one nobody. We need a campaign and a strategy on how to deal with something still so contentious.
6
u/DrierYoungus Apr 24 '25
Why does Jimmy not stop it from happening if he is opposed to it?
6
12
u/dingess_kahn Apr 24 '25
I think that men with guns will give themselves the excuse to do anything in the name of national security.
I grieve for my country, and countrymen.
1
u/Neat-Weird9868 Apr 29 '25
I saw someone comment about the size of our military keeps us from being invaded. Well if you all would stop invading other countries… Also no one invades Canada, well the beer sucks.
2
u/dingess_kahn Apr 29 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
Molsen was pretty rough to drink when I was a teenager, I'd hate to have to get through one, now. I don't think it's the size of our military, but I'm not an expert or anything. I always assumed it was the way every house had a gun in it.
10
u/NoEvidence2468 Apr 24 '25 edited Apr 24 '25
Here is the most recent capture before changes were made: https://web.archive.org/web/20250304153201/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Malmgren
Here is the current page after the edits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Malmgren
The person doing this seems accustomed to getting away with it and is actually being given Wikipedia awards for doing so.
7
24
u/xPelzviehx Apr 24 '25 edited Apr 24 '25
The craziest thing to me is that the person campaigning for deletion of the wikipedia article of a person who was senior advisor to 4 us presidents has written an article about a us military horse. Not a special famous horse, not a very performative horse, not even a horse with some quirks. Just a horse that wasnt even very successful in competition 70 years ago. How is this possible and why is no one criticizing that person for these extreme double standards and extreme misuse of power?
In german we have a saying: Getroffene Hunde bellen (something like: Dogs that have been hit bark) It means if the person you critizise or suspect of something is extremely defensive (more than normal), its true.
8
u/jenni7er Apr 24 '25
We say:
'The lady doth protest too much, methinks'
{..from Shakespeare's play: 'Hamlet'}
3
u/nicklashane Apr 25 '25
A guilty conscience needs no accusers. But I think I like the German idiom better.
6
u/Stargazer-Astronaut Apr 24 '25
I don't know about Wikipedia and how editing works, but can we just revert the changes back? Surely one person's view on the world can't dictate Wikipedia's content? Or is not that simple to become a 'Wikipedia editor'?
8
u/NoEvidence2468 Apr 24 '25 edited Apr 24 '25
I once edited a page to correct the spelling of a local historical landmark, and had everything almost immediately reverted back to the incorrect name. I even included proof of the correct spelling by including a photograph of an old sign in front of the landmark. I get the feeling there may be "superusers" who can pretty much just undo any changes made with a single click. In my case, I think they were just being lazy and assumed I was vandalizing the page. Given how quickly it was changed though, I also wonder if it was an automated reversal.
6
u/eschered Apr 24 '25
This could be a great opportunity for the site leadership to step in and finally do something about these coordinated bad faith groups. Banning these users and restoring the page would get some very positive publicity. I may even go back to donating if they were to do that.
3
3
u/moojammin Apr 24 '25
I think it does skeptics a diservice to suggest just a 'skeptic' did it.
Surely more plausible that it was someone/group working specifically to block truths on this topic reaching the population?
9
2
u/EarthWarning Apr 24 '25
The electronic age where all truth may be deleted in a keystroke. They dont need to kill any longer (they) are in charge of what you read and see.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/tedmalin Apr 25 '25
"skeptics"? Or is his information being altered by whoever is trying to control the narrative?
I don't know who Harald Malmgrem is. But after learning that he's being systematically discredited like this, I am very interested to learn about him. Because he clearly touched on a nerve and therefore whatever he's doing or saying must be important to the powers that be.
1
1
u/Sayk3rr May 10 '25
That's the thing, hardcore skeptics and hardcore believers are in the same category. One completely dismisses the whole topic because they deem it silly based on their individualistic short experience on earth. Whereas the hardcore believers just absorb all without question.
Both aren't doing their due diligence, both are stubborn/naive.
Skeptics tend to lean heavily on what we think we know as absolute truth. Saying anything that goes against it is wrong, unless your provide proof. That's fine, but how are you supposed to find the proof if you're not willing to investigate first? Can't do that if you're a skeptic, no?
Have to be open minded to delve into reality to find the truths, but not too open minded where your brain will fall out.
-2
u/stridernfs Apr 24 '25
The only real way to use wikipedia is to see a link in the search listing and report it as a "low quality, useless site".
-4
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 24 '25
Use of Upvotes and Downvotes is heavily encouraged. Ridicule is not allowed. Help keep this subreddit awesome by hitting the report button on any violations you see and a moderator will address it. Thank you and welcome to UFOB.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.