Neal S. Greenfield, Esq.
35 West 35th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(646) 926-5453
September 27, 2019
To the members of the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation and other responsible individuals
Via Email
Re: Wikipedia’s Editing Bias and Resulting Consequences
I am writing on behalf of my client Gary Null, PhD. In the past, I have written to the Wikimedia Foundation’s legal department on several occasions. Those letters were also copied to members of the Foundation’s Board in an effort to find a rational and amicable means to address the fact that Dr. Null has been and is being defamed on his Wikipedia biography, which is constituted as a Biography of a Living Person (“Null BLP”). Our many attempts over the years to edit the Null BLP to bring accuracy and neutrality with verifiable references have been either reverted or censored. Likewise, we have identified and communicated with many other advocates and practitioners of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and non-conventional medicine who likewise have been defamed on Wikipedia and similarly denied the opportunity to make corrections. This includes internationally recognized persons such Dr. Deepak Chopra and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. Despite having received enormous global press coverage for decades, nearly 100% positive, Dr. Chopra’s Wikipedia BLP is laden with unconditional condemnations, slander and blatant untruths about his character, professional achievements, publications and theories. The attached document provides evidential testimony to this truth.
On numerous occasions over the years we have made every legitimate effort to first attempt to edit and correct inaccuracies on the Null BLP as has Dr. Chopra on his BLP. We also requested to be removed completely from Wikipedia as Dr. Null is not the originator of his Wikipedia entry nor did he authorize anyone to create it. In fact, it was a decades’ long opponent of Drs. Chopra and Null, Dr. Stephen Barrett, a disgraced and unlicensed psychiatrist, who Wikipedia editors, sanctioned by Mr. Wales, rely upon as a dependable and “expert” reference source to justify the libelous attacks against both men (see Barrett v Rosenthal 146 P.3d 510 Cal S Ct. 2006). In the case of Barrett vs Tedd Koren (PA Co. Ct No. 2002-C-1837) Barrett’s credentials as a self-proclaimed consumer medical advocate were discredited and he was forced to admit he had lost his medical board certification for having failed the certification examination. However, in every instance, none of our edits were able to withstand immediate censorship and were removed within several minutes. .
My earlier correspondence to the Foundation’s legal department meticulously laid out, point by point, the standards of fairness and objectivity rules that form Wikipedia’s three core content policies: verifiability, a neutral point of view, and no original research. Wikipedia’s editorial standards applicable to a BLP are even more rigorous. We demonstrated how every commentary in the Null BLP violated these policies and by Wikipedia’s own rules the BLP legally warrants prompt removal without further comment.
The legal department’s response and instructions were to continue doing the same things we had tried for years and to no avail. In effect, the legal department was mocking us in the belief that Mr. Wales, the Foundation’s Board and a faction of editors aligned with Mr. Wales’ personal ideological beliefs were above the law.
The legal department’s attitude towards Null, Chopra and other notable alternative medical practitioners is that there is nothing that could be done, and, therefore, they were in effect being punished without recourse by an anonymous group of individuals who equally share a prejudiced and unscientific perspective about advocates in the CAM and non-conventional medical communities. Our additional investigations have uncovered incontrovertible evidence that the majority of these anonymous editors possess no expertise on the health subjects they edit and administer. Moreover, they do so with undeniable malice.
Our team of journalists, scholars and attorneys have spent the past 24 months documenting evidence and identifying individuals responsible for the flagrant fabrications and character denigration found on Wikipedia BLPs. Outside Constitutional counsel informed us that we will be able to defend these challenges in a court of law. We now possess numerous documents from whistleblowers and former top administrators, who supplied us with internal communications among those editors who are personally responsible for editing, protecting and in effect defaming Drs. Chopra and Null with malice of intent. Several editors have already been given notice of potential legal steps to be taken against them. Additional legal notices to other Wikipedia editors are pending.
Below is one example. We have collated over fifty additional and similar statements that can be used in a court of law.
This editor is a Wikipedia administrator, declaring that any attempt to prove or protect the reputation of Gary Null will not be tolerated: “Actually I was following up some obvious agenda-driven IP vandalism. Gary Null is a crank, if your agenda requires you to establish or protect the credibility of Null then you are doomed, I am afraid. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)” & “It is a valid comment from a valid source with a valid criticism of Null’s idiocy. I advise you to pick your fights carefully. As I said before, if you think Null’s views increase the credibility of your position, then you have a very serious problem. This is WP:FRINGE territory, the claims Null makes do not normally get touched by scientists because they are batshit insane. It would be like insisting on official Government refutation of Alex Jones’ claim that the San Bernadino mass shooting is a false flag operation. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)”
It is our contention that accuracy and journalistic integrity on matters of health can be a matter of life or death for millions of ill people who rely upon Wikipedia for scientifically reliable information about medical options for treatment in order for Wikipedia users to make informed decisions. In the absence of providing such encyclopedic information, Wikipedia is encouraging a culture that poses a grave threat to numerous lives. This is a moral issue that violates the underlying principles of medicine to do no harm. To date, there are almost 1,000 health-related entries on Wikipedia that for all practical matters have been hijacked by a specific special interest group with the sole intent to use the encyclopedia in order to advance its own limited ideological view about therapeutic treatments to battle disease. In particular, positive and confirmatory clinical evidence to support a large variety of alternative medical disciplines are categorically disallowed.
Wikipedia’s systemic prejudice, intolerance, and a sustained effort to defame CAM and many of its leading advocates not only imperils public health; it is also in direct violation of Wikipedia’s policies. It also violates various laws regarding defamation and libel. A precedent for taking legal steps against Wikipedia is found in the court ruling of Pitale v Holestine (US Dist.Ct ND. Ill, No 11C00921, February 27, 2012). The ruling was in favor that false and damaging statements made on a website or blog subject the author to liability under defamation laws. Furthermore, the case of Huron v Denton (841 F. 3d 733, 7th Circuit 2016) ruled that a website is not a passive transmitter of information present by others when conditions are such that it requires contributors to provide disparaging comments as a condition of being published. Under such a ruling Wikipedia’s claims to benefit and protect itself under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for defamatory statements can be legally challenged. To emphasize the gravity of the seriousness that Mr. Wales and Wikipedia editors may face, we are informing you that we have volumes of conversations between Wikipedia editors and others confirming their intentions to only rely upon negative material in order to destroy people’s reputations.
Since our previous letters addressed to Mr. Wales have gone unheeded, this is being addressed to Board members in the hopes that you find the wisdom to rectify the matter without delay. We have gathered much data from our investigations and only await another sound reason to make it public.
Sincerely,
Neal S. Greenfield