Wikipedia Editors: A Psychological Profile

Wikipedia Editors: A Psychological Profile

Gary Null PhD, August 14, 2019

In looking up information on alternative health issues using a legitimate, highly respected
encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia Britannica we find a fair, balanced, and scholarly
review of the available literature on topics such as traditional Chinese medicine,
homeopathy, acupuncture, etc. Britannica and any of the other six (6) comparable
encyclopedias name the editors and provide curriculum vitae demonstrating their
expertise in the area of their editing. There is no debasement. There are no attacks. No
sense that a person reading any entry should feel mentally incompetent for choosing a
particular piece of information. Also, at no point in these highly revered encyclopedias is
there character assassination, ridicule, mocking, or disparagement of people supporting
any of the alternative and complementary medical approaches. The process is transparent,
instructive, and a benefit.
Now let’s compare that to an experience on Wikipedia which calls itself an encyclopedia,
but fails even the most rudimentary challenges. Most of the editors are anonymous with
no curriculum vitae to see if they have expertise in the area they are editing. Also, words
such as “charlatan,” “quack,” “lunatic,” “fringe,” and “pseudoscientific” are not
uncommon. There is zero transparency. One feels an oozing sense of condescension
viewing the biographies of biologist Rupert Sheldrake, or physician Deepak Chopra, or
the investigative work of Sharyl Attkisson. And these are just a few of the many
individuals who are held in utter contempt, who have been judged as being of no
legitimate value. And even worse, they have been condemned as quacks, charlatans,
opportunists, without ever having been interviewed, as if in a Stalinistic show
trial—condemned without an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
What type of person would attack individuals whose contributions to society have
positively impacted the lives of so many? An online troll perhaps?
According to a study conducted at insensitivity is a common trait of
online trolls. Insensitive people are more likely to have underdeveloped social skills
and emotional IQ and have self-control issues. Perhaps surprisingly, 38% of those
insensitive people (compared to 17% of sensitive people) admitted that they themselves
are sensitive to remarks of others and easily offended. And with respect to self-control,
the study indicates that 43% of insensitive people take their frustrations out on other
people (compared to 12%). Being insensitive and having underdeveloped social skills and

emotional IQ and self-control issues and taking their frustrations out on others is only the
beginning of the inquiry.
In an article published in Psychology Today entitled “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists,
Psychopaths, and Sadists,” Jennifer Golbeck Ph.D. writes, “Trolls will lie, exaggerate,
and offend to get a response.” Similarly, in a study conducted by researchers at the
School of Health Science and Psychology at Federation University in Mount Helen, trolls
scored higher than average on two traits: psychopathy and cognitive empathy. The
researchers suggested that even though trolls “exhibit one kind of empathy, coupling it
with psychopathy ultimately makes them nasty.” They also found that trolls were likely
to be high in sadism and were more likely to be male.
"Narcissists don't really love themselves," writes Darlene Lancer, a licensed marriage and
family therapist, "Actually, they're driven by shame. It's the idealized image of
themselves, which they convince themselves they embody, that they admire. But deep
down, narcissists feel the gap between the facades they show the world and their shame-
based self. They work hard to avoid feeling that shame." According to Lancer, people
with Narcissistic Personality Disorder lack empathy and need admiration from others.
They are self-important, dream of power, believe they should only associate with other
high-status people or institutions, and have an attitude of arrogance.
Whether they are trolls, or cyberbullies, or both, there is no denying that the some of the
anonymous editors on the alternative and complementary medicine pages on Wikipedia
are engaging in the character assassination of individuals connected with alternative and
complementary medicine. ‘Character Assassination’ is a practice in which a deliberate
and sustained effort is made to damage the reputation or credibility of an individual.
Social groups or institutions can also be the target. Martin Icks of the University of
Amsterdam and Eric Shiraev of George Mason University introduced a classification of
seven character assassination methods, which they defined as “anonymous lies’,
‘misquoting’, ‘silencing’, ‘acts of vandalism’, ‘name-calling’, ‘mental illness’ and
‘sexual deviance’. The authors identified the website of Wikipedia as a common context
for ‘anonymous lies’. Our investigations have shown that ‘misquoting’ and ‘silencing’
are also quite prevalent.
And whether they are narcissists or sociopaths, there can be no doubt that they are
abusive. As Lancer tells us, "abuse is abuse, no matter the abuser's diagnosis." People
with other mental illnesses, such as antisocial personality disorder (sociopathy) are also
abusive. And character assassination is abuse.
Science is not on their side. One-hundred thousand (100,000) studies in journals prove
that alternative and complementary medicine works on scientific and clinical levels.
Billions of patient visits in India, China, and the United States show that alternative and

complementary medicine works on the patient level. The lifetime commitment of one-
hundred thousand (100,000) physicians and clinicians helping people cannot be denied.
And yet, a tiny group of abusive people have shown that Wikipedia has a serious
psychological problem. How is it that anonymous editors with no expertise, without any
real debate or discussion, are in a position to judge people whose contributions to society
have positively impacted the lives of so many? How are they in a position to destroy
reputations and intimidate readers from a cloistered, emotionally dark place. Like spitting
cobras all they can do is strike and reload their venom. Strike and reload.
And what have the anonymous editors on the alternative and complementary medicine
pages on Wikipedia contributed to society? How have they improved the world? It is past
time we say no more Wikipedia. No more anonymous trolls with psychological problems
abusing accomplished professionals/professions without consequence, intimidating the
many people who support and rely on these accomplished professionals, or those who
would have sought support from these professionals if they hadn't been made to feel
mentally incompetent just for looking them up in a so-called encyclopedia. No more. It is
time to take away the power they have been given and get them the help they need for
their insensitivity, their underdeveloped social skills and emotional IQ, their self-control
issues, their frustration, their shame, and their arrogance. And perhaps when they receive
that help, they too will be able look at Sheldrake, or Chopra, or Attkisson and recognize
what it means to make a positive contribution to society.