Jenna McCarthy and Wikipedia

An article about credibility and being neutral

For those who aren’t familiar with Jenna McCarthy. She is a writer who fights for the truth and finds the humor in every article. I read her daily posts with breakfast and they always get my day off to a good start. I save my favorite quotes to share with my wife. Her way of telling information that is normally boring and unpleasant in nature is an art that many are unable to accomplish. Jenna says “I’m not for everyone” but I disagree. I think everyone should get an attitude adjustment by reading her Substack posts or published books.

You would think that adding humor would detract from the quality and accuracy of the content, but it doesn’t. Jenna has exposed some very involved conspiracies and just about every one of them has been proven true.

On the other side of this article are the media, the government and Wikipedia. Each seem to be controlled by big money. You won’t find a mainstream news article or Wikipedia article that speaks ill of Big Pharma for example. Same goes for our federal government under the Biden administration (or whoever was in charge during that time). These sources were silent on many of the big news stories that should have been told to every citizen. The Great Barrington Declaration and Missouri vs Biden for example both exposed the massive censorship and control of information by sources we are supposed to be able to trust. Many of my favorite substack authors like Matt Taibbi (Received many awards for excellence in journalism), Robert Malone and Bill Rice Jr. have linked to her articles.

It is clear that Wikipedia and the media it uses for many of its required references are anything but neutral. Advertising and tax dollars control what mainstream media is allowed to report on and Wikipedia won’t allow references that are not ‘credible’ in its own definition. Anything outside of this very controlled definition is labeled as a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Recently I looked at Jenna’s Wikipedia article and it said this:

Jenna McCarthy is a conspiracy theorist and disinformation enthusiast. She has written comedic books for children and adults.^[1] Her TEDx Talk "What You Don't Know About Marriage" got over 4 million views on TED.^[2]

I tried to edit her page a month ago and the edits were immediately removed. I tried again yesterday to say “Jenna McCarthy has been called a conspiracy theorist” and the Wikipedia bot Gaismagorm replied that my edits were removed because I was presenting a non neutral point of view. I responded with the following:

The text I was trying to change was the following:
"Jenna McCarthy is an American conspiracy theorist." with no links or arguments to support the claim.

I tried to change it to "Jenna McCarthy has been called an American conspiracy theorist." which is true without argument or need for support.

I then also included an article from Jenna McCarthy that explained what are and are not conspiracy theories. This of course was her opinion which was explained in my edit. To not include any relevant arguments and simply claim that 'she is a conspiracy theorist' is not a neutral point of view. You can't remove my edits trying to correct your current bias and claim that I don't have a neutral view.

Jenna responded to my comment on an article where we were discussing the Wikipedia edit:

I sent them an email. I told them the whole story (with the screenshots you sent me) and said they were guilty of libel. No response, but a) they've already updated my page to just say "she's an author;" and b) there's a big box at the top saying, "an editor has recommended this page for deletion." Hahahaha maybe 'cuz I threatened to sue? Cute, wikipedia. Very cute. [eyeroll]

Current Wikipedia page for Jenna:

Jenna McCarthy is an American author. She has written comedic books for children and adults.^[1] Her TEDx Talk "What You Don't Know About Marriage" got over 4 million views on TED.^[2]

Jenna talks in an article about several conspiracy theories that were proven true in the end.

History: “What do the mafia, Watergate, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Tuskegee syphilis study, Operation Mockingbird, and government mind control have in common?”
Me: “Ooh! I know! Pick me!”
History: “Jenna?”
Me: “They’re all conspiracy theories!”
History: “Well, that’s partially true. They were ‘conspiracy theories’… until they turned out to be true.”
Me: “Dammit! That’s what I meant.”

So, Wikipedia is so controlled by non-neutral forces and they labeled her “A conspiracy theorist and disinformation enthusiast”. None of this was referenced in the Wikipedia article making that claim. They didn’t prove their obviously biased claim. When edits from users were attempted, they were removed. When it was explained that “has been called a conspiracy theorist” would not require proof but “is a conspiracy theorist” does, they removed the claim completely and flagged the page for deletion because it didn’t have links to outside sources.

Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.

This article will now become an outside source to Jenna’s page. She did not pay me to write this and there are no conflicts of interest. I can’t say the same for the editor of Wikipedia that is asking for the deletion.

I know there are a lot of authors out there that have cross posted Jenna’s articles and now would be a good time for them to add links to her Wikipedia page and speak out against the deletion.

Thank you Jenna for educating the world through your own genius brand of humor. Keep it up!