Microsoft AstroTurfing: GitHub’s First Puppet CEO May Be Violating Wikipedia Rules With Reputation Laundering by Proxy (Hiding the Serial Strangler From Microsoft/GitHub)

Posted in Deception, Microsoft, Wikipedia at 5:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

About a week ago: Nat Friedman Seems to Be Employing a PR Agency to Turn a Wikipedia Page About Him Into Hagiography and Hide His Strong Links to the Serial Strangler Alex Graveley

Nat Friedman theauthenticco

Before (heavily focused on one topic)

Nat Friedman deletion

After (account removed)

Summary: Wikipedia is being manipulated and is becoming a Public Relations machine; today we take a closer look into the ‘cover-up’ that comes after Nat Friedman, Miguel de Icaza, and their close friend Alex Graveley ‘leaving’ Microsoft

FOLLOWING last week’s quick post we noticed that “theauthentic.co” sort of ‘vanished’ itself from Wikipedia (screenshots above). Who are they and who’s employing them?

Details of domain registration are redacted for “privacy” and anyone trying to find their corporate registration would be disappointed. They’re very secretive. Also, someone who looked on LinkedIn said “they were founded in August 2019″ and they’ve deleted their Wikipedia account as well.

So let’s dive deeper.

Well, there was a working account there a week ago. It seems to be closely connected to or obsessed with Nat Friedman. Is he a client?

We found an LLC in Ohio where they’re supposedly based, but it’s not in the city that they are based in. The address attached to it is a virtual office:







This seems to be connected to “STREICHERT CONSULTING, LLC” under the name of “ASHLEY STREICHERT”:

So-called consulting 1

So-called consulting 2

So-called consulting 3

So-called consulting 4

Tampering with history and manipulating facts is a very Microsoft thing. Microsoft keeps getting caught and Jimbo Wales slammed them for it.

Less than 10 days ago we pointed out that in a very Microsoft fashion a former CEO of GitHub had ‘his’ Wikipedia article turned into some hagiography, owing so a shadowy entity. He must have noticed. We do know that this bunch is watch us closely, based on communications with their representatives. They have plenty to hide!


Nat Friedman Seems to Be Employing a PR Agency to Turn a Wikipedia Page About Him Into Hagiography and Hide His Strong Links to the Serial Strangler Alex Graveley

Posted in Deception, Microsoft, Wikipedia at 4:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Background: Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part XXV — Microsoft Employs Serial Strangler as a Manager, Running GitHub Copilot in Spite of Arrest for Assault on Women | Official Copy Detailing Crimes of Microsoft’s Serial Strangler, Who is Trying to Strangle GPL Enforcement/Compliance With GPL-Violating Copilot | Trial of Microsoft’s Serial Strangler, Who Also Manages GitHub’s Copilot

Nat Friedman SPAM

SPAM brand

Summary: Nat Friedman, who deleted some of his online presence, probably hopes you won’t notice what’s going on with his Wikipedia page this week

Note: Microsofters have long had a habit of defacing Wikipedia in their favour, usually via PR agencies as proxies. They violate Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia’s Jimbo Wales has openly blasted them for it. They never get punished though.


Wikipedia Helps Linux Foundation Spread Lies, Revisionism

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Wikipedia at 5:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IRS n year of formation

Wikipedia is wrong, false

Summary: It’s widely known that the Linux Foundation was really formed in 2007 (a fusion); notice how the IRS filings and Wikipedia contradict this… (sadly, for a lot of companies and organisations Wikipedia is nowadays just “marketing material”, not an objective encyclopedia)

The very name of the Linux Foundation became a lie about a decade ago, shortly before the sellout to Microsoft and ejection/rejection of community representation. In his own words (around that time):


Wikipedia is No Longer Trustworthy on Matters of Commerce and Politics (Because of Financial Motives and Power Incentives)

Posted in Deception, Microsoft, Wikipedia at 4:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 47505702dc17733e78c88f9c25a35362
Trusting Wikipedia
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: Wikipedia may in fact face an existential crisis in the future as its reputation and the degree of trust it deserves diminishes; it’s not the fault of people who run Wikipedia as much as it is the fault of people who game Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource which covers a broad range of subjects in many languages. But that does not mean we should blindly idolise Wikipedia.

The video above was made in response to obvious and rather obscene bias in Wikipedia, especially on Microsoft- and EPO-related topics. But it does not focus on these pairs. Instead it deals with the issue in more generalised terms.

I begin by explaining how I was first introduced to wikis and then to Wikipedia. It was nearly 20 years ago. I’ve since set up and maintained a number of wikis. Some of them are still online (about 18 years already!) but aren’t particularly active. Over the years I’ve experimented with a lot of wiki software and I still work with several (front end and back end) on a daily basis.

The issue isn’t the concept of a wiki per se; many wikis are restricted in the sense that only a trusted set of people can edit them. Some are in access-limited intranets or behind VPN (not merely authentication barriers).

“The issue isn’t the concept of a wiki per se; many wikis are restricted in the sense that only a trusted set of people can edit them.”What makes Wikipedia very sensitive is ironically the degree of openness. Over the years we wrote a great number of articles about Wikipedia, at times highlightinf the way Microsoft was sabotaging it. Even the co-founder of Wikipedia openly blasted Microsoft for it.

An associate asked me today (in light of misinformation), “are there any groups following and/or fighting Microsoft misrepresentation of topics inside Wikipedia or the Wikimedia universe in general?”

This is done not just by Microsoft, but Microsoft is among the worst if not the worst.

Wikipedia interference is not limited to the private sector, either. Governments manipulate Wikipedia as well, but staff of Wikipedia mostly turns a blind eye when Western governments do it.

When it comes to non-scientific articles, Wikipedia has become increasingly troubling if not appalling. The so-called “encyclopedia” is used to settle political and commercial scores, not inform the general public. People who have examined Wikipedia thoroughly enough in recent years can probably relate; a lot of the manipulation is done by intentional omission or relegation of facts.

“When it comes to non-scientific articles, Wikipedia has become increasingly troubling if not appalling.”The corporate or political subjects that have a lot of money at stake are almost guaranteed to be closely guarded by key stakeholders who are more interested in power/money than in facts. This means that readers don’t get the full picture at all; they don’t know this either, unless they’re experts in the particular domains they read about. The references are accordingly biased or cherry-picked, so they cannot compensate for bias in the Wikipedia article (and “Talk” section).

The growing level of manipulation is why I basically assume Wikipedia will stagnate. It is in some sense the victim of its “success” or the victim of its own perceived importance. It gets targeted a lot by Public Relations agencies. Wikipedia manipulation has in effect become a product or a service. Social control media too is being targeted, but we think those platforms already stagnate rapidly. More people see them for what they really are. This lowers the perceive value of those platform (prestige, or how lucrative a target they are).

Wikipedia is just another platform. Nation states outside the US/Canada and Europe cannot easily manipulate the platform. It would not stick for long. It would not work because we know who owns and controls Wikipedia and where they live. It’s not an international platform, except in theory (for optics).

The platform’s issues aren’t limited to this one wiki, either. So creating a Wikipedia alternative would not tackle the underlying problem. Just as creating another social control media would be a misguided strategy (the underlying concept is fundamentally flawed and susceptible to manipulation).

What we see in Wikipedia is a platform control and centralisation issue. The same goes for Twitter and Facebook. They promote some certain agenda and bias, if not for money then for some ideological reasons.

“The platform’s issues aren’t limited to this one wiki, either. So creating a Wikipedia alternative would not tackle the underlying problem.”“I have questions about the viability of Wikipedia’s very nature,” our associate explained this morning, “but since it’s there, it has to be dealt with one way or another. There are no non-political subjects these days especially in regards to technology since computers are about control: either people control their computers or their computers control them and there are many monied interests that are attracted to the power that would be concentrated in their hands as fewer systems control more people.”

This is the information mischief dilemma. Can you trust someone else to manage information for you? Can you correct it? Can you rely on other editors (like coders/developers) correcting it for you?

Our associate noted that “the above is mostly just a paraphrase of what RMS has said many times [and] perhaps there is a relevant page from his writings that could be quoted [...] he wrote a lot about who should control the computer [and] that goes back to even his GNU Manifesto days…”

We ought to focus on the underlying problem and maybe the Internet. It’s not really made to be trusted and many learned from experience that a financial incentive exists to weaponise the Internet to spread falsehoods. The West does it, China does it, Russia does it…

Just because there is “inter” in Internet doesn’t mean there’s no blocking, deranking and other forms of filtering going on, on both a regional basis and a personal basis. A lot of surveillance and censorship go on.

“Even if one forked Wikipedia, it would still not tackle the issue of the upstream “project” distributing revisionism, misinformation etc.”Wikipedia (or similar sites) are less about control of the computer/computing. They’re less about code and mostly about control over information and its dissemination. It is a related issue, but not the same issue. For instance, you could download Wikipedia and edit it locally. But pushing the changes ‘upstream’ can be difficult and subjected to obstruction, not because it is false but because it is inconvenient to some monied interests.

Even if one forked Wikipedia, it would still not tackle the issue of the upstream “project” distributing revisionism, misinformation etc.

The bottom line is, treat Wikipedia with care and caution. It tends to be “spot-on” when it comes to purely scientific topics, but the bias in Wikipedia generally gets worse over time. It’s constantly under attack by an industry eager to spread lies and hide bad publicity (such as scandals).


The Libel Initiative: OSI President Falsely Insinuates OSI Critics Are Homophobic and Requests Censorship of Wikipedia (for OSI)

Posted in Deception, OSI, Wikipedia at 4:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

OSI censorship

Summary: Name-calling and insults (where none are needed) are used to compensate for unfavourable coverage about the OSI; typical corporatism in Wikipedia

To be clear, I don’t know what was changed in Wikipedia, I can only guess based on the context, and I didn’t even know he was gay. This is truly ridiculous.


If Wikipedia is Controlled by Corporations and Mobs, It Needs to Be ‘Cancelled’

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Wikipedia at 7:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Facts have never truly mattered in social control media sites; it certainly seems as though Wikipedia now suffers the very same issue/deficit, allowing oligarchs and their companies to define what goes on in the world and which people Wikipedia should regard as persona non grata

The concept of “cancel culture” or “call-out culture” is the reason I 'left' Twitter about a year ago (well before they decided to suspend me for totally unspecified reasons). The mass-suspension culture of today’s Twitter (I'm in good company) is itself a sort of “cancel culture”. They basically remove voices that they find inconvenient; instead of confronting the arguments they just eliminate the voice or mute the microphone, even permanently. The underlying psyche of “cancel culture” predates the term; in the case of show business, it’s ‘cancel your programme’; in academia, it’s ending tenures or demoting people for their standpoints (even where dissenting views are otherwise encouraged); in workplaces like corporations, it is getting people fired (sometimes doxing to demonise them or blackmail the employer).

“My general perception/view regarding Wikipedia is getting more negative over time (seeing the degree to which it’s manipulated by the rich and powerful, not domain experts or a real community which values facts), so maybe Wikipedia too needs to be “canceled” at one point. Some people have long worked to make substitutes for it.”Criticism of ‘cancel culture’ can be found in Wikipedia, a platform which itself facilitates ‘cancel culture’. It’s closely related to a culture of mass censorship, wherein people aren’t permitted to deviate from some orthodoxy, which itself changes over time and asserts itself by mass intimidation, begetting self-censorship at scale. Social control media is ideal for this or one might say that it is fertile ground for such campaigns. Self-hosting is one option for mitigating if not eliminating this “no debate allowed” attitude.

Techrights is turning 15 later this year. Within just a few years of the site’s existence several large-scale efforts/campaigns were created and then coordinated to “Cancel” the site (before the word “Cancel” was used; back then they used words like “Watch” or “Boycott”). I mention some of these in the video above. Those efforts/campaigns are now defunct (not even online anymore).

A longtime reader and supporter of Techrights, a lovely person who has contributed to GNU/Linux and Free software for about 3 decades, recently contacted us. The allegation was extraordinary, unless one is already familiar with the antics of Wikipedia mobs and PR occupiers. Apparently someone (person or firm) “initiated a fairly extensive campaign to delete my wikipedia page,” the person told us. The page had been there for many, many years. Why now? Why the attempt to “cancel” this person? That person claims that it’s an act of retribution for speaking out on matters of software freedom (given the timing).

“Wikipedia doesn’t define me,” said this person. “I found it a bit amusing because I was the one who RMS tasked to promote GFDL, so I was a “pusher” of contributing to wikipedia and nupedia… and I was eventually deleted,” said the person.

So being “canceled” by (or in) the very platform one contributed a lot to.

“I can’t recall specific examples,” I responded, “but I do recall many other pages like that which have been deleted or under orchestrated calls for deletion.”

It seems like a common act of censorship or retribution — wherein someone wishes to damage the reputation of an individual or an institution. Wikipedia presence is basically meaningless (can be ‘bought’ or paid-for), so I’m glad I’m not in that site, except as an author named in some citations. It’s no secret that articles there can be paid for, manipulated for a fee, and PR-edited (Microsoft does this a lot and it got caught).

I wouldn’t lose sleep over being “deleted” or “canceled” from Wikipedia. It’s like worrying about how many social control media site “followers” one has… for it’s superficial nonsense.

But what’s noteworthy about the whole thing is that people who speak about the concept of Free software or fight back against adversaries of software freedom (by merely speaking about them) can suffer severe consequences to their reputation and morale. This is exactly the sort of thing I experienced in Twitter last year and the reason that became a "write-only" account.

The video goes through Wikipedia’s definition of the concept of getting “canceled”, why it’s done, why it’s potentially bad and so on. My general perception/view regarding Wikipedia is getting more negative over time (seeing the degree to which it’s manipulated by the rich and powerful, not domain experts or a real community which values facts), so maybe Wikipedia too needs to be “canceled” at one point. Some people have long worked to make substitutes for it.


Wikipedia Got Ruined by the Likes of Microsoft Who Pay People to Edit Articles About Microsoft

Posted in Microsoft, Wikipedia at 3:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Microsoft’s manipulation of Wikipedia, where articles about Microsoft products look more like advertisements, reminds us of the need for critical thinking in today’s Wikipedia

MICROSOFT is going down. It is no longer controversial or laughable a claim. It is supported by evidence. The company to gain from it is not Apple (not anymore anyway [1]), it is a variety of companies that build products on top of GNU/Linux and Free software — companies such as Google, Red Hat, and Jolla.

The market share FUD against GNU/Linux has not stopped, not even with Android being so dominant. As Pogson points out, the FUD can even be seen in Wikipedia, where there were OOXML advertisements (disguised as articles) after Microosft had been paying people to distort Wikipedia. Microsoft has entirelt unaccountable large PR agencies editing Wikipedia. That’s how bad it is. They’ll get paid to vandalise pages (as in, add promotional spin), whereas volunteers who fix/add balance to pages will get nothing but a headache (the former group, the shills, has patience and persistence).

Regarding GNU/Linux adoption rates, which based on our sites are very positive (Tux Machines traffic almost doubles in two months), Wikipedia still cites Microsoft-connected entities like the now-disgraced
Net Applications (the Net Applications article in Wikipedia links to Techrights‘ criticisms though). This ought to say how reliable Wikipedia has really become on matters such as GNU/Linux. Several years ago the articles about GNU/Linux cited articles of mine (I had not edited such pages), but over time these citations were removed. Pogson says “Wikipedia seems more a campground for paid shills and such. No interest without enough finances to hired dedicated campers to squat on pages are going to get past those that have. Some areas are without corporate interest or political controversy but on the pages that are, OCD wins. And M$ can make any technology or related technology issue into a political fight. I usually shoot down Wikipedia’s credibility by refering individuals to specific pages where they themselves have domain expertise. Then I ask them to extrapolate to the pages where they know little.”

Not many people can defend against claims that Wikipedia is being distorted by PR agencies and out-of-control employees who won’t disclose conflicts of interest. I myself had found and reported many incidents as such, but I just can’t be bothered anymore. Be cautious of Wikipedia. I only fix the occasional typos I come across; for divisive issues or products (monetary interests) I don’t even visit Wikipedia.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. ‘Haunted Empire’ Profiles Apple After Steve Jobs as a Company on the Decline


Belluzzo and Elop Became Synonymous With Microsoft Moles That Destroy

Posted in Microsoft, Wikipedia at 5:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Rick Bellouszo

Summary: Nokia the latest casualty of Microsoft entryism and the “Elop effect” makes it into Wikipedia

BACK in October there was an article titled “How Stephen Elop Destroyed Nokia” and Wikipedia now has an article about the “Elop effect”, which is another term coined after a Microsoft mole destroyed a company (as Belluzzo did about a decade ago).

There seems to be no turning back for the Microsoft-occupied Nokia, which became somewhat of a patent troll. As for Nokia’s products, they’re a joke. As one new review put it, “Nokia’s new 2520 tablet is one to avoid” and “After testing the device, I wonder why Nokia bothered.”

Making products enables Nokia (Microsoft) to look less like a troll and a bit like a real company. Either way, Elop killed this company and he became somewhat of a meme.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts