Not really such a big thing as defamation over the entire internet but I was subject of a determined attack on Wikipedia by two people for a month or so last year. It was very stressful.
They said that I needed mental treatment for my delusive beliefs that
They convinced everyone else in the sections of Mars on Mars colonization that I was a loony and troll, and putting my own crazy ideas into wikipedia - and deleted all the sections of wikipedia written - not just by me but by other people also - that had details of any of these views.
But the crazy thing was - that I wasn't putting forward my own ideas at all. It was just reporting what is said in dozens of scientific papers, and reports and workshops,and conferences, as you could tell if you followed up the citations.
They deleted paragraphs and one entire article, with almost every sentence and certainly every paragraph having multiple academic citations to papers on the subject, which I was just summarizing.
And going to resolution in wikipedia didn't help because that goes to non experts in the topic area who don't read the citations in the articles - tthey just go by what they as people think seems likely of the various points of views put forward. So in this area for instance what I said didn't match what most people know from news stories that tend to promote Mars colonization as the obvious next step for humanity.
They just hadn't the time to read the articles - if you go to dispute resolution - you are advised to keep things short to a few sentences so it is easy for them to read what you say and assess the dispute.
My main opponent in the debate actually gave up and said he would no longer edit wikipedia after it went to resolution so it failed for that reason. But they were on the edge of possibly permanently banning me from editing Wikipedia on these topics - some of them put that as their view of how it should be resolved. So I don't recommend attempting going as I did to this highest level of dispute resolution in wikipedia for any topics that require specialist knowledge to resolve - it can easily end badly.
It works fine in maths, music, science, most areas - the editors I've interacted with there are much more academic and I've got into interesting discussions about sources for the articles.
Wikipedia is also fine in other controversial areas where there are big lobbying groups such as climate change - they present a good balanced view of the controversy.
But here -there's a big group of enthusiasts who want to colonize Mars, and don't seem to have read much of the literature on exobiology and contamination issues if at all - and some scientists especially Robert Zubrin who is respected as an engineer, but in the area of microbiology and exobiology his ideas on Mars are minority, verging on fringe science. Certainly almost nobody else in the field of exobiology subscribes to them. But the Mars colonization enthusiasts take everything he says as correct in these subjects which are not his speciality at all.
And there didn't seem to be anyone else there who had read the literature on contamination issues. There was one other editor who was sympathetic - and I originally started editing this section on wikipedia in response to a request to add information about issues with Mars colonization - from editors who added a request to expand it just on the basis there must be issues and they weren't being covered.
So I did it by invitation - and there were those who wanted this. But when the others said it should all be deleted, I was more or less on my own there, especially didn't seem to be anyone else who had read the literature on contamination issues for Mars colonization and Mars sample return..
You can see the Article for deletion discussion here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return
Where my opponents don't point to a single factual error or problem with the article and don't refer to any of the citations I use, but just make lots of personal remarks about me as a person. And they won the AfD debate through those tactics.
If you look at the articles on colonization of Mars in wikipedia, then to this day they still hardly touch on the issue of contamination.
I was permitted to continue to edit the section on Planetary protection
They don't seem to mind what I say there, so long as I don't put it into the Mars colonization articles.
Anyway that was stressful, that Wikipedia should be just wiped of all mention of an entire area of academic research. What I wrote certainly wasn't perfect, many flaws in it, but it should have been improved and criticised in detail, not just wiped through personal attacks on me and also deleting work by other people too.
However - it was very localised. Just to the Mars colonization section of wikipedia. Nobody minded if I contribute material on planetary protection outside of that section, or my contributions on music, maths and microtonal music. They don't mind me writing in wikipedia on Mars either so long as it is not to do with issues with colonizing Mars or contamination.
And in long run - because I couldn't edit wikipedia and felt it had to be online somewhere - and particularly - that this whole area of research is hardly ever reported in the news - then I started writing articles for Science20 instead as well as answering questions on those topics here on Quora.
My science20 articles are at Robert Walker's blog
And for my spaceshow talks
Robert Walker appeared on the following broadcasts
They have been pretty much universally well received. Not had anyone saying I'm crazy or mentally deranged for posting these things. Actually even one of the people who deleted my content on wikiedia liked my articles, which surprised me. Just felt that there shouldn't be anything on those topics in the Mars colonization sections of wikipedia.
And then I got invited to talk on the Space Show also which is quite an honour, program that has pretty much all the big names in the Space Industry as guests at one time or another as well as a variety of less well known speakers.
And my science20 articles get thousands of views every month, and - in their small way quite influential.
If you read those articles and then go to read what Wikipedia has to say then is immediately obvious that the topics simply aren't covered in Wikipedia in the sections where you expect them and you can see that the Mars colonization article presents only one view on the subject and more or less ignores contamination (a one sentence mention I think, as a challenge to overcome).
So, maybe some day they will come around and see that.
Meanwhile, I'm still a troll in that section of wikipedia. Last year it was rather stressful for a while and probably part of the reason I had a major attack of gout just after my article on back contamination, which I'd spend many weeks on, was deleted.
But now, I see it as rather amusing. Here you can see where one of the two editors involved in deleting all my stuff in that part of wikipedia labels me a troll for posting links to scientific articles and saying things that are generally accepted by most exobiologists today.
Talk:Life on Mars
Scroll down to where it says "not a forum or soapbox" - and click to expand - same as before - just removes or hides anything I say or just says it's nonsense without a shred of reason.
And got this rather fetching troll icon attached to my comment there:).
Background to it - there was an entire conference on the habitability of present day Mars early last year. The Present-Day Habitability of Mars 2013
I mentioned that in the discussion last year, but he was not impressed and continued to say the surface of Mars is uninhabitable, and wouldn't permit any material summarizing things from the conference to be added to this article.
He pointed to a talk given by one of the presenters where he lists radiation as he tenth in order of significance of challenges for life on Mars - and said that confirms what he says in the Life on Mars article that present day life on Mars is impossible because of radiation. Which for him was a knock down argument.
And since then labels me a troll for talking about such things, even on the wikipedia talk pages.
I tried again this year after the recent breaking news about "swimming pools for bacteria" but this was just more reason for hiding my posts from the page - now they get hidden automatically hours after I post them.
Did an article about the subject here, where I mention this debate:
UV, Ionizing Radiation, Perchlorates Etc - Not Lethal For "Swimming Pools For Bacteria" - On Mars Surface
I should be grateful, as without them I'd never have gone on to write those articles for Science20, pretty sure.
So in the end run I think was very positive.
Though wikipedia is still highly biased in its Life on Mars and Mars colonization section - basically it presents Zubrin's ideas only (though in the Life on Mars it goes further than Zubrin as he acknowledges possibility of present day life on Mars, he said as much in a recent Space Show talk - he just thinks that if there is life there, it would be identical to Earth life so making contamination a non issue for him).
Anyway it only puts forward the viewpoint of those who want to colonize Mars as soon as possible no matter what - with everything else seen as challenges to overcome to achieve that goal - which is a shame.
But on the other hand, if you've encountered any other views on the subject - then when you read the wikipedia articles you can tell right away that you are reading an article written by Mars colonization advocates. So you know where you are as it were. It presents their ideas reasonably well just doesn't have anything else.
Well except for Life on Mars article - that's almost nobody's present day views, it's about six years out of date in it's views on life on Mars (pre Phoenix). Again - anyone who is reasonably up to date on the subject will see this immediately. But might have an effect on others who read it who are not so up to date.
Don't get me wrong, I think there's a lot of potential value in human space flight - especially for exploration at present. It's just that I think the most interesting things we can find in the solar system are to do with origins of life and exobiology - and that also reproducing life forms have the greatest potential to change solar system bodies in ways we can't predict or reverse - and so for both those reasons we have to do it with considerable care. For instance with Mars then probably if we send humans there, they should explore it from orbit around the planet using robots on the surface to avoid contaminating it with Earth life.
If only humans could be sterilized of microbes, like plants that can be grown from a sterilized seed and grown in sterile aqaponics or aeroponics. But sadly that's not possible for us.
See also Robert Walker's answer to In what ways is writing for Quora more fun than writing for Wikipedia, or vice-versa?
They said that I needed mental treatment for my delusive beliefs that
- Mars colonization would greatly increase the risk of contaminating the planet
- that there is a reasonable chance that there is microbial life on Mars and that it is different from Earth life
- and that if we returned a sample from Mars to Earth then it has a tiny but significant risk of having damaging consequences on our environment and humanity if the life there is, for instance, based on a different basis instead of DNA.
They convinced everyone else in the sections of Mars on Mars colonization that I was a loony and troll, and putting my own crazy ideas into wikipedia - and deleted all the sections of wikipedia written - not just by me but by other people also - that had details of any of these views.
But the crazy thing was - that I wasn't putting forward my own ideas at all. It was just reporting what is said in dozens of scientific papers, and reports and workshops,and conferences, as you could tell if you followed up the citations.
They deleted paragraphs and one entire article, with almost every sentence and certainly every paragraph having multiple academic citations to papers on the subject, which I was just summarizing.
And going to resolution in wikipedia didn't help because that goes to non experts in the topic area who don't read the citations in the articles - tthey just go by what they as people think seems likely of the various points of views put forward. So in this area for instance what I said didn't match what most people know from news stories that tend to promote Mars colonization as the obvious next step for humanity.
They just hadn't the time to read the articles - if you go to dispute resolution - you are advised to keep things short to a few sentences so it is easy for them to read what you say and assess the dispute.
My main opponent in the debate actually gave up and said he would no longer edit wikipedia after it went to resolution so it failed for that reason. But they were on the edge of possibly permanently banning me from editing Wikipedia on these topics - some of them put that as their view of how it should be resolved. So I don't recommend attempting going as I did to this highest level of dispute resolution in wikipedia for any topics that require specialist knowledge to resolve - it can easily end badly.
It works fine in maths, music, science, most areas - the editors I've interacted with there are much more academic and I've got into interesting discussions about sources for the articles.
Wikipedia is also fine in other controversial areas where there are big lobbying groups such as climate change - they present a good balanced view of the controversy.
But here -there's a big group of enthusiasts who want to colonize Mars, and don't seem to have read much of the literature on exobiology and contamination issues if at all - and some scientists especially Robert Zubrin who is respected as an engineer, but in the area of microbiology and exobiology his ideas on Mars are minority, verging on fringe science. Certainly almost nobody else in the field of exobiology subscribes to them. But the Mars colonization enthusiasts take everything he says as correct in these subjects which are not his speciality at all.
And there didn't seem to be anyone else there who had read the literature on contamination issues. There was one other editor who was sympathetic - and I originally started editing this section on wikipedia in response to a request to add information about issues with Mars colonization - from editors who added a request to expand it just on the basis there must be issues and they weren't being covered.
So I did it by invitation - and there were those who wanted this. But when the others said it should all be deleted, I was more or less on my own there, especially didn't seem to be anyone else who had read the literature on contamination issues for Mars colonization and Mars sample return..
You can see the Article for deletion discussion here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return
Where my opponents don't point to a single factual error or problem with the article and don't refer to any of the citations I use, but just make lots of personal remarks about me as a person. And they won the AfD debate through those tactics.
If you look at the articles on colonization of Mars in wikipedia, then to this day they still hardly touch on the issue of contamination.
I was permitted to continue to edit the section on Planetary protection
They don't seem to mind what I say there, so long as I don't put it into the Mars colonization articles.
Anyway that was stressful, that Wikipedia should be just wiped of all mention of an entire area of academic research. What I wrote certainly wasn't perfect, many flaws in it, but it should have been improved and criticised in detail, not just wiped through personal attacks on me and also deleting work by other people too.
However - it was very localised. Just to the Mars colonization section of wikipedia. Nobody minded if I contribute material on planetary protection outside of that section, or my contributions on music, maths and microtonal music. They don't mind me writing in wikipedia on Mars either so long as it is not to do with issues with colonizing Mars or contamination.
And in long run - because I couldn't edit wikipedia and felt it had to be online somewhere - and particularly - that this whole area of research is hardly ever reported in the news - then I started writing articles for Science20 instead as well as answering questions on those topics here on Quora.
My science20 articles are at Robert Walker's blog
And for my spaceshow talks
Robert Walker appeared on the following broadcasts
They have been pretty much universally well received. Not had anyone saying I'm crazy or mentally deranged for posting these things. Actually even one of the people who deleted my content on wikiedia liked my articles, which surprised me. Just felt that there shouldn't be anything on those topics in the Mars colonization sections of wikipedia.
And then I got invited to talk on the Space Show also which is quite an honour, program that has pretty much all the big names in the Space Industry as guests at one time or another as well as a variety of less well known speakers.
And my science20 articles get thousands of views every month, and - in their small way quite influential.
If you read those articles and then go to read what Wikipedia has to say then is immediately obvious that the topics simply aren't covered in Wikipedia in the sections where you expect them and you can see that the Mars colonization article presents only one view on the subject and more or less ignores contamination (a one sentence mention I think, as a challenge to overcome).
So, maybe some day they will come around and see that.
Meanwhile, I'm still a troll in that section of wikipedia. Last year it was rather stressful for a while and probably part of the reason I had a major attack of gout just after my article on back contamination, which I'd spend many weeks on, was deleted.
But now, I see it as rather amusing. Here you can see where one of the two editors involved in deleting all my stuff in that part of wikipedia labels me a troll for posting links to scientific articles and saying things that are generally accepted by most exobiologists today.
Talk:Life on Mars
Scroll down to where it says "not a forum or soapbox" - and click to expand - same as before - just removes or hides anything I say or just says it's nonsense without a shred of reason.
And got this rather fetching troll icon attached to my comment there:).
Background to it - there was an entire conference on the habitability of present day Mars early last year. The Present-Day Habitability of Mars 2013
I mentioned that in the discussion last year, but he was not impressed and continued to say the surface of Mars is uninhabitable, and wouldn't permit any material summarizing things from the conference to be added to this article.
He pointed to a talk given by one of the presenters where he lists radiation as he tenth in order of significance of challenges for life on Mars - and said that confirms what he says in the Life on Mars article that present day life on Mars is impossible because of radiation. Which for him was a knock down argument.
And since then labels me a troll for talking about such things, even on the wikipedia talk pages.
I tried again this year after the recent breaking news about "swimming pools for bacteria" but this was just more reason for hiding my posts from the page - now they get hidden automatically hours after I post them.
Did an article about the subject here, where I mention this debate:
UV, Ionizing Radiation, Perchlorates Etc - Not Lethal For "Swimming Pools For Bacteria" - On Mars Surface
I should be grateful, as without them I'd never have gone on to write those articles for Science20, pretty sure.
So in the end run I think was very positive.
Though wikipedia is still highly biased in its Life on Mars and Mars colonization section - basically it presents Zubrin's ideas only (though in the Life on Mars it goes further than Zubrin as he acknowledges possibility of present day life on Mars, he said as much in a recent Space Show talk - he just thinks that if there is life there, it would be identical to Earth life so making contamination a non issue for him).
Anyway it only puts forward the viewpoint of those who want to colonize Mars as soon as possible no matter what - with everything else seen as challenges to overcome to achieve that goal - which is a shame.
But on the other hand, if you've encountered any other views on the subject - then when you read the wikipedia articles you can tell right away that you are reading an article written by Mars colonization advocates. So you know where you are as it were. It presents their ideas reasonably well just doesn't have anything else.
Well except for Life on Mars article - that's almost nobody's present day views, it's about six years out of date in it's views on life on Mars (pre Phoenix). Again - anyone who is reasonably up to date on the subject will see this immediately. But might have an effect on others who read it who are not so up to date.
Don't get me wrong, I think there's a lot of potential value in human space flight - especially for exploration at present. It's just that I think the most interesting things we can find in the solar system are to do with origins of life and exobiology - and that also reproducing life forms have the greatest potential to change solar system bodies in ways we can't predict or reverse - and so for both those reasons we have to do it with considerable care. For instance with Mars then probably if we send humans there, they should explore it from orbit around the planet using robots on the surface to avoid contaminating it with Earth life.
If only humans could be sterilized of microbes, like plants that can be grown from a sterilized seed and grown in sterile aqaponics or aeroponics. But sadly that's not possible for us.
See also Robert Walker's answer to In what ways is writing for Quora more fun than writing for Wikipedia, or vice-versa?
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0