Abby Martin Banned on Wikipedia!

Have you ever heard of ABBY MARTIN?

Abby is a journalist with her own program on the RT network. RT is sponsored  by the Russian government and provides a perspective which can be described as the polar opposite of that of Fox News. Many commentators, libertarian, populist and progressive, who are not provided media access in corporate media outlets, are provided an opportunity to talk on RT and on Abby Martin’s program “Breaking the Set”.

Abby is also an artist who maintains an online gallery. Last year she co-directed segments of an independent documentary titled “99%: The Occupy Wall Street Film”.

In short, Abby Martin is an interesting person with a considerable track record in the arts and media. It would not be unusual for a reader, for a citizen, to want to learn more about this person. The casual consumer of information might well turn to Wikipedia for the brief “Whosit”-style article so typical of the digital encyclopedia. Indeed, until recently one could find such a note on the Wiki website.

But not anymore. No, the “supereditors” at Wikipedia have determined that someone with a network news and opinion program, who has participated in the making a documentary film, and produced artworks of note, lacks the “notability” one must possess to earn a note on Wikipedia.

Really? Every dunderhead on Fox News gets his or her own citation. Every pornostar who has turned a trick on camera rates a Wikipedia entry. Defunct publications get articles. Nobodies who have had 15 minutes of fame and no more are written up on Wikipedia. But not “Abby Martin”.

Is it because she is not notable or is it really because she IS notable as one who enables unsanctioned news and opinion to be known? Wikipedia, like such comparable cultural institutions as Amazon and Google, have grown and prospered as outside-the-mainstream trustworthy icons but really are mere tools of the Establishment.



RT TV Network

RT Youtube Channel

Abby Martin’s Breaking the Set Program

Abby Martin’s Facebook Page

Abby’s Artwork


FOLLOW UP: We’ve attempted to accommodate most substantive comments (click on the “Comments” hyperlink at the foot of the post). Several comments take issue with the post and offer a defense of Wikipedia.

One argues that the Dissenting Democrat was incorrect to call the deletion of the “Abby Martin” a banning. Apparently, Wikipedia uses this as a term of art to identify those contributors who have their privileges to post withdrawn. By that standard, the Abby Martin entry was not banned. However, we do not use Wikipedia in-house jargon, we use plain English. The meaning of “ban” or “banning” is to forbid the use of something or the reading of something. Essentially, Wikipedia banned the reading of the formerly approved entry about Abby Martin by deleting it.

Another comment asserts that Wikipedia does mention “Abby Martin” and therefore the Dissenting Democrat was misinformed. Rather the commenter misunderstands the controversy.The original post points out that there once was an article on Abby in Wikipedia and that this article was deleted for the stated reason that it lacked “notability”. The fact that Abby’s name is included in a list of RT on-air personnel is not the same as reading an article about her.

We believe that Abby Martin more than meets any objective standard of what should be “notable” for inclusion in a digital encyclopedia. She hosts a televised news and opinion program, she has produced a substantial gallery of art, and she has participated in the production of a significant documentary film.

We believe that this could well be the result of a bias against persons of progressive tendencies. It may in the alternative be attributed to sheer ignorance.

Although Wikipedia would have us believe that it is the cooperative endeavor of many heads and hands equally responsible for the work product, this is the mythos of the institution. Behind appearances the reality is less romantic. Among the many, many participants, some are more equal than others. These “supereditors”, like the character “Sheldon” on the Big Bang Theory, are very intelligent and well-informed in one or another field but grossly ignorant in others. However, with the over-confidence of the learned, they believe they know everything. They really do believe that if they don’t know something then it must not be important. They make their editorial judgments accordingly.

54 responses to “Abby Martin Banned on Wikipedia!

  1. Reva Guglielmotti

    What a shame, we know her work. We will spread her work, screw them… Go, Abby…..

  2. Interesting. Been following Abbey’s work now for over a year. She’s one of the good ones. I’m curious know who made the decision to remove her entries and whether or not this was in response to external pressure. Anyway thanks for raising awareness about this.

  3. if you are seriously knowledgable about a subject and look it up on Wikipedia, you might find the contents sometimes highly amateurish; RT is now an icon, to ignore some of their team is , at best, sad behaviour;

  4. I am a big supporter of Abby Martin and her Breaking The Set show. I think what Wikipedia is doing just highlights the attitude of the establishment; that if you go against it or show genuine concern for the public and its wellbeing you will be punished for it! Thanks for this article, I will gladly share it! To Abby Martin, keep up the good work that you’re doing! I’m all the way in South Africa and you inspire me!

  5. Reblogged this on kaapvaal and commented:
    Wikipedia has been taking down entries on Abby Martin!

  6. I know how Abby feels. I used to have a lot of articles about me at WikiPedia. One of them was “edited” to make some accusations about me that were provably nonsense, so I edited it back. Next day the accusations were back and I was blocked from editing the story on the grounds that I am not a recognized expert on Michael Rivero. When I went public with their nonsense, all stories mentioning me or my website were erased.

  7. Puzzling. There must be something more to this story. Abbey has a clear leftist slant on things which is pretty annoying but she doesn’t twist as many thing as CNN or Fox news anchors…and she’s very attractive 🙂

  8. and to think i donated to those f**ckers

  9. Well there you go. Wiki been jacked.

  10. Great points. However, usury fueled debt slavery is the MOST highly censored and essential topic on planet earth.

  11. Might this be because of the way she took Rand Paul by the balls?

  12. I know it sounds horribly arrogant, but I think I’m worthy of a Wikipedia article, even if it’s just one paragraph. I was virtually the only person in Seattle who fought the late derelict retired general turned Seattle Schools superintendent John Stanford. I ran for public office SEVEN times – and I ran very unorthodox, yet truthful, campaigns. I may be the #1 Bill Gates critic in the world.

    Perhaps that’s why articles I post or edit on Wikipedia have a habit of disappearing. If I link to an article on one of my websites, the link disappears.

    No, I haven’t written any articles about myself. But if someone else merely mentioned my name in an article about Seattle politics, education reform, Bill Gates or whatever, I’ll be you my name would get deleted real fast.

    In the meantime, I’m working on a series of biographies for my website Politix. I’ll take a closer look at Abby Martin and consider adding her to my list of notable politicos to write about.

  13. P.S. I’ve noticed a mixture of good and bad regarding Wikipedia’s political articles. For example, its article about Gaddafi – one of my heroes – seemed pretty balanced (the last time I checked it). But its articles about 9/11 and Osama bin Laden read like U.S. government press releases, while its article about Bill Gates reads like a Microsoft press release. I noticed the same thing about Encyclopedia Britannica.

    Where does one go to find the truth these days?

  14. The opening sentence answer the question of Abby Martin’s notability.
    You should also see these Wikipedia entries for comparison (all from the RT Wiki page: (a reporter) (a host, like Martin) (a host, like Martin)

    Where does Martin fit in to this range, and is there a horrible capitalist conspiracy to justify her removal from Wikpedia?

  15. Abby don’t need them to be heard or seen!

  16. Congratulations be unto you when the world speaks ill of you, or in this case, if it is too afraid to speak of you at all. Wikipedia is indeed a tool of the establishment and it must be to her great credit and, hopefully, to her pride as well, that these institutions are struck with fear at the sound (or spelling) of the name of a truth speaker.

    She’s also mentioned there:
    Did Wikipedia censors acknowledge their mistake?

  18. This is so bizarre. Abby is definitely Wiki-worthy! My high school buddy got a page for his high school band. Only about 100 people in our hometown have heard of them. Guess they don’t want anyone getting any ideas about what it’s like to be a new revolutionary!

  19. But what is the agenda of RT? Why do they want to give Libertarian types like myself a voice? They must have an agenda right?


    They almost sorta gave you credit for it. 😉

  21. You lost at me your hatred of Fox News. Haters shouldn’t become well-known. Drown in your obscurity.

  22. Why has Abby Martin been banned by an encyclopedia?

  23. One love Abs keep up the pressure.

  24. Wikipedia is run by a group of ill-informed bores who have nothing else better to do than edit contributors articles from the perspective of their own considerably limited knowledge base.

    • I'm with stupid

      Emmanuel, do you have ANY evidence to support “ill-informed bores”?
      Names, examples from discussions?

      If not, save your typing fingers.

  25. I think it is a crying shame that she does not have her own Wikipedia entry, because she certainly is a dunderhead, can turn a trick on camera, a defunct on many level, and is an over rated nobody who have got her 15 minutes of fame reading scripted interview with a hyper & over excited tone of teenage girl, interviewing likes of Larry King and Jessie Ventura.
    How dare Wikipedia shows biases?

  26. cmon wiki we’re onto you !

  27. Wikipedia, like Snopes, is lies, lies, lies, when it comes to matters of importance. It’s much better not to be associated in any way with that disinfo site. Kudos!!

  28. If anyone wants to take the initiate to assemble a page to be offered to them for posting & write a petition to confront Wikipedia, I’ll sign the petition. 🙂

  29. Modern journalism does not allow for definitive exposes or stories. One must present “both sides”. Problem is, there’s only one truth.

  30. pssst….,let’s do something….

  31. So was there an attempt made to create a page and it was taken down? I’m not entirely sure what the issue is here. You do know that Wikipedia doesn’t make its own pages, right? You have to do it. It’s not clear to me what the situation is here. Screenshots of page deletion notices would be helpful here.

  32. Yunshui (Wikipedia administrator)

    To clear up a few inaccuracies…

    Abby Martin is not “banned on Wikipedia”.Two community discussions have established that, at present, there are not enough independent sources available to warrant an article about here. However, should such sources be located or become available in the future, there is no ruling against the creation of an article.

    The decision was not made by “supereditors” (there’s no such thing on Wikipedia) but by a number of editors who participated in an open debate on whether or not Wikipedia’s inclusion guidelines were met. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin (2nd nomination).

    Every “dunderhead at Fox” does not get their own citation (I assume you mean article), nor does every pornstar rate an entry – Wikipedia does in fact have specific and quite rigorous guidelines for both media professionals and pornstars (WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO).

    Nobodies who have 15 minutes of fame are not written up on Wikipedia: the inclusion rules specify that people who are noted for only one act or event are not included. See WP:BLP1E.

    I hope that helps to answer some of your misconceptions.

  33. Seeing this article linked everywhere. Butttt wheres the sources? Abby herself even links this article saying “@wikipedia has now deleted 2 thorough entries ppl have submitted about me, I wonder why?” Well Abby and I are both in the same boat, in that I’m also wondering, “why?”. There’s many reasons why content would be deleted by Wikipedia. That said, I can’t find these articles that were allegedly posted and deleted, so all I have is ‘he said she said’, scuttlebutt and not even a quoted rejection reason from Wikipedia.

    I could be very wrong but from what little information we have on this I don’t think it was because of notability. But more likely because it was a poorly sourced piece.

    Maybe the writer of this blog piece would like to fill in the blanks here and report the news, so that us readers can form our own opinions.

  34. Please do a little homework. Abby Martin was not banned. “Banning” is a process applied to editors, not articles.

    Wikipedia requires subjects of article to meet notability guidelines. Abby Martin did not, but was close enough that if someone did a bit of work to did up decent sources, the article would likely survive.

  35. David E. Siegel

    She was not “banned” — That happens when someone vandalizes Wikipedia or otherwise edits there in serious violation of the rules. In fact, the article about her wasn’t even deleted. Instead it was redirected to the relevant section of the article on “RT (TV network)” where she is mentioned. Wkipedia, big as it is, cannot have an article on everyone on the planet. So it has adopted rules on who should have an article. In general, editors there want to see significant coverage about the person from reliable published sources independent of the subject, which means not fan sites, not blogs, and not pages from the person or her employer, but news or magazine or book coverage or the like. And no “supereditors” were involved, just ordinary volunteers who discussed the issue and came to a judgement. Anyone was welcome to express an opinion and back it up with sources. The result may have been mistaken, and if new sources are presented it can be reconsidered.

  36. Yes, Wikipedia is a joke… I know of another similar example – the Burzynski Clinic’s Wiki article got hijacked several months ago by so-called skeptics who really have nothing of substance to discredit this Clinic but just keep pumping false info with no shame…

  37. Abby Martin represents a powerful voice in the media that must not be silenced for any reason by anybody.

  38. Because she’s only pretending to be a journalist, and is really just a Russian-sponsored mouthpiece for the anti-establishment, conspiracy-theorist-driven counter culture? I think Wikipedia doesn’t want to give any more legitimacy to her show than it deserves. It’s fine as an opinion piece, but the earnestness in which it tries to come off to the viewer as an actual news source with proper fact-checking and sourcing is just plain misleading.

  39. As annoying as Wikipedia deletionists are, it has nothing to do with a pro-establishment bias:

    Latest revision of Abby Martin’s article: – 3 references cited

    Articles about Fox News dunderheads and porn stars: – 106 references cited – 43 references cited – 153 references cited – 148 references cited – 58 references cited

    Articles about other people enabling unsanctioned news and opinion to be known: – 229 references cited – 27 references cited – 43 references cited – 45 references cited – 41 references cited

    This is a numbers game. To shut the deletionists up, you need a bunch of links to cite from multiple sources, all talking about slightly different things.

    For all its problems, Wikipedia is one of the most transparent institutions on the planet. If you read the logs of the deletion discussion, it’s hard to come up with a clear-cut case that political bias plays into this at all:

  40. well..that how it works in the “Land of the Free” 😛

  41. All of this raises a related question: has anyone else from RT been banned?

    On that score here are a few random facts I have managed to glean:

    * RT’s Oksana Boyko has no Wikipedia page (although the presence of a live link on Wikipedis’a article on RT itself which now defaults back to that article (just like Abby’s) would seem to imply she USED to have one;

    * RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze DOES have a page. However, is Sophie allowed to have a page less because she’s a RT correspondent than because she’s Eduard Shevardnadze’s granddaughter?

    * A substantial number of RT shows (eg Politicking, SophieCo, Spotlight, etc) listed in Wikipedia’s RT article have live links on that page but those links all point to Wikipedia’s equivalent of a 404 error (File not found): “Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name”, again implying that articles for them USED to exist but no longer do so.

    * As far as I can tell, many (though not all) of RT’s male presenters appear to have their Wikipedia pages (eg Larry King, Peter Lavelle, Aleksandr Gurnov), but the only woman to have one is Sophie Shevardnadze. Does Wikipedia feel that female presenters are in some way intrinsically less worthy of note than male ones (unless, of course, they happen to have a famous male relation)?

    The fact that pages are deleted whilst making no attemot to fix the broken link is (just MHO) bad practice. But then so is having moderators (aka “supereditors”) for a sitel delete an entries without explanation or providing anm explanatory entry (brief or otherwise) to replace it, distressingly frequent though that now is nowadays (eg Disqus). In fact the latter is more than just bad practice. It is positively Orwellian. (And if you’re now wondering what I mean by that crack, ask yourself what Winston Smith of “1984” fame did for his day job.)

  42. Stephan says above: “The fact that pages are deleted whilst making no attemot to fix the broken link is (just MHO) bad practice. But then so is having moderators (aka “supereditors”) for a sitel delete an entries without explanation or providing anm explanatory entry (brief or otherwise) to replace it, distressingly frequent though that now is nowadays”. This includes some incorrect assumptions. It is common for Wikipedia editors to ad links to pages that do not yet exist (aka redlinks) in hope that someone will later create the page. Had the page existed and then been deleted, the deletion log entry would display, which should give the reason for the deletion or link to the deletion discussion. Oksana Boyko for example, never had a page — anyone can create one at any time, and if cited sources establish notability, it will not be deleted. The same is true for the redlinks on the various shows, none of them ever had a page. Again, anyone is welcoem to create such pages — following a redlink (or searching on one) takes you to a page which says not only that the page does not exist but invites the user to create it.

  43. As to Niels Mayer’s comments I can assure you that Big Pharma never offered me any bribes or inducements to edit their way. i can also tell you that Wikipedia has lots of articles on various “alternative” concepts and institutions. However, particularly on medical topics, Wikipedia follows reliable independent sources, and where there is a dispute, shows all sides in proportion to their representation in such sources. For what ever reasons, alternative medicine is often not well represented in such sources.

  44. Those who believe that Wikipedia is pro-establishment should read its articles on Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. If it has a bias, it is in favor of freedom of information.

  45. I take issue with the statement that “she IS notable as one who enables unsanctioned news and opinion to be known”. This statement is False.

    Go To :

    You’ll see that she is really a tool of the (Russian) Establishment.

    • dissentingdemocrat

      Generally, the Dissenting Democrat allows Comments to be published without a reply. This however deserves correction. Abby Martin and the program she produces is legitimate news and opinion journalism. The channel
      on which it appears is owned by the Russian Government but that is no more germane than acknowledging that
      the British Government owns the BBC World Service. The United States Government does not own ABC, CBS or
      NBC but they are owned by Corporate interests who make their money by keeping the American people fooled.
      The Dissenting Democrat has found that RT TV, and especially Martin’s “Breaking the Set” is a reliable
      source of news and commentary that one cannot find in the Corporate Mainstream Media.

      We also consult, and can recommend, such news sources as The Nation, Progressive Populist, & The Guardian (UK).
      We also use Common Dreams, Portside news service and the Solidarity news service, all of which are
      American owned. We used to be able to recommend Cenk Uyger and Keith Olbermann and Dylan Ratigan but they got fired.

      Before Abby Martin started her program on RT, she facilitated “Media Roots”, a citizen journalism project
      on the Internet and wrote for a variety of American-owned media outlets. She is also a member of the
      Board of Directors for “Project Censored”, an academic-nonprofit media watchdog that has been monitoring
      the failure of many, many American-owned media who neglect to publish important news due to
      self-censorship, Corporate censorship or undue deference to the United States Government.

      We are as grateful to Russia for funding RT as we are thankful that Russia gave asylum to Edward Snowden
      who would otherwise be languishing in an American-owned dungeon for daring to tell the American people
      the truth about those who own the American Government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s