LIKE MORGAN FREEMAN IN MARCH OF THE PENGUINS INWIL SHOW YOU THAT ACTORS HAVE MANY ROLES TO PLAY AND THAT YOU DAVID FARROER ARE NOT AN ACTOR BUT A PALE IMITATION OF NEW ZEALANDS GREATEST AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKER, ACTOR, PHOTOJOURNALIST, AND WIKIPEDIA EDITOR: ANNA WILDING (QC).
Please immediately delete this substack post or face the legal wrath of my stable of lawyers for defamation, slander, libel, obloquy, and defenestration.
Yours regretfully,
Anal Winding
(This is just a coincidence that my name is an anagram of the goddess Anna Wilding’s name.)
I lol'd a lot at this. Thank you. Also anytime anyone brings March of the Penguins into ANY conversation you have my attention. What a film. Those penguins! Morgan Freeman!
Firsty, her biggest "claim to fame" (her documentary) doesn't even have its own wiki page? RIP.
After going to her bootleg Wiki, I noticed that she mentions Buddha Wild won an 'American Kids Choice Award', with sourcing linking back to 4 completely unrelated sources that don't mention this whatsoever. After searching the winners of the 2007 AKCA, it appears that there isn't a 'Best Documentary' category - shocking, I know. 2006 and 2008 also came up empty. How the kids voted for American Idol and Spongebob Squarepants to win over Monk in a Hut is completely beyond me.
I'm assuming it won at the Total Landscaping Kids Choice Awards.
Then I thought I'd have cheeky squiz at the IMDb page for Buddha Wild, specifically the reviews. While on the outside it looks like it has a respectable 7.1/10, looking deeper proves that each user generated review is suspiciously similar in syntax and punctuation. 6/7 users that wrote their circle jerk-y 8-10 star reviews decided that this film is the only one they've ever considered good enough to review - as their accounts are void of any other activity. Out of the 3 third-party reviewers, one leads to a 404 error, one is metacritic, and the third is a review in the sense that it explains the plot. The only actual personal inflection of the article is a throwaway line at the very end.
Honestly? This woman has so many tickets on herself that she practically sold out the whole damn show.
There used to be a Buddha Wild Wikipedia page but it was deleted and salted (prevented from being recreated) back in September 2007. The Anna Wilding page was also deleted and salted back then at the same time.
Recently, in 2020 a new "Anna Wilding (director)" page was created which avoided the salting ban and this was subsequently renamed back to "Anna Wilding" by a new editor being helpful.
Part of the challenge right now from reading all the recent Wikipedia Admin commentary about the new page is that many of the original editors who dealt with all this back in 2007 aren't currently around (or just not involved) so we have fresh well-meaning editors who are having to come up to speed with all the prior history.
Part of the culture of Wikipedia is to assume good faith so as encourage new inexperienced editors to learn 'how things are done' on Wikipedia rather then being punitive and discouraging right off the bat. They're all essentially unpaid volunteers after all. This can mean it takes a while for bad faith editing to be recognised.
After all, it has been almost 14 years (!) since the last Anna Wilding Wikipedia edit-war/sock-puppet/ban/delete-and-salt saga played out.
Deja Poo - that nagging feeling that you've seen all this sh*t before.
So the "award" she won, it was for the KIDS FIRST! Film Festival. It won Best Feature Documentary Category in the USA for Kids Ages 12-18. (Wow quite the award) She submitted poor children to this horror! https://www.kidsfirst.org/kidsfirstnews/2008/11/
That "ANNA WILDING WIKIPEDIA" site is wild (no pun intended). The contact page says "Thank you for considering us for your family's educational needs" WAT?
What continues to baffle me with this one is getting into the White House. Like she was undeniably in the building. Even when you get a regular boring human job, they run a criminal background check, verify your degrees, etc. How the hell did she get through their screening mechanisms?
So simultaneously the best and worst thing about this article is that, when she finds out about it, she's gonna be real mad, which will invariably lead to yet another follow-up article. For this is the way of the Farrierverse. (In earnest, though, David, take care, please.)
Prequel for the trump years I suppose of letting in anyone saying they were a journalist. But would have assumed Obama years would have been different but maybe not.
Edit wars on Wikipedia about controversial topics have been there forever and Wikipedia has a whole culture and set of practices for eventually dealing with them. Lots of emotional and textual labour on the part of unpaid editors is involved. Huge respect for all who do it but it’s a finite resource and tends to be focussed on pages that matter to said editors or have become ‘noteworthy’ for the conflict. Like this one now might :-)
Pages on Politicians and other narcissistically inclined individuals can be especially intense with sock-puppet accounts which are against the rules of Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry
Eventually, the rule-breaking comes into focus and the source-checking resolves and accuracy prevails but it can take a while, especially with an emotionally invested counter-editor.
The Wikipedia user Real77 mentioned in the article was sanctioned and banned (which is as severe a punishment as Wikipedia has) for repeated sock puppetry on the Buddha Wild page back in 2007 and then still kept editing from a different IP address to try to evade the ban. That's persistence!
Real77 was also banned from Wikipedia for repeatedly making legal threats (a big no-no in Wikipedia culture) and only allowed back when they agreed to cut it out. But it seems like they were banned permanently later since Anna Wilding was suing others to force them to promote her - possibly a reference to the 2004 Press Council case. On Wikipedia, it appears both Real77 and Tonyx123 were viewed as sockpuppet accounts working for Anna Wilding.
So reading back through the Wikipedia incident archives for the Anna Wilding and Buddha Wild pages, it would appear they were rather infamous amongst Wikipedia editors back in 2007 when they were both deleted for not being notable enough, amidst a spate of legal threats.
One editor even proposed the pages be "salted" which in Wikipedia means a delete and a block on a page of the same name being recreated. That wasn't the consensus of the vote. Then in 2020, the Anna Wilding page is back. Talk about persistent.
I've left out the links to all these conversations to spare the editors in question from any unwanted attention.
Thanks for the latest instalment David, although I do wonder about your Circadian rhythms sometimes with the early publishing times :-)
Perhaps Anna should be described as just another wannabe using the Trump playbook. From my own anecdotal experience, the people who I respect and admire are those "quiet" achievers whose work speaks for itself. History reveals the "real" achievers as those who publish their work for the betterment of humanity instead of wasting our precious resources on self-marketing and this pointless noise. It really annoys me that we burn coal and cut down forests to fuel this nonsense. It's no surprise to me that the common cold remains uncured in 2021. Aside from the obvious economic incentive to "treat" rather than cure, such a large proportion of the western world's time, effort and therefore money seems to be spent on rubbish.
Going back to Anna specifically again, I note the liberal usage of her self-portrayal as a struggling and downtrodden female professional. I guess her protests of sexism etc on social media resonate with a certain segment of the population, however to me it just smacks of bullshit. She certainly doesn't appear to be struggling financially in any sense of the word, what with the constant threat of litigation.
Anyway it's all very sad to see these kinds of people "believing their own bullshit" as we used to say. I can only hope that before she runs out of life it dawns on her that she spent so much of it on nonsense and that she has some time left to pursue things which make her truly happy.
It's certainly the Trump approach to life of creating your own reality. And hey - it works for some people, if you can't stand living that kind of life. Some people love to, eh.
I have never met someone who has so easily and readily inserted themselves into any kind of current narrative - whether it be hero or victim. Some parts of her story I've ignored, as it almost seems bad taste.
There are many. Makes me feel better about the spelling mistakes of mine that slip into Webworm (there are many, but thankfully readers seem to be understanding).
Yes! I used to work with a guy who did this. His Wikipedia page was hilarious, and the editor comments were hysterical! He constantly overstates his contribution and impact - it’s all partially true but waaaay overblown. I think he might be the Aussie male version of Wilding.
He was quietly 'let go' from our business - I think we were embarrassed that we had taken him at face value. He's had a lot of jobs and I suspect many of them were in the same situation. He mentions military service awards - my brother is ADF and I asked him about them. He said they are a standard 'you're a reservist' medals (participation awards), but on the Wikipedia page it reads like they are a really big deal... so he capitalises on stuff sounding cool, but if you ask an expert in the specific field, it's really nothing. It's difficult to call them out on that.
Other examples - he lists published books on his page... all self published (he gave us all copies of his book for Christmas... it was dreadful). He says he was the General Manager in a specific field for a large company. Actually he was a General Manager for a specific field for a subdivision of a large company - one of around 40. So yeah, tedious to go through and correct.
Very late to this bin fire party but I regret eating before I read her self-penned wedding of the year ‘scoop’ - a heady mixture of bodily fluids (mainly bile and tears of mirth) on this one thank you 😂
LIKE MORGAN FREEMAN IN MARCH OF THE PENGUINS INWIL SHOW YOU THAT ACTORS HAVE MANY ROLES TO PLAY AND THAT YOU DAVID FARROER ARE NOT AN ACTOR BUT A PALE IMITATION OF NEW ZEALANDS GREATEST AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKER, ACTOR, PHOTOJOURNALIST, AND WIKIPEDIA EDITOR: ANNA WILDING (QC).
Please immediately delete this substack post or face the legal wrath of my stable of lawyers for defamation, slander, libel, obloquy, and defenestration.
Yours regretfully,
Anal Winding
(This is just a coincidence that my name is an anagram of the goddess Anna Wilding’s name.)
I lol'd a lot at this. Thank you. Also anytime anyone brings March of the Penguins into ANY conversation you have my attention. What a film. Those penguins! Morgan Freeman!
I laughed audibly at this 😂
Careful. She’ll sue you too!
Nooooooooooooo
I’m screaming! Completely lost it when the comedy career was traced to an open mic night in a small side room.
Screaming is good. It's why I'm here.
I'd scream too, if I saw her in a dark alley......
Wilding Runs Wild : An unauthorised factual documentary (2023)
Or: an authorised unfactual documentary (2023). Depends who gets there first...
I begrudgingly approve.
Firsty, her biggest "claim to fame" (her documentary) doesn't even have its own wiki page? RIP.
After going to her bootleg Wiki, I noticed that she mentions Buddha Wild won an 'American Kids Choice Award', with sourcing linking back to 4 completely unrelated sources that don't mention this whatsoever. After searching the winners of the 2007 AKCA, it appears that there isn't a 'Best Documentary' category - shocking, I know. 2006 and 2008 also came up empty. How the kids voted for American Idol and Spongebob Squarepants to win over Monk in a Hut is completely beyond me.
I'm assuming it won at the Total Landscaping Kids Choice Awards.
Then I thought I'd have cheeky squiz at the IMDb page for Buddha Wild, specifically the reviews. While on the outside it looks like it has a respectable 7.1/10, looking deeper proves that each user generated review is suspiciously similar in syntax and punctuation. 6/7 users that wrote their circle jerk-y 8-10 star reviews decided that this film is the only one they've ever considered good enough to review - as their accounts are void of any other activity. Out of the 3 third-party reviewers, one leads to a 404 error, one is metacritic, and the third is a review in the sense that it explains the plot. The only actual personal inflection of the article is a throwaway line at the very end.
Honestly? This woman has so many tickets on herself that she practically sold out the whole damn show.
There used to be a Buddha Wild Wikipedia page but it was deleted and salted (prevented from being recreated) back in September 2007. The Anna Wilding page was also deleted and salted back then at the same time.
Recently, in 2020 a new "Anna Wilding (director)" page was created which avoided the salting ban and this was subsequently renamed back to "Anna Wilding" by a new editor being helpful.
Part of the challenge right now from reading all the recent Wikipedia Admin commentary about the new page is that many of the original editors who dealt with all this back in 2007 aren't currently around (or just not involved) so we have fresh well-meaning editors who are having to come up to speed with all the prior history.
Part of the culture of Wikipedia is to assume good faith so as encourage new inexperienced editors to learn 'how things are done' on Wikipedia rather then being punitive and discouraging right off the bat. They're all essentially unpaid volunteers after all. This can mean it takes a while for bad faith editing to be recognised.
After all, it has been almost 14 years (!) since the last Anna Wilding Wikipedia edit-war/sock-puppet/ban/delete-and-salt saga played out.
Deja Poo - that nagging feeling that you've seen all this sh*t before.
Time is a flat circle....
Thank you for a good laugh today with this:
"How the kids voted for American Idol and Spongebob Squarepants to win over Monk in a Hut is completely beyond me."
I laughed at “Total Landscaping Kids Choice Awards” 😆
So the "award" she won, it was for the KIDS FIRST! Film Festival. It won Best Feature Documentary Category in the USA for Kids Ages 12-18. (Wow quite the award) She submitted poor children to this horror! https://www.kidsfirst.org/kidsfirstnews/2008/11/
In fact, she didn't win. She was just one of four nominee and came third... https://www.kidsfirst.org/filmfestival/KFB2008/Winners.html https://www.imdb.com/event/ev0002148/2008/1?ref_=ttawd_ev_1
She stretches literally *everything*. And is pretty mad at wikipedia editors on her twitter at the moment...
Bizarre. Deluded. Narcissist. And as fascinating as watching a python shed it's skin while it languishes in a glass enclosure.
Damn Linda that’s eloquent as fuck.
You are very kind! HUGE ups to David for exposing this thang for what it is - thank the lawd for journalists of his ilk, coz jayzuz...........
IMDb credits Moargn Feremna as 'Self' for March of the Penguins, not 'Actor'
Ha! You're right. Good point.
I was wondering about this. Mr Freeman is an actor because he has done a bit of acting, not because he narrated "March of the Penguins".
Morgan Freeman?
Geoff I'd assume the typos are on purpose; a reflection of Anna's form.
That "ANNA WILDING WIKIPEDIA" site is wild (no pun intended). The contact page says "Thank you for considering us for your family's educational needs" WAT?
Like all things Wilding, it is... unusual.
Nominative determinism at work....
What continues to baffle me with this one is getting into the White House. Like she was undeniably in the building. Even when you get a regular boring human job, they run a criminal background check, verify your degrees, etc. How the hell did she get through their screening mechanisms?
So simultaneously the best and worst thing about this article is that, when she finds out about it, she's gonna be real mad, which will invariably lead to yet another follow-up article. For this is the way of the Farrierverse. (In earnest, though, David, take care, please.)
Prequel for the trump years I suppose of letting in anyone saying they were a journalist. But would have assumed Obama years would have been different but maybe not.
Edit wars on Wikipedia about controversial topics have been there forever and Wikipedia has a whole culture and set of practices for eventually dealing with them. Lots of emotional and textual labour on the part of unpaid editors is involved. Huge respect for all who do it but it’s a finite resource and tends to be focussed on pages that matter to said editors or have become ‘noteworthy’ for the conflict. Like this one now might :-)
Biographies of living people (BLPs in Wikipedian) are often flash points and have special cultural processes around them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Pages on Politicians and other narcissistically inclined individuals can be especially intense with sock-puppet accounts which are against the rules of Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry
Eventually, the rule-breaking comes into focus and the source-checking resolves and accuracy prevails but it can take a while, especially with an emotionally invested counter-editor.
Hoo boy!
The Wikipedia user Real77 mentioned in the article was sanctioned and banned (which is as severe a punishment as Wikipedia has) for repeated sock puppetry on the Buddha Wild page back in 2007 and then still kept editing from a different IP address to try to evade the ban. That's persistence!
Real77 was also banned from Wikipedia for repeatedly making legal threats (a big no-no in Wikipedia culture) and only allowed back when they agreed to cut it out. But it seems like they were banned permanently later since Anna Wilding was suing others to force them to promote her - possibly a reference to the 2004 Press Council case. On Wikipedia, it appears both Real77 and Tonyx123 were viewed as sockpuppet accounts working for Anna Wilding.
So reading back through the Wikipedia incident archives for the Anna Wilding and Buddha Wild pages, it would appear they were rather infamous amongst Wikipedia editors back in 2007 when they were both deleted for not being notable enough, amidst a spate of legal threats.
One editor even proposed the pages be "salted" which in Wikipedia means a delete and a block on a page of the same name being recreated. That wasn't the consensus of the vote. Then in 2020, the Anna Wilding page is back. Talk about persistent.
I've left out the links to all these conversations to spare the editors in question from any unwanted attention.
Thanks for the latest instalment David, although I do wonder about your Circadian rhythms sometimes with the early publishing times :-)
Perhaps Anna should be described as just another wannabe using the Trump playbook. From my own anecdotal experience, the people who I respect and admire are those "quiet" achievers whose work speaks for itself. History reveals the "real" achievers as those who publish their work for the betterment of humanity instead of wasting our precious resources on self-marketing and this pointless noise. It really annoys me that we burn coal and cut down forests to fuel this nonsense. It's no surprise to me that the common cold remains uncured in 2021. Aside from the obvious economic incentive to "treat" rather than cure, such a large proportion of the western world's time, effort and therefore money seems to be spent on rubbish.
Going back to Anna specifically again, I note the liberal usage of her self-portrayal as a struggling and downtrodden female professional. I guess her protests of sexism etc on social media resonate with a certain segment of the population, however to me it just smacks of bullshit. She certainly doesn't appear to be struggling financially in any sense of the word, what with the constant threat of litigation.
Anyway it's all very sad to see these kinds of people "believing their own bullshit" as we used to say. I can only hope that before she runs out of life it dawns on her that she spent so much of it on nonsense and that she has some time left to pursue things which make her truly happy.
It's certainly the Trump approach to life of creating your own reality. And hey - it works for some people, if you can't stand living that kind of life. Some people love to, eh.
I have never met someone who has so easily and readily inserted themselves into any kind of current narrative - whether it be hero or victim. Some parts of her story I've ignored, as it almost seems bad taste.
Gotta love all the spelling mistakes ;)
There are many. Makes me feel better about the spelling mistakes of mine that slip into Webworm (there are many, but thankfully readers seem to be understanding).
This sounds so greasy. What a time to jump in the saga. Gonna have to ready my popcorn and read parts I and II
She is truly deluded .... I would give her a C- grade just for the spelling mistakes!
Yes! I used to work with a guy who did this. His Wikipedia page was hilarious, and the editor comments were hysterical! He constantly overstates his contribution and impact - it’s all partially true but waaaay overblown. I think he might be the Aussie male version of Wilding.
Oh no! Did anyone call him out of in? It's awkward to raise I suppose, isn't it
He was quietly 'let go' from our business - I think we were embarrassed that we had taken him at face value. He's had a lot of jobs and I suspect many of them were in the same situation. He mentions military service awards - my brother is ADF and I asked him about them. He said they are a standard 'you're a reservist' medals (participation awards), but on the Wikipedia page it reads like they are a really big deal... so he capitalises on stuff sounding cool, but if you ask an expert in the specific field, it's really nothing. It's difficult to call them out on that.
Other examples - he lists published books on his page... all self published (he gave us all copies of his book for Christmas... it was dreadful). He says he was the General Manager in a specific field for a large company. Actually he was a General Manager for a specific field for a subdivision of a large company - one of around 40. So yeah, tedious to go through and correct.
Thanks for this. Glad his bs was not allowed to persist in your workplace. No doubt it's on his CV!
Very late to this bin fire party but I regret eating before I read her self-penned wedding of the year ‘scoop’ - a heady mixture of bodily fluids (mainly bile and tears of mirth) on this one thank you 😂
I am always happy when someone stumbles on older Webworms... especially this one! She's a wild ride.
In NZ lockdown and without a Tiger King this time, WW has been a gold mine thank you! 😍
She had me at SHHHH I'M GOING TO SNEAK UP ON THE MONKS. Also obsessed with her wedding press release and how she compares herself to Morgan Freeman.
It's a killer opening line. Genuinely.