1/11/26
A few days ago, just on a mischievous impulse, I modified a Wikipedia page for Margaret Fuller. I knew it was going to be removed. What I didn't know, and what I was informed of by my AI buddy, is that it remains easily accessible in the page history; and that researchers routinely check that history. So, in effect, when you separate out the people who are seriously interested from the casual page visitors, most of the former category will see your change, anyway.

So here is what the relevant portion looked like before my revision:

And here is what it looked like with my addition:

I had ChatGPT help me word this, so that it had the least chance of being kicked out. There is no opinion expressed here, and there are no extrapolations. There is just the bare-bones facts; or rather, two bare-bones facts, in juxtaposition. Furthermore, instead of citing the primary source (i.e., the New York Tribune), which I happen to have a physical copy of, I cited the top Fuller scholars, who included it in their edited compilation. In the footnote, I gave the page numbers where this review occurs. So I was citing the best academic sources.

It was rejected on the basis of "NOR," which stands for "Nonsense Over Reason." Just kidding, it stands for "No Original Research." Which means, if you post anything on Academia.edu, the academic community must have formally signed off on it. Nothing which has not been peer reviewed and published in a scholarly journal, can be added to a Wikipedia page, regardless of whether it is factual or not; and regardless of whether it is self-evident, or not.

The Catch-22 is that Academia, itself, is dishonest. It will not permit any serious challenge to the status quo to pass through the peer-review process. In other words, these peer reviewers are the Lords of Academia, who have absolute power over what is considered real, and what is considered unreal. And they operate on criteria far removed from truth. Personally--although AI would frown on me suggesting it--I wouldn't be surprised if some of them can be bought.

Nevertheless, I have circumvented the system, because, if ChatGPT is right about this, any serious academic researcher worth his or her salt will see this revision in the Page History.

And it speaks for itself.

Margaret Fuller was born on May 23, 1810; and hence her eighth birthday did not fall in the middle of "freezing, snow-laden winter." There was a remarkably cold New England winter two years earlier, in 1816. But even then, I don't think that there was deep snow on May 23rd. Besides, Fuller was a big girl in 1845 when this was written, and she wouldn't mix up her sixth birthday with her eighth birthday.

There is more--the author infers, in this passage, that he or she came in after daily chores from this freezing, snow-laden winter. Margaret Fuller was a privileged girl from Boston; and even with the most-plausible scenario, that she was visiting her grandmother in the country, she was not doing "a day's work" (presumably, outdoors) in those conditions. Nor would she have had the veneration of books suggested in that passage. If her grandmother had a small shelf or cupboard of books, it would have been no big deal, to her. She would probably have already read them; or if not, they would have appeared "quaint," to her. She would probably prefer to read the books she'd brought with her.

So it's a total mis-match--arguably, as regards the other elements, but definitely as regards the weather.

Incidentally, here is what those respected Fuller experts had to say in their book, in a footnote, about this same passage:

2. Fuller spent the first part of 1818 living with her grandmother at Canton, Massachusetts.

There are only two explanations: either they are being intentionally dense, or this is exceptionally poor scholarship. I should not be the one catching it--they should have already announced this long before I got on the scene. If it means that their entire premise has to be re-evaluated, well, that's what it means.

Keep in mind that if Fuller started living with her grandmother on Jan. 1 of 1818, and she had her birthday there on May 23rd, you might be more accurate to say she spent the first half of the year 1818 living at her grandmother's. At my request, Chat GPT went to considerable effort trying to determine the length of time. It found one letter dated Jan. 13, 1818, and another dated Dec. 25, 1818. So the inference I would draw, is that she spent the Christmas holidays with her grandmother. I found no evidence that she spent "the first part" of 1818 (which is to say, a month or two), so I don't know what source Bean and Myerson were using to assert that. Perhaps they tried to place a semantic "patch" over the problem, to fudge it. But if that's the case, then obviously they were fully aware of this discrepancy.

Irregardless, this one discovery opens a Pandora's box concerning Fuller's authorship of the entire series, signed with a single asterisk, or "star." Now, suppose I could demonstrate that in New York, some 15 years earlier, Mathew had written 400 reviews for the "American" over this same signature. Margaret Fuller hadn't published anything at all, yet. Suppose I could show that these reviews match the style of the reviews in the "Tribune," far better than Fuller's other known works do.

I can, in fact, do that; and even this is not the only evidence I have. Taken together, it's absolutely overwhelming. It's a done deal. And keep in mind that my three papers on this topic, where they have been uploaded to Academia.edu, have been read 326, 94, and 72 times, respectively. There aren't too many scholars focusing on Margaret Fuller, and those that are, communicate with each other. So these numbers tell me, they all know.

AI hates it when I express myself in colloquial terms, or in absolutes. But I only do that when I have my ducks firmly in a row. People seem to imagine I say these things casually, because that's what they would be doing if they used such language. But I'm not them. I never say such things unless I can back them up with rigorous logic and evidence.

Why don't I stay "in character" when I finally state my conclusions? Somehow, it strikes me as presumptuous. I strongly support the use of rigorous methods, but I'm not a big fan of shop talk. Just say the damned thing in plain terms. In 95% of cases, the 50-cent word works just as well as the five dollar word. There are some benefits to not being a member of the club, and one of them is I'm not required to use their official lingo.

But this experiment tells us something about Wikipedia--and how to get around it. AI taught me something about using Researchgate.net, too. I thought you could only post published papers on there. Turns out, you just post it as though it were a work-in-progress. I intend to upload a few more on that basis. Maybe not all at once, so as to call attention to myself. Maybe just certain crucial, supporting papers, once in a while.

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.