You're definitely onto something, so I take your point about the narrative likely being manipulated against Lively, but how much though? Thinking objectively about your argument, and just trying to quantify the impact you said this had... Is there a way to know how many people read that Wikipedia page back then? How much did this one thing contribute to the whole smear campaign? Like 1%? Or are we saying millions of people read that Wikipedia and that's why everyone is siding with Baldoni?
Thanks for reading and good questions! No, I don’t think it was a major factor but I think it was a small piece of the puzzle that legitimized Baldoni’s stance. Without the Wikipedia page, Flaa might’ve seemed less legitimate. More like a throwaway YouTuber chasing clout. With the Wikipedia page, she seemed more like a journalist and significant party. But as a follow up I should try to get an idea around what kind of volume that page would’ve seen
I think you should set up shop as a WikiPI.
I need a good gumshoe headshot
You're definitely onto something, so I take your point about the narrative likely being manipulated against Lively, but how much though? Thinking objectively about your argument, and just trying to quantify the impact you said this had... Is there a way to know how many people read that Wikipedia page back then? How much did this one thing contribute to the whole smear campaign? Like 1%? Or are we saying millions of people read that Wikipedia and that's why everyone is siding with Baldoni?
Thanks for reading and good questions! No, I don’t think it was a major factor but I think it was a small piece of the puzzle that legitimized Baldoni’s stance. Without the Wikipedia page, Flaa might’ve seemed less legitimate. More like a throwaway YouTuber chasing clout. With the Wikipedia page, she seemed more like a journalist and significant party. But as a follow up I should try to get an idea around what kind of volume that page would’ve seen