Double Standards?

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[namaste]

Randomous-

You posted in another thread that there exists a double standard here, where GCx apologists are not allowed the same considerations regarding anonymity as others.  IMNSHO, you're mistaken.

The difference, is that you are being deceptive about your identity and reasons for defending GCx.  From your posts, it appears that you are trying to present yourself as "just an average member of the movement."  The truth is, you're employed by the very movement you're here defending (or rather, raising support to go on staff).  You have a vested interest in discrediting criticism, and in the interest of honesty and ethics, you should disclose that affiliation.  

You can, however, have it both ways.  You can avoid deception (intentional or otherwise) by simply adding a disclaimer to your signature that you are on staff with GCx.  You can protect your anonymity by not providing any further identifying information about yourself.

The double standard, is that you've "outed" other posters here, while simultaneously claiming the very rights to anonymity you seemingly seek to deprive others of (see the other thread, where I posted a link to you "outing" another member of this forum).

I am curious, however...how do you justify your claim on a certain online encyclopedia that you simply "care deeply" about the entry of an organization that you participate in editing, and that you aren't being "directed" by other members of the organization to make changes to the article?  There's a word for that, randomous.  It's called lying.

[nateswinton]

From: "Beth Tuttle" <Beth.Tuttle@gccweb.org>
Date: August 3, 2007 11:46:20 AM CDT
To: galenwood@gmail.com, nate.swinton@gmail.com
Cc: "dave@stonebrook.org" <dave@stonebrook.org>,"gcusa1@aol.com" <gcusa1@aol.com>,
Subject: Conference call - Wikipedia discussion

Hello everyone!
I'm writing to see when you are available for a conference call with John Hopler and Dave Bovenmyer to talk about the Great Commission Wikipedia site. The dates that John and Dave are available for are: August 17th, 20th (in the morning), 21st, 22nd (in the morning), 23rd, 24th (in the afternoon) 29th, 30th, 31st (in the afternoon). Please let me know as soon as you can when would work the best for you.
Thanks so much!
-Beth Tuttle

From: krista.bryden@gcachurches.org
To: gcusa1@aol.com; dave@stonebrook.org; nate.swinton@gmail.com; galenwood@gmail.com
Sent: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: Tuesday call

Can everyone make a Wikipedia conference call at 11:30 a.m. EDT (10:30 a.m. CST) next Tuesday, August 21? I know Dave said he was available. What about the rest of you?
thanks,
Krista
Krista Bryden
Great Commission Churches
Administrative Assistant
740.964.1002
info@gccweb.org

FYI, "gcusa1@aol.com" is John Hopler.

At what point do you look around and think to yourself, "Wait, I'm the bad guy in this situation?"  For me, it was when I realized that I was actively breaking Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and working hard to find ways to hide the truth in an encyclopedia article.  All for a group of people that have already effectively forgotten about me.

[Jason Stauffacher]

Nate can you elaborate more here.  There is a much bigger issue here, as they have a whole meeting on re-writing the Wiki site, to do "good PR" for GCM and McCotter.  Right?

-Jason

[randomous]

Whoa there.  I'd recommend you be real sure before calling anyone a liar.  Why are you accusing me of lying?  I put that disclaimer there from the very beginning in an effort to be upfront (which was never reciprocated by certain other editors).  I edit there bc I saw something really askew and wanted to fix it - as any decent person should want to.  No one has ever told me what to write, and I don't edit on behalf of GC.  Even in that conference call I was just trying to brief them on what is necessary to make it accurate - there's no grand conspiracy, sorry.  

The same is true here.  I may be part-time staff, but I don't speak for GC.  People shouldn't take what I write as the words of GC.  I've chosen to participate here, and do not do so in any official capacity.  If you want to think of me as a staff member you can, but I'm not going to put that in my signature bc I don't want to imply that I'm here speaking for GC.  Contrary to popular belief, staff members are people as well.  Writing here is not a part of my job; here I'm just another person, period.

[nateswinton]

No one has ever told me what to write, and I don't edit on behalf of GC.

From: gcusa1@aol.com
Date: April 13, 2007 11:53:43 AM CDT
To: nate.swinton@gmail.com, galenwood@gmail.com

Men,

Thanks for your work on the Wiki site.

My main concern is that the site has changed for the worse of late.  The opening statement copied below is slanted and should be out-right deleted, if possible.   It is clearly an opinion not an objective statement.  

Also, additions of things like the endorsements, the gospel message, the statement of faith, etc.  Would be good.  It is apparent that Jarrod has flooded the site with negative statements and downplayed anything that would be seen as positive.  

Thoughts on what to do???

John

[namaste]

Well, let's see...I think I could probably come up with some more terms for what Randomous is doing (since he doesn't like the term lying).

Hmm...how about creative rationalizing?  Or "truthy."  Distort, prevaricate, mislead, hoodwink, deceive, "fudge," equivocate....

Why don't you just settle on one of those?  I think prevaricate is particularly appropriate here.

As far as preferring not to disclose your affiliation with GCx for fear of being considered the mouthpiece of the organization....well, if that's what you've got to tell yourself so that you can feel better about what you're doing, far be it for me to tell you otherwise.

[AgathaL'Orange]

I actually feel sorry for Randomous.  He has no idea how stunted his life will become.  

GC keeps you from living a full life.  

GC keeps you from being as close to your family as you could be.

GC takes a large portion of your financial resources.

GC takes a large portion of your time.

GC tells you how to think.

GC tells you how to live.

GC tells you how to fall in love.

GC tells you what God thinks.

GC tells you what to say.

GC tells you how to be married.

GC tells you where to live.

GC tells you how to raise your kids.

GC tells you to be committed to them for the rest of your life.


Conclusion:

GC is the best thing I ever quit.

[puff of purple smoke]

So we have emails where two of the highest ranking members of GC, John Hopler (the executive director of GCAC/GCC) and Dave Bovenmyer (on the GCM and GCAC board of directors, and the executive director who led the formation of GCM), are thanking staff members for their work on the Wikipedia article, and further asking them remove more critical information from the Wikipedia article and requesting telephone calls to discuss what to remove.

You know what happened when Microsoft tried something like this? They had a public relations nightmare on their hands. See Microsoft 'tried to doctor Wikipedia' or have a look around for other newspaper articles on the incident. Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, publically rebuked Microsoft for this. In a similar controversy, U.S. Representation Marty Meehan's staff was caught "heavily editing his Wikipedia bio, among other things removing criticisms", which led to a huge amount of backlash. (See Wikipedia Entries 'Cleaned' By Political Staffers , Wikipedia vs Congressional Staffers, and Congressional staffers edit boss's bio on Wikipedia). The have been similar controversies surrounding the articles of 2008 presidential candidates.

There are clear Wikipedia policies against this stuff. This isn't about "inaccuracies" either, it's about GC national leaders orchestrating a PR campaign to hide their history. I wonder if John Hopler realizes how slimy this makes him and his organization seem.

[namaste]

Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a "white paper'' on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside website and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums.

"It seems like a much better, transparent, straightforward way,'' Wales said.

This is a quote from the Microsoft article linked above.  This might be something for GCx to consider.  Unfortunately, doing something like this will require that they directly address the issues that they have consistently ducked out on.

[nateswinton]

This might be something for GCx to consider.

I've suggested that to several GC Leaders over the last year.  
I think there is a general ignorance of how the internet and technology works among the high-end leadership.  I mean John Hopler suggested that we just delete a few sections of the Wiki article at one point, and it took several response emails from myself to explain that it's not that simple.  I'm not sure he understood in the end, but he stopped calling for deletions.

While I was working on the wikipedia article, I really wanted something like that to happen, but they never really pulled it together.  If it ends up like the "why do these criticisms happen" paper that came out a while back, I don't see it being particularly helpful to their cause, though.  That paper had such a twisted angle on the whole issue at hand.

[steelgirl]

So we have emails where two of the highest ranking members of GC, John Hopler (the executive director of GCAC/GCC) and Dave Bovenmyer (on the GCM and GCAC board of directors, and the executive director who led the formation of GCM), are thanking staff members for their work on the Wikipedia article, and further asking them remove more critical information from the Wikipedia article and requesting telephone calls to discuss what to remove.

You know what happened when Microsoft tried something like this? They had a public relations nightmare on their hands. See Microsoft 'tried to doctor Wikipedia' or have a look around for other newspaper articles on the incident. Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, publically rebuked Microsoft for this. In a similar controversy, U.S. Representation Marty Meehan's staff was caught "heavily editing his Wikipedia bio, among other things removing criticisms", which led to a huge amount of backlash. (See Wikipedia Entries 'Cleaned' By Political Staffers , Wikipedia vs Congressional Staffers, and Congressional staffers edit boss's bio on Wikipedia). The have been similar controversies surrounding the articles of 2008 presidential candidates.

There are clear Wikipedia policies against this stuff. This isn't about "inaccuracies" either, it's about GC national leaders orchestrating a PR campaign to hide their history. I wonder if John Hopler realizes how slimy this makes him and his organization seem.

This makes me sick, why can't they live up to their past.  It would be best for the organization.  Other ministries have had to come clean too.  Just yesterday in my area a pastor of a church was accused of a haneous crime.  I hope that this church will admit their mistake.  They already fired the pastor.