Grimes Calls Out The Trolls Putting Pro-Drug Statements On Her Wikipedia

Grimes has put up a Tumblr post that addresses edits that have been made to her Wikipedia page that discuss her use of amphetamines during the recording of Visions. The page cites a March 2012 interview with CMJ in which she described her frame of mind while recording the album: “I blacked out the windows and did tons of amphetamines and stayed up for three weeks and didn’t eat anything.” According to the article’s edit history, the sentence was first added on August 1st, 2013, and has been deleted and put back multiple times since. “Editing a website that people take seriously and reference all the time so that it looks like i think amphetamines are cool is incredibly irresponsible,” she said in the post. “People might read that and think its a cool thing to emulate. I hope you know you are doing the world a disservice.” The current version of the article contains the sentence about amphetamines, but also has a quote from the Tumblr post addressing its inclusion in the next paragraph. Read her full post below.

losing people to drugs and alcohol is the worst because they destroy any good memories you have of them before forcing you to deal with the empty space they leave behind. also whoever keeps putting the few quotes i said early in my career about drugs back into my wikipedia page is an asshole. I don’t want that to be part of my narrative, and if it has to be I want people to know that i hate hard drugs. All they’ve ever done is kill my friends and cause me to be unproductive. Editing a website that people take seriously and reference all the time so that it looks like i think amphetamines are cool is incredibly irresponsible, people might read that and think its a cool thing to emulate. I hope you know you are doing the world a disservice. I just watched another person I care deeply about basically turn into gollum and my heart is broken.

[Photo via Instagram.]

Tags:  
Comments (28)
  1. The Wikipedia page is now talking about something someone did to that very Wikipedia page…that’s the most meta thing ever.

  2. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • Oh, come on. No professor worth their salt would ever let Wikipedia fly as a source/reference on even a basic composition paper.

  3. abat33  |   Posted on Aug 17th +16

    So Grimes essentially wants Wikipedia to rewrite her own history despite the fact that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is supposed to present an unbiased portrait?

  4. Oh no, trolls attacked Grimes’ Wikipedia? It’s funny because these are all things we talk about now.

    • I don’t see how those people editing her Wikipedia page were either assholes or trolls or putting pro-drug statements up. They just put up her own words describing her creative process going into the album. If she wants to either deny or disown her previous statements, then she should have simply done that.

  5. I don’t see how those people editing her Wikipedia page were either assholes or trolls or putting pro-drug statements up. They just put up her own words describing her creative process going into the album. If she wants to either deny or disown her previous statements, then she should have simply done that.

    • I think it has more to do with the fact that her past statements about hard drugs are mostly irrelevant. Though I haven’t seen her Wikipedia page and therefore have no idea to what extent it quotes her on drug use, I don’t think there’s a good enough reason to donate space in her Wiki article to some piddling comments she made early into her career (which were most likely made when she was a complete unknown and had no idea that she would even become a person worth writing a Wiki article about). It’s not like drugs have become a substantial part of her career’s narrative or a reoccurring topic in her work/interviews.

      • I mean, this *was* a profile in CMJ that came out two months after her last album. I think she overshared and now regrets it. I’ve probably done that before, I’m sure. I just don’t think the people who noted it in Wikipedia did anything wrong to be considered assholes though–she could have just said, “I did amphetamines back then when I wrote ‘Visions.’ I was in a really bad place and it was bad for me.” Or something like that. More like a big disclaimer saying “Drugs are bad though!” because that’s what it essentially is now.

  6. Worst headlines ever lately! Stereogum is going the HuffPo and Slate route.

  7. Drugs kill.

  8. Welcome to the future. So much good, wasted, just because it can be.

  9. You said it, Claire. Deal with it.

  10. Oh wait so she DID get tweaked up and record Visions…

    During this next albums press tour, I think she should just make it a point to say that she was “in a bad place- not in her right head” when recording Visions. over and over so it will be regurgitated on wiki eventually.

  11. “I don’t want that to be part of my narrative.”

    Um, too bad, because it already is. You don’t get to rewrite history because you realize in hindsight that the narrative is potentially destructive.

  12. Why did you use a pic of Rooney Mara tho?

  13. Let me get this straight. “People might read [that thing Grimes said] and think its a cool thing to emulate” but it’s the wiki editors who “are doing the world a disservice”? What about the person actually said it?

  14. jloo  |   Posted on Aug 18th +2

    Speaking as a HUGE Grimes fan, I can understand why she would want to downplay the role of drugs in her career… but tbh I strongly associated them with her from, like, the outset. Not necessarily because of the “druggie” qualities of her music or whatever, but, like, I read those comments about her amphetamine use during the creation of Visions and I also read some interview where she talks about a year-long ketamine binge that gave her spiritual insight into creating pop music, or something to that effect. (I assumed that’s what this was in reference to originally.)

    In any case, I’m not sure it counts as “trolling” if you’re reporting facts. Such comments may be inconvenient for her personally, but I’m not sure they were made with the spite and antagonism that makes a troll a troll.

  15. Wikipedia is the common man’s encyclopedia. I feel as though I’m being redundant in stating the obvious, but I’ll proceed with the fact that “common man” is larger than nearly all other types of man combined (making this resource the most accepted school of thought), so the lack of a scholastic seal of approval matters not. And anyways, most of the information that has some actual tangible bearing on reality is either being posted or maintained. Umm… also, eat a dick.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.

%s1 / %s2