In light of the continuing discussion here, I checked Medline to see if anyone had written about this topic. I found only one paper:

MUNCHAUSEN BY INTERNET: DETECTING FACTITIOUS ILLNESS AND CRISIS ON THE INTERNET , Feldman, Marc D., Southern Medical Journal, 0038-4348, July 1, 2Vol. 93, Issue 7

The paper had an an interesting table that summarized the main characteristics of these cases. The paper also discusses the response of the communities, and has a parallel table for that.

TABLE 1. Clues to the Detection of Factitious Internet Claims

The posts consistently duplicate material in other posts, in textbooks, or on health-related websites. "

The length, frequency, and duration of the posts do not match the claimed severity of the illness (eg, a detailed post from someone claiming to be in septic shock). "

The characteristics of the supposed illness and its treatment emerge as caricatures based on the individual's misconceptions. "

Near-fatal exacerbations of illness alternate with miraculous recoveries. "

Personal claims are fantastic, contradicted by later posts, or disproved (eg, a call to the hospital reveals that there is no such patient). "

There are continual dramatic events in the person's life, especially when other group members have become the focus of attention (eg, as interest in one person started to wane in her group, she announced that her mother had just been diagnosed as terminally ill as well).

" The individual complains that other group members are not sufficiently upportive and warns that this insensitivity is undermining his/her health. "

The individual resists telephone contact, sometimes offering odd justifications (eg, it would be so upsetting as to cause a medical catastrophe, or the telephone lines in the building do not permit incoming calls) or making threats (eg, he/she will run away if called). "

There is feigned blitheness about crises (eg, a cardiac arrest or assault) that will predictably attract immediate attention. "

Others ostensibly posting on behalf of the individual (eg, familymembers) have identical patterns of writing, such as grammatical errors, misspellings, and stylistic idiosyncrasies.

Others ostensibly posting on behalf of the individual (eg, familymembers) have identical patterns of writing, such as grammatical errors, misspellings, and stylistic idiosyncrasies.

That's how Evie Whiting got outed. Her "sister", posting outraged in response to questions about the funeral (a Roman Catholic/Buddhist burial presided over by a rabbi in India, or something like that), had the same highly idiosyncratic punctuation that Evie did.

When she finally came back, she claimed an "enemy" had stolen her laptop and made all these posts to the board in order to discredit her.

The Nikita plagiarist was generally easy to spot, at least in the early days, because she liked names with "Y". Nyky, Dydy, Jasmyne...

No, really.

Evie Whiting

Oh now I want to hear this story too. It's so fascinating. And sad.

The Nikita plagiarist was generally easy to spot, at least in the early days, because she liked names with "Y". Nyky, Dydy, Jasmyne...

Ok, I suppose this is a serious thing, but the above? Just makes me laugh and laugh.

And then she threatened to sic the Internet Police on us.

Dana....stop.....tears.....cheeks.....can't....breathe....BWAH!!!

And then she threatened to sic the Internet Police on us.

Bwahahaha! Heeheehee...that's better than the Phone Cops. Hee.

Now I feel like a crap friend.

Don't feel bad, Heather. It happens to all of us. On the bright side, I've sometimes connected with friends that I hadn't seen for years and didn't know how to reach. This usually seems to happen by accident in an airport, or via a mutual friend.

Oh now I want to hear this story too.

Oh, she was a ficcer from Australia, who claimed 2 children, born (oddly enough, people determined later) on DD and GA's birthdays, who was 21 and was getting her masters' in literature. She posted a lot, which after the fact seemed kind of odd too for a mother of two in grad school. Who has that kind of time?

I think her ailment was pneumonia, but she claimed she brought her laptop to the hospital and continued posting, because she had a WIP she was working on. Then there were some kind of complications, and "her husband" posted using her account, claiming that she'd died but she'd asked him to tell all her friends on the board what had happened. Which, ya know, kind of a red flag: you're suddenly widowed but you have enough emotional energy to post a very long statement to an internet board dedicated to The X-Files? The hell?

Big uproar. Lots of questions about where to send sympathy notes, etc. Her "sister" showed up and gave some information about the funeral, which is when people got suspicious, because it was a really elaborate thing which meant the funeral would be in India, not Australia -- and there *were* Australian Havenites.

People started to ask questions. The sister came back, all outraged, and then the husband, I think. Then people began asking more questions about the legitimacy of *any* of what Evie had said. There were no obituary notices or any indication that much of what she claimed about herself was truel. The address someone gave was dubious at best.

After about a week Evie slunk back, and claimed that her enemy had stolen her laptop and done the whole thing to make her look bad. It was quite remarkable, really.