A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#1

Post by yasp » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:19 PM UTC

A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
wikipedia.fivefilters.org

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#2

Post by yasp » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:37 PM UTC

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#3

Post by nwah1 » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

I'm confused as to why this is newsworthy? Are we operating on the assumption that the 303 more prolific wikipedians are somehow all without a personal ideology?

If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be to petition to change wikipedia's rules.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#4

Post by codezero » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:41 PM UTC

nwah1 wrote: post #3

I'm confused as to why this is newsworthy? Are we operating on the assumption that the 303 more prolific wikipedians are somehow all without a personal ideology? If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be to petition to change wikipedia's rules.

I think one of the arguments is this isn’t an individual but a group or agency with an agenda and resources to bend Wikipedia to a specific narrative.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#5

Post by k1m » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:42 PM UTC

nwah1 wrote: post #3

I'm confused as to why this is newsworthy? Are we operating on the assumption that the 303 more prolific wikipedians are somehow all without a personal ideology? If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be to petition to change wikipedia's rules.

There's a clear conflict of interest which Wikipedia is refusing to act on.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#6

Post by zero_intp » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:43 PM UTC

seems like a fairly obvious ops campaign by some interested group. I would think that many state organizations would want long term reputable editors to craft their messages.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#7

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:45 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#8

Post by ajross » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:48 PM UTC

nwah1 wrote: post #3

I'm confused as to why this is newsworthy? Are we operating on the assumption that the 303 more prolific wikipedians are somehow all without a personal ideology? If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be to petition to change wikipedia's rules.

> Are we operating on the assumption that the 303 more prolific wikipedians are somehow all without a personal ideology?

Absent evidence, yes. Are you operating on the assumption that wrongdoing is only actionable if everyone else is proven innocent?

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#9

Post by throwaway_98554 » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:48 PM UTC

Judging by the time card, I would bet multiple individuals are using this account. And they're probably getting paid to do it.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#10

Post by whack » Sat, May 19, 2018, 7:48 PM UTC

This is extremely concerning. Phillip Cross was easily caught because he was running his mouth on twitter, and was blatantly making one-sided edits from his single account. Imagine if a country like Russia makes an orchestrated effort to achieve similar goals, using an army of fake-wikipedia-profiles. They could easily turn Wikipedia into a platform for disseminating propaganda. In fact, I'd be surprised if they haven't done so already.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020974/mueller-indictment-in...