Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

wikipedia.fivefilters.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 387 posts

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#41

Post by tptacek »

Jasper_ wrote: post #36
noobermin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over. It is not a good source for diving into a top-level controversial topic as those articles are long and have many places for people to stump and push for their ideas. The more specific a topic (think, a specific author associated with an ideology vs. the page for the ideology) the better. I think I've just adopted these mental heuristics…

> Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over. Even this isn't true. As a former contributor to the Linux desktop community, false information about projects and codebases I had runs rampant on Wikipedia. One Wikipedia editor with more time on his hands than any of us [0] devotes his time to maintaining those articles, despite self-admittedly having little topical knowledge [1]. T…

If it's "rampant" on Wikipedia, you should have no trouble pointing out examples. So, respectfully, I'd ask that to support your argument with evidence, you do that.

I had trouble editing technical topics I was familiar with, too, and found it incredibly aggravating. I'd write demonstrably true, helpful, factual content about something only to have it struck for lack of sourcing.

It took awhile to get through my head the model of the project, which included as a basic premise that I, as an editor, am not a valid source. I came to the project knowing that, of course, but didn't realize viscerally how much of the technical writing I do implicitly relied on my own experience and understanding as a sort of "source".

On articles that WP'ians pay attention to, you won't get away with doing that. You'll have to tie claims to a secondary source (you usually can't just point to source code, because then you're doing interpretation, which is a form of original research) both for the claim itself and, sometimes, for the noteworthiness of the claim.

The best way to metabolize this is to realize that Wikipedia isn't the Hitchhiker's Guide; it's an encyclopedia, which means the project has explicitly opted-in to some limitations as a tradeoff to accomplish other things.

(Some articles also just have possessive editors; there is dysfunction everywhere, and WP is no exception).

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#43

Post by smsm42 »

always_good wrote: post #29

My friends and I had a shameful game in uni where we competed to see who could make the most egregious edits to wikipedia without getting reverted. What was surprising was just how easy it was. We started with minor edits in small articles, just adding our own name to some list of notable achievers. Then, due to competition, we would add an entire paragraph that fabricated an event. Like adding ourself as a conquista…

It is easy to mess up public places. You can spit on the floor in a bus, throw trash on a street, vandalize Wikipedia. Or you can clean the trash and help Wikipedia. The choice is yours. There's no mystical powers coming in and cleaning up after you - just you and people exactly like you. So before complaining "nobody cared" ask yourself - how did I help? What did I do to expect others to clean up after me and feel entitled offense if they did not? Maybe if you and your friends helped instead of messing it up, there would be less need for somebody else to do it.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#44

Post by k1m »

tptacek wrote: post #38
k1m wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia, however, appear to be trying to protect him. Please see one Wikipedia editor's efforts to flag his behaviour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann

Exactly what is it we're supposed to be looking at here? And what does "Wikipedia", as an entity, mean in your comment?

It's not that long. Did you read it?

One Wikipedia editor is trying to highlight the problem of Cross' edits and have him marked as having a conflict of interest on certain articles. The Wikipedia admin (or superiour, I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia hierarchy) shuts him down very rudely and doesn't appear to want to address the issue at all. Leaving the editor to give up: "Forgive me for concluding that Wikipedia is circling its wagons around Philip Cross...I know when the deck is stacked against me."

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#45

Post by bjourne »

whack wrote: post #10

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 have…

It is already happening on a daily basis regarding all articles related to a certain country. Correcting erroneous information doesn't work because most issues aren't about facts, but about judgement calls. Is this piece of information relevant in this context or not? Should we use "this definition" that all anthropologists uses or "that definition" that most Wikipedians prefer but no scholar uses? Unless you are getting paid for it, you can't justify spending hours per day bogged down in fights with people who most likely are paid for their time.

Wikipedia was a good idea but for political topics it doesn't work at all.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#46

Post by noobermin »

tptacek wrote: post #38
k1m wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia, however, appear to be trying to protect him. Please see one Wikipedia editor's efforts to flag his behaviour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann

Exactly what is it we're supposed to be looking at here? And what does "Wikipedia", as an entity, mean in your comment?

The relevant bit is the last two comments by KalHolmann. Attempts to discuss Cross' behavior in the relevant, public boards were closed within minutes of each posting with unsatisfactory explanations. See [0] for example.

Not a wikipedian, but from my nerdish poking around and learning about how wikipedia works, it was my impression that these boards are supposed to be public forums to openly discuss issues, in line with its spirit of open collaboration. The fact that editors closed it immediately is evidence that, as KalHolmann says, there is circling of wagons going on.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#47

Post by madeofpalk »

always_good wrote: post #29

My friends and I had a shameful game in uni where we competed to see who could make the most egregious edits to wikipedia without getting reverted. What was surprising was just how easy it was. We started with minor edits in small articles, just adding our own name to some list of notable achievers. Then, due to competition, we would add an entire paragraph that fabricated an event. Like adding ourself as a conquista…

Me and my friends did exactly the same when we were 15. One of us added "Hannah screwed her dog" to the Wikipedia article for Paper. I remember being surprised that it lasted for a few weeks.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#48

Post by khawkins »

whack wrote: post #10

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 have…

Honestly, advocating for taking steps against disseminating propaganda, then citing Vox as a legitimate news source, concerns me. I wouldn't trust you to be able to draw the line between propaganda and objective writing. How much censorship of opposing views would be done in the name of fighting "Russian propaganda"?

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#49

Post by TimTheTinker »

k1m wrote: post #30
noobermin wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we're missing the context here. Why is wikipedia ignoring it?

That's a mystery to me too. Initially when the complaints were made on Twitter (by some of Cross' targets), Jimmy Wales dismissed them, asking for diffs. Now that we've provided diffs and shown the scale of his efforts and the clear conflict of interest, we've heard nothing more. We're hoping the more exposure this story gets the more pressure it will put on them to act. But so far it's not looking hopeful. See how o…

I suspect Jimmy Wales and his associates are keeping mum because they realize this is because of a fundamental (perhaps intractable) weakness of the Wikipedia platform — NPOV is an impossible standard to maintain without a highly active network of trusted reviewers under a central authority. Even then, many small changes over a long period are a viable attack vector.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#50

Post by Jasper_ »

tptacek wrote: post #41
Jasper_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over. Even this isn't true. As a former contributor to the Linux desktop community, false information about projects and codebases I had runs rampant on Wikipedia. One Wikipedia editor with more time on his hands than any of us [0] devotes his time to maintaining those articles, despite self-admittedly having little topical knowledge [1]. T…

If it's "rampant" on Wikipedia, you should have no trouble pointing out examples. So, respectfully, I'd ask that to support your argument with evidence, you do that. I had trouble editing technical topics I was familiar with, too, and found it incredibly aggravating. I'd write demonstrably true, helpful, factual content about something only to have it struck for lack of sourcing. It took awhile to get through my head…

I don't remember the exact claims I tried to fight, but let's pick a random diagram from the page I linked: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Linux_AP...

See if you can spot any inaccuracies. Here are a few:

1. SDL doesn't use libevdev. It uses the kernel ioctls directly: http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/3a50eb90e4b2/src/core/linux/SD...

2. Sockets, netfilter, network protocols are all listed under "everything is a file", but notably, sockets are one of the few places of the UNIX API that isn't a file namespace! Sockets can be files in the case of UNIX domain sockets, but configuring Netfilter goes through NETLINK: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/netlink.7.html

3. Similarly, the I/O scheduler isn't a file. Admittedly, I don't have a source for this other than the kernel source code itself.

These are nitpicks, yes, but they add up, especially considering the near-100 diagrams this guy has made and cloned all over Wikipedia. When we saw people joining our community and asking questions, this information made them think things were different than they were, and that was frustrating. And yes, I used sources like these when trying to correct this misinformation.

Post reply on HN