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

51–60 of 387 posts

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#51

Post by dboat »

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 seems obvious to me that by "Wikipedia" he is referring to the Wikipedia admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG) who quashed user KalHolmann's attempts to discuss the issue of Philip Cross's campaign of biased edits. Did you not read the link?

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#52

Post by jakobegger »

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 looks like a wikipedia editor requested that Cross should not be allowed to edit articles where he has a conflict of interest. Rather than dealing with the request, it was immediately closed and the editor reporting the conflict of interest was accused of picking a fight.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#53

Post by _vertigo »

khawkins wrote: post #48
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"?

Of course, you can't exactly claim Vox isn't a legitimate news source without citing some sources either.

(Whether or not Vox is "legitimate" or not is beside the point here, the point is it's hypocritical of you to call someone's sources into question without providing any yourself.)

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#54

Post by tptacek »

noobermin wrote: post #46
tptacek wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I see an admin with no apparent connection to this subject[0]:

(1) instructing KalHolmann not to canvass (this is one of WP's older rules and comes up all the time in AfD, where people will canvass WP and Twitter to get votes to keep marginal articles)

(2) backing out KalHolmann's canvassing comments

(3) responding to KalHolmann's question about where to direct his concern by telling him to take it to ANI

(4) advising against him taking it to the "COI Noticeboard" (I'm not sure I know what that even is but I guess I can guess and I'm not surprised it exists)

(5) after KalHolmann takes it there anyways and complains about the outcome, telling him again to take it to ANI.

None of this seems bad to me; it seems like a WP admin going out of their way to be helpful (in a WP'ian sort of way) and getting slagged for it on HN.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contribut...

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#55

Post by Confiks »

khawkins wrote: post #48
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"?

Your post is a clear example of an ad hominem and whataboutism [1], an invalid argument, where you cite the usage of a link to Vox to completely dismiss the parent as untrustworthy.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#56

Post by wybiral »

"ditch Wikipedia" seems a bit melodramatic.

Nobody should rely on Wikipedia as the sole source of any information, but it can be a useful starting point and usually has enough references to back it up.

People need to be more careful about examining the source of claims in general. Including what is shared with them on social media, YouTube videos, news articles, etc. But that doesn't mean those mediums are no longer useful.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#57

Post by tptacek »

Jasper_ wrote: post #50
tptacek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "ev…

You haven't linked to an article, so I don't have the context here. Where is this diagram included?

But I suspect you're running into exactly what I ran into: you're trying to correct a page using yourself as a source. I'm sure you're right (although I think you're nitpicking about the sockets-are-files thing --- not that they are, but rather than I don't think the diagram is making that claim --- it is a _really_ bad diagram though).

It can be easier on WP to strike content from a page (because it is inaccurate) than it is to replace that content.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#58

Post by lkrubner »

This part:

“We pulled in the dates from his user contributions page and found that Cross had not had a single day off from editing the site in almost 5 years!”

Makes me think that this is an account shared by many people. Since we don’t know who this person is, there is a chance that this person is really a whole organization.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#59

Post by noobermin »

tptacek wrote: post #54
noobermin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I see an admin with no apparent connection to this subject[0]: (1) instructing KalHolmann not to canvass (this is one of WP's older rules and comes up all the time in AfD, where people will canvass WP and Twitter to get votes to keep marginal articles) (2) backing out KalHolmann's canvassing comments (3) responding to KalHolmann's question about where to direct his concern by telling him to take it to ANI (4) advisin…

NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#60

Post by mjw1007 »

noobermin wrote: post #26
k1m wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

The admin who summarily closed the conflict-of-interest report explains his motivation as follows:

« You can't amass 130,000 edits, as Philip Cross has, without being reasonably committed to Wikipedia. You'd be noticed if you were an agenda account with that many edits. And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right. »

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG )

This doesn't inspire much confidence in me, because obviously it _has_ been widely noticed that "Philip Cross" is an agenda account (and it seems it was noticed already almost a decade ago: http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-phil... )

Post reply on HN