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

81–90 of 387 posts

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#81

Post by abugher »

smsm42 wrote: post #43
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 e…

You have a choice. You can engage in conversation with peers as if you might want to understand the reasons for their actions. Or you can preach at them and blame them as individuals for system problems.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#82

Post by amiga-workbench »

There was a similar pattern of behaviour with articles concerning Gamergate, Wikipedia's rules regarding first hand sources meant that only the slanted reporting of journalists who had a lot to lose in the exchange could be referenced as a source.

The information up there now is a less than complete picture.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#83

Post by tptacek »

mjw1007 wrote: post #68
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Said admin also wrote «As long as you don't request community-imposed sanctions posting at WP:COIN is fine.», and I observe that the KaiHolmann's posting there did not request community-imposed sanctions.

It was fine, it just didn't have the effect KalHolmann wanted.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#84

Post by netsharc »

tptacek wrote: post #64
k1m wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misssed the fact that he took it to ANI and was shut down there too very quickly. Frustrated with the fact that no attempt was made to deal with the matter, he, quite sensibly, concludes that it appears they are trying to protect Cross. I should also add that the people targeted by Cross all have a fairly large audiences on Twitter, and have been vocal about this issue. Jimmy Wales is aware (he's tweeted to them,…

Who is "they" and why is it sensible that they're "protecting" some random WP admin? What seems more likely to me is that people have very legitimate concerns about Cross's POV, but aren't following WP norms in raising those concerns, and are getting shut down as a result. That's an expected outcome, not a sign of something nefarious happening.

Oh wow, so they don't follow the bureaucracy, so their concerns are shut down, until what? Until they follow the bureaucracy?

If I can take a stab at guessing what is happening, the Wikipedia admins probably feel like a super-active member is one of their own, and he/she is being attacked by "outsiders", so what they're doing is defending him with made-up reasons to fool themselves that what they're doing is just. A bit like US police, they're meant to be a part of the community and serve them, but after demonstrations against them because a few members did terrible things, they think they're under attack and their response is to protect their own and treat the public as the aggressive enemy.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#86

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #57
Jasper_ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_ ba…

[deleted]

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#87

Post by Kim_Bruning »

k1m wrote: post #44
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?

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…

Wikipedia is not a hierarchy. Admins are experienced wikipedians who have a few extra administrative tasks (hence the name). The Admin in question seems to have acted based on their own judgment. (I know because I asked them! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#meatball:ExpandS... ) . You could even talk to the admin yourself, if you would like extra information. Wikipedia has a function to add questions to a talk page, and there is a function to send an email instead/as well, if you have questions.

That said, I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here. This is not a "Evil admin stomps on poor innocent victim" story, for sure.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#88

Post by 4bpp »

Confiks wrote: post #55
khawkins wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's an object-level point that can be made about referencing an even more partisan source like Rationalwiki as a response in this particular thread, but the more interesting meta-level observation is that the whole Wikipedia sourcing/attribution mechanism is clearly inadequate for an age where even a fairly casual discussion in HN comments can't be completed without relying on sources that one of the two parties to the debate will consider clearly inadmissible (Vox and Rationalwiki for one side, and maybe Craig Murray and Sputnik for the other).

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#89

Post by tptacek »

netsharc wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "they" and why is it sensible that they're "protecting" some random WP admin? What seems more likely to me is that people have very legitimate concerns about Cross's POV, but aren't following WP norms in raising those concerns, and are getting shut down as a result. That's an expected outcome, not a sign of something nefarious happening.

Oh wow, so they don't follow the bureaucracy, so their concerns are shut down, until what? Until they follow the bureaucracy? If I can take a stab at guessing what is happening, the Wikipedia admins probably feel like a super-active member is one of their own, and he/she is being attacked by "outsiders", so what they're doing is defending him with made-up reasons to fool themselves that what they're doing is just. A…

Yes. I understand that lots of people on HN hate that, but, yes. Wikipedia is an incredibly complicated and intricate project with its own objectives and norms. It has been manifestly successful; it is one of the great achievements of the Internet to date. People arguing to override those norms have a heavy burden to meet.

One of the reasons for those norms is that on controversial issues, everybody can marshal a plausible argument. WP's processes try to make sure that admins can make procedural rather than substantive decisions to resolve conflicts. It's reasonable to have a couple thousand people who understand a process. It's not reasonable to expect a couple thousand people to be authoritative for all the substantive controversies litigated on the encyclopedia.

Another reason is that the norms are interdependent. For instance: many of the rest of WP's processes don't work without the "no canvassing" rule. Admins and 'crats can't evaluate an argument if it's flooded with partisan complaints. Admin decisions aren't votes.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#90

Post by TomMckenny »

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…

>Imagine if a country like Russia makes an orchestrated effort to achieve similar goals

This article is citing references from RT and Sputnik to defend a guys who broadcast on RT and Sputnik.

It cites several fairly normal edits as outrageous. For example Snopes has it's founders names listed but the article implies listing Media Len's founders is an attack.

Likewise removing an un-cited assertions are called attacks.

And the article apparently believes offering a £1000 for doxing information is acceptable.

And remarkably expanding on all this to imply that all of wikipedia is suspect.

I would really take this article with a big grain of salt.

Post reply on HN