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

91–100 of 387 posts

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#91

Post by mjw1007 »

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.

That's certainly the sort of thing that can happen, but as far as I can tell the COIN report was within Wikipedia norms, and closing the report two minutes later with "Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." was not.

(Unless "don't criticise a top-1000 user" counts as a Wikipedia norm, I suppose.)

I disbelieve that that the admin in question is both a neutral arbiter and capable of determining within two minutes that Cross is not an "avowed rival" of Galloway (see WP:BLPCOI), particularly given the "And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right" bit on his talk page.

[The relevant part of BLPCOI is:

« Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person » ]

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#92

Post by k1m »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #87
k1m wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are you suggesting with your last comment? Did you read the story posted here and the changes Philip Cross has made?

"I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here." - Is that the level of evidence needed to do whatever you want on Wikipedia?

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#93

Post by tptacek »

mjw1007 wrote: post #91
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.

That's certainly the sort of thing that can happen, but as far as I can tell the COIN report was within Wikipedia norms, and closing the report two minutes later with "Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." was not. (Unless "don't criticise a top-1000 user" counts as a Wikipedia norm, I suppose.) I disbelieve that that the admin in question is both a neutral arbiter a…

A biased point of view isn't a conflict of interest. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...?

We all have biases. But we have conflicts when we have direct relationships with topics.

Similarly: edits are supposed to have NPOV. But editors almost always have a POV.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#95

Post by tptacek »

MattHeard wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linux_API.svg

That's a resource, not a WP page. It has no talk page. I'm trying to get a sense of what the actual argument was.

It's not a good diagram, and its author is clearly trying to attach it in as many prominent places as they can, which is not great. But I still don't know what the actual controversy is.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#98

Post by Shivetya »

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…

you mention state actors but overlook the bogeyman in our own backyard, whether it be the CIA, FBI, or even PACs. Yes Political Action Committees have people whose job is to maintain their view. PACs do it through mailing lists that combine specific people to maintain control over what is presented. with regards to sites like reddit you have those assigned to post and the list to rally those to vote up particular posts and downvote others to even mass report.

I know that many want to blame the other guy but sometimes that other guy is someone we know and their intentions are no better

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#99

Post by gnud »

abugher wrote: post #81
smsm42 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those individuals, and a few thousand more like them, _are_ the system problem.
Post reply on HN