A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign • Hacker News Board

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#131

Post by ropeadopepope » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

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…

Why is this only concerning now? Wikipedia has had this issue for at least a decade. I would be less concerned with Russia and more concerned with the agenda of the people who have been working with impunity on Wikipedia all this time.

Infogalactic doesn't have this problem.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#132

Post by komali2 » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #104

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…

Wikipedia does tend to protect long time contributors and not have to outside sources that do not like an article. There is a meta game in Wikipedia that if you do small changes and write justifications in wikilawyer speak and you discredit your opponents in the right fashion you can win even if you are technically wrong. It is a beuruaucracy and some can play the game well.

I've noticed the same behavior on Reddit, hackernews, Tumblr, and lesswrong. As long as you say it in the right cadence for the given forum, you can be completely off base and be getting upvotes.

I try to be aware of it but I see myself mindlessly agreeing with someone just because they took the superior tone for the given format.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#133

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

k1m wrote: post #125

tptacek wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously can edit. And it's especially easy if you're the subject of an article to correct false information about yourself; see WP:BLP. What you're not promised is the ability to win any given debate between yourself and other editors. What would you expect? How could the project possibly work otherwise?

One of Cross' targets attempted to edit his page and his changes were quickly reverted by Cross due to conflict of interest. What it seems you're suggesting here is that those unfairly targeted on Wikipedia, as Cross is doing, should learn the labyrinthine processes Wikipedia expects to correct their entries. And then presumably to put in the same amount of time Cross is putting in (hours and hours on weekdays and we…

Which BLP page are you referring to here? I don't see it in the article we're talking about. (I believe you, I just don't know what you're talking about).

I don't know what "clearly in the wrong" means. Cross and I don't share a POV; from the little I know about him (exclusively: this article) I find his politics noxious. But I would be extremely disturbed if my opinion about his politics somehow controlled Wikipedia.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#134

Post by belorn » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #23

JoshMnem wrote: post #21

The Wikipedia editing process is broken. Wiki-lawyering is used to shut down the collaborative editing process, even when not on political topics often by people who don't know much about the topic that they are editing. I don't trust Wikipedia content and tend to examine the Talk pages (sometimes even the Talk page histories) on controversial articles.

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…

Where would one go to dive into a top-level controversial topic? Outside of doing the research oneself or having a organization which is explicit nonpartisan with the goal of unbiased reporting (ie fact checking sites), what options are left beside Wikipedia?

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#135

Post by zug_zug » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:39 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #14

"Anti-war" doesn't sound like a particularly descriptive adjective for the apparent targets here. They are not anti-war campaigners per se, they seem to be sitting in the Russia-sympathetic zone of discourse. I'm not saying that to discredit them (I might, but I won't), but calling them anti-war rather obscures the problems people might have with them. That doesn't mean that a "one-man" effort to shepherd their Wikip…

I'm not sure if whether it's Russia has anything to do with it. The point is that objective truth requires moving above tribalist mentality, clearly cross failed to do that. Dragging Russia into this is also failing to rise above tribalist mentality.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#136

Post by gnud » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

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.

The admin who dismisses the conflict of interest complaint later comments that 'being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right'.

It's very easy to see how someone might view this as being up against a "they".

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#137

Post by obelix_ » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #102

tptacek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

So I suppose the "anyone can edit" tagline is a crock of shit? If an organization is publishing some info about me, it sounds like a giant pain in the butt if I have to learn their bureaucracy to get e.g. false information changed. At least have an ombudsman who could represent my grievances, if you built such a site. But nooooo, it seems because anyone can join and be involved in the mud-wrestle, that's what they ha…

Holy God are you living in a dream state. We have presidents getting elected on false info. Wars being faught on false info. Biz empires and fortunes built on false info. Celebrity and product worship produced on false info. But you want to believe that getting false info changed is simple?

How can you believe that in 2018?

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#138

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

yarrel wrote: post #114

tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Shameful" is a good word for it. Stuff like this is a major reason --- maybe the major reason --- behind most of the limitations of the Wikipedia platform. It is, for instance, the primary cause of "deletionism": marginal articles are difficult to police, and so the project has to establish a notability cut-off so it can constrain the problem at least to articles where there are sources to tie claims to. I'm not say…

You are confusing edits with articles. Deletionists tend to confuse their personal ignorance (often of a website called "Google" [yes I know how notability works, no that's not an argument against not bothering to even trivially check whether an article can be improved rather than deleted]) with a mandate to sabotage Wikipedia. People who remove cruft from articles, rather than speedy deleting articles that aren't ab…

No, you've misunderstood my argument. The problem is that it's difficult for editors to remove "cruft" on articles about marginal topics, because there are so few (usually: zero) reliable sources to draw from. You can't start from a premise that "cruft" can be removed without removing classes of articles; that begs the question that deletionists answer.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#139

Post by pvg » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

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…

you should have no trouble pointing out examples.

There are really entire broad topics that are bad. Lots of maths pages are horrible and un-encyclopedic.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#140

Post by dwaltrip » Sat, May 19, 2018, 10:42 PM UTC

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.

The answer is to do both. Continually fix systemic issues as best as we can, but also help individuals become more empathetic, wise, and responsible, as best we can.