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

151–160 of 387 posts

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#151

Post by ThoAppelsin »

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…

The important difference here is that this platform claims to be an encyclopedia, and any random vandal may not simply make an edit on an article of the conventional encyclopedia.

It would only be natural for us to take this resource as not-so-reliable, for that it is as easy a man to spit on the floor to infiltrate Wikipedia with false information. Yet, we usually don't. We usually just go ahead and trust what we see on Wikipedia, and maybe that's because it looks so convincing and reliable.

If Wikipedia cannot handle vandalism, maybe it should then warn it's users to realize that there is some higher chance than they might expect that the article they are about to read might have been compromised in terms of correctness, or has never been correct to begin with. Instead of displaying full-page banners, perhaps they should spare a couple of lines to such disclaimer statistics.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#152

Post by tux3 »

tptacek wrote: post #126
tux3 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright I'm going to have to disagree specifically on that point. I otherwise agree with your argument that there's no homogenous "they" banding together (And there's an article for that, even! [0] And an article nuancing that view too. [1]) But I emphatically take issue with the idea that it's reasonable to shut down what sounds like, in your words, "very legitimate concerns" instead of guiding the concerned users t…

In what sense is a process being used by experienced editors against an inexperienced one here? Again: all I see is a person being told where to file grievances, and a general set of expectation about "Conflict of Interest" that doesn't in fact match the project's COI guidelines.

>In what sense is a process being used by experienced editors against an inexperienced one here? Again: all I see is a person being told where to file grievances, and a general set of expectation about "Conflict of Interest" that doesn't in fact match the project's COI guidelines.

I'm thinking of the FORUMSHOP justification for closing the discussion on ANI in particular, and I'm more generally responding to your posts in this thread.

About this incident, I think it's fair to say that the administrator in question, with 13 years of experience and over 100k edits might be more experienced with the rules and policies than User:KalHolmann.

Now if the COI guidelines do no justify filing a report to the COI Noticeboard, that is one thing and closing that request is understandable, but ANI is a place for discussion, and since we're using it as an example the FORUMSHOP close reason comes across as exceptionally severe and opinionated to me.

I see a person being told to file grievances somewhere else, and an administrator who at the very least may have forgotten to Assume Good Faith in response.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#153

Post by AsyncAwait »

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

Honestly, Israel, KSA etc. are as much, if not more likely to do this, as indeed shown by the Phillip Cross guy, who was making edits to benefit them. Of course it is far easier to constantly mention Russia, (and it should be mentioned), but I'd love if people were more willing to call out our 'partners' who engage in this behavior, as calling out Russia requires no amount of 'courage' at all.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#155

Post by testplzignore »

mistrial9 wrote: post #24

regarding general participation in English Wikipedia -- the last three or four edits I made to Wikipedia articles I found interesting, were summarily reverted. Why try ?

If you've got any diffs of the edits that you'd like to share, I (and probably others) would be happy to take a look and start an edit war to make things right :)

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#156

Post by bijection »

Why is FiveFilters taking such interest in this particular anonymous Wikipedia editor? This doesn't look like simply an honest piece of investigative journalism, given how far FiveFilters seems to be going to promote this story (https://twitter.com/fivefilters/).

Why doesn't the article disclose the relationship between FiveFilters and Media Lens? The FiveFilters blog (http://blog.fivefilters.org/) mentions Media Lens three times (they've built tools for viewing Media Lens articles) and explicitly thanks Media Lens for making their content go viral.

There's a lot that doesn't quite add up.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#157

Post by k1m »

bijection wrote: post #156

Why is FiveFilters taking such interest in this particular anonymous Wikipedia editor? This doesn't look like simply an honest piece of investigative journalism, given how far FiveFilters seems to be going to promote this story ( https://twitter.com/fivefilters/ ). Why doesn't the article disclose the relationship between FiveFilters and Media Lens? The FiveFilters blog ( http://blog.fivefilters.org/ ) mentions Media…

We're a huge fan of Media Lens. They do great work. But we're not Wikipedia. We don't need to live up to the standards they set themselves. We don't run an encyclopedia that pretends to be neutral.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#158

Post by k1m »

tptacek wrote: post #133
k1m wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&ty... and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&ty...

I'm not suggesting anyone base the block on their opinion of his politics, but of his behaviour on Wikipedia. There's clearly a conflict of interest when someone who is openly hostile toward someone else and taunts them on Twitter, then goes and makes the kind of edits he's making to their Wikipedia page.

There's of course a bigger issue of how Wikipedia deals with this problem more broadly. But the fact that they're unwilling to act on a single editor whose actions have been exposed doesn't inspire much confidence.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#159

Post by burfog »

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…

1. You missed a thin red line in the diagram. The diagram is not meant to claim that SDL uses libevdev.

2. Sockets are files. No, they don't have filenames usually, but they do have file descriptors and even inode numbers.

3. The diagram does not imply that the I/O scheduler is a file. The I/O scheduler is listed as a component underlying the listed filesystems.

There are no inaccuracies. That said, the diagram is awful. It is hard to follow (your misinterpretation being a great example) and seems to be a cluttered and incomplete collection of parts.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#160

Post by k1m »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #115
k1m wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I have read most carefully. And I have also talked to one of the admins, as you can see. Obviously, things are not adding up. We can both agree on that much ;-) What I don't quite get is why fivefilters.org is interested?

Because we like the work of many of the people targeted by Cross and decided to write something up on it.
Post reply on HN