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

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#211

Post by twelvechairs » Sun, May 20, 2018, 1:32 AM UTC

zug_zug wrote: post #128

4bpp wrote: post #73

> ‘Philip Cross’ has edited @georgegalloway ‘s wikipedia page over 1800 times. This, and many other political arguments I have seen on it before, really makes me think that Wikipedia would benefit from a policy where a sufficient number of individual complaints against a user who has passed some threshold of number of edits to a single article (say 100) would be automatic grounds to block the user from further edits…

We can't just jump to conclusions like this. We can't take a single story about a single bad editor and make blanket rules. You have to take a look at the whole dataset of people who make crusader efforts and then see if there's a pattern. Even if there is, you then have to ask yourself if it's something that people will just learn and work-around. I'm not disagreeing Cross was likely a net negative for wikipedia, bu…

> You have to take a look at the whole dataset of people who make crusader efforts and then see if there's a pattern.

You'll never see the whole dataset, and understand exactly the motivation behind every edit. All you can go on is anectodes like this and adjust as you can. Its a social system, not an exact piece of engineering science.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#212

Post by gowld » Sun, May 20, 2018, 1:32 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #174

zug_zug wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't just jump to conclusions like this. We can't take a single story about a single bad editor and make blanket rules. You have to take a look at the whole dataset of people who make crusader efforts and then see if there's a pattern. Even if there is, you then have to ask yourself if it's something that people will just learn and work-around. I'm not disagreeing Cross was likely a net negative for wikipedia, bu…

Single bad events are usually how we, as democracies, create new blanket rules. The events have to be bad enough to move people to action, and that normally means something out of the ordinary, which by definition is likely to be singular. The blanket rules should be made with care, for sure, but your premise is wrong.

The reality fact that it's a common mistake isn't a good reason to keep doing it.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#213

Post by code_duck » Sun, May 20, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #78

We could have had the Encyclopedia Britannica still. But the people voted with their wallets and now we have... this.

How do we know Britannica wouldn’t employ someone such as this to write parts of their encyclopedia?

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#214

Post by Aramgutang » Sun, May 20, 2018, 1:42 AM UTC

4bpp wrote: post #73

> ‘Philip Cross’ has edited @georgegalloway ‘s wikipedia page over 1800 times. This, and many other political arguments I have seen on it before, really makes me think that Wikipedia would benefit from a policy where a sufficient number of individual complaints against a user who has passed some threshold of number of edits to a single article (say 100) would be automatic grounds to block the user from further edits…

> a user who has passed some threshold of number of edits to a single article (say 100) would be automatic grounds to block the user from further edits to the article

This would not be without precedent. I was an active Wikipedia editor in 2004-2006, and I recall an editor (later admin), who was otherwise a great contributor and a positive force in the project, who had a seemingly unhealthy obsession with singer Ashlee Simpson. After multiple arbitration proceedings, he was restricted from editing her Wikipedia entry under threat of 24-hour bans for each edit.

Here is the notice of the final arbitration ruling [1], mentioning the prolonged history of the case.

To be fair, it was a different time back then. Not sure if a ruling like that could or would be done today.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#215

Post by tony101 » Sun, May 20, 2018, 2:03 AM UTC

omeid2 wrote: post #194

belorn wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

saying that "anyone can edit wikipedia" is identical to saying that anyone can contribute to the linux kernel. Its both true and false depending on how you look at it. Yes, anyone can send in a patch. No, only a very small subset of the world population has the knowledge and experience to create a patch that gets accepted. Yes, they do want more contributors and want to encourage all users to contribute. No, they can…

That is not a fair comparison. Linux patches generally gets accepted based on technical merit, some politics aside; But it seems like most Wikipedia contributions are subject to the inside political considerations and bureaucracy.

Wikipedia contributions are generally subject to sourcing requirements (i.e. information must be backed by reliable secondary sources), not "political considerations." Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth itself.

See this example that illustrates the policy using the flat earth theory[1]:

> "Wikipedia is not worried per se about whether the theory that the Earth is flat is true. There must be current, reliable and independent sources substantiating claims that the Earth is flat. But there are no such sources that are current (almost no scientists have thought the Earth was flat since about the fourth century BC), that are reliable (reliable sources are reviewed for accuracy), or independent (a journal published by a Flat Earth Society would not be independent.)"

> "If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot...

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#216

Post by tony101 » Sun, May 20, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

_-_throwaway wrote: post #197

Some of these Wikipedia 'editors' can go sodomize themselves. Pages deleted/redirected for something being 'non-notable' or having 'no historical significance'. And then when you try to kindly disagree, you're presented with some politically colored Wikimedia rules and such according to which editor has performed their censorship. How do you even determine what is notable? It may be notable to me. Why some punk edito…

> "How do you even determine what is notable?"

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#217

Post by strainer » Sun, May 20, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

bushin wrote: post #203

strainer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These notable persons (Craig Murray, David Edwards, George Galloway etc) who are reporting their personal biographies being edited unfairly on Wikipedia, are in fact well known as prominent humanitarian and anti-war activists and writers. For strategic reasons at least -- Russia's foreign commercial news stations are also of late "sympathetic" to anti-war and progressive themes (such as arms reduction and peaceful co…

I googled Galloway and he has young Stalin on his twitter profile pic. Never before had Stirlitz been so close to failure.

Sure Galloway has a soft spot for Stalin - obviously he considers him misunderstood - history written by the victors and all that. I wouldn't know. But the issue here is how does such an eccentricity significantly connect him to the modern Russian government or media? And also the others, as is being suggested - as a group.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#218

Post by mighty_bander » Sun, May 20, 2018, 2:10 AM UTC

4bpp wrote: post #73

> ‘Philip Cross’ has edited @georgegalloway ‘s wikipedia page over 1800 times. This, and many other political arguments I have seen on it before, really makes me think that Wikipedia would benefit from a policy where a sufficient number of individual complaints against a user who has passed some threshold of number of edits to a single article (say 100) would be automatic grounds to block the user from further edits…

If you were a bad actor or a member of a group with malicious intent, how could you abuse or circumvent the policy you have just proposed? This editor is either a front or insane, but a hundred edits to an article on the subject of one's own long-term research is totally reasonable. This is why Wikipedia has a manual intervention process for people who appear to be abusing the system.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#219

Post by asdfaoeu » Sun, May 20, 2018, 2:21 AM UTC

dpwm wrote: post #165

unreal37 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1800 edits on a single page in only a few years is essentially a sickness. I'm not a doctor, but that should be classified as obsession.

If indeed it is one individual. With the intensity of edits it would not be at all surprising if this editor was in fact more than one individual masquerading behind a single account.

Why would they pretend to be one editor?

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#220

Post by M2Ys4U » Sun, May 20, 2018, 2:21 AM UTC

strainer wrote: post #129

bushin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems closer to the truth, otherwise why sputnik and rt would care.

These notable persons (Craig Murray, David Edwards, George Galloway etc) who are reporting their personal biographies being edited unfairly on Wikipedia, are in fact well known as prominent humanitarian and anti-war activists and writers. For strategic reasons at least -- Russia's foreign commercial news stations are also of late "sympathetic" to anti-war and progressive themes (such as arms reduction and peaceful co…

Galloway, a humanitarian? Hahahaha.

This is what Galloway said to Saddam Hussain: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem."