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

271–280 of 387 posts

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#271

Post by blablabla123 »

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…

Okay but I mean in reality everybody has an opinion. In fact the people doing actual edits tend to have stronger opinions than others. My active Wikipedia time is already 10 years ago but the linked page looks like a complete out of hand discussion on Wikipedia discussions page. except that it isn't, it's a lot of stitched together samples from the depths of Wikipedia. Double-checking whether the assertions on the page are correct would take ages.

I still gonna make a small attempt:

- "has written for the Guardian" removed but "broadcasts regularly" kept. I google and: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/piers-robinson 2 articles? Are there more he wrote? Is this considered encyclopaedic knowledge that he wrote 2 articles in the Guardian?

- okay, next point: Eva Bartless. I google and one of the top 3 links goes to Quora: https://www.quora.com/Is-Eva-Bartlett-credible "Bartlett talks figures and proportions, and expands your desk research with facts that she documented as a witness on site. Her stark observations have upset an entire media industry." Answer number 2 is not so negative but at the same way basically stating that there are no super reliable sources for things happening in Syria. Also please check out her Twitter.

- added piece about Vanessa Beeley: please just google: Vanessa Beeley White helmets Twitter . I'm not gonna copy&paste all that stuff into here

I know it sucks to be in such kinds of discussions. But also don't forget what Wikipedia is and what it not is. It is an encyclopaedia, people visiting the website assume they are confronted with peer-reviewed and relevant facts. It's tough but if you can only find a single reliable source for some information, then IMHO it's better to remove that piece from the page.

If you want news, then go to Wiki News. If you want to read about research theories, then go to Wikiversity. Also don't forget that eventhough there are obviously controversial users on the platform, there are mechanisms to protect articles, review them etc.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#272

Post by notahacker »

jakobegger wrote: post #264
philwelch wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, here's the Wikipedia page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway The revision history is interesting to look through as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&o... Many of Cross's revisions seem to revolve around removing unreliable sources (such as RT and Sputnik), integrating edits such that the verbiage flows better, and so forth. I can't find any edits that he's p…

That’s a very generous interpretation. Usually, when you find something that is not sufficiently well sourced, you add “citation needed” or mention it on the talk page or something. You don’t just delete entire sections that aren’t obvious vandalism.

You generally do on Biographies of Living Persons, particularly when it's controversial political figures and particularly when the material has a source which just happens to be RT

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#273

Post by notahacker »

I've interacted with Philip Cross many times (UK politics Wikipedia is a very small place) and found him perfectly reasonable and his edits usually well justified.

Needless to say, an anonymous critic launching a campaign complete with website and Twitter account against him for allegedly being unfair to conspiracy-mongering figures like Craig Murray and George Galloway and genocide denial specialist Neil Clark and too nice to two Jewish journalists (one considerably more outspokenly pro-Israel than the other) isn't about to change my mind...

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#274

Post by [deleted] »

zug_zug wrote: post #135
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.

[deleted]

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#276

Post by pjc50 »

barrkel wrote: post #179
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…

The strongest people Russia can leverage are those with genuine positions independent of Russia, because reflexive apologists are easy to dismiss. You haven't supported your position that these guys are not pacifists. I rather see them as pointing out hypocrisy, necessary to avoid the groupthink that forms around national interests - the set of positions that all sides of mainstream politics in a nation hold for reas…

George Galloway is primarily a contrarian, and actively supported Saddam Hussein. I'm not sure he'd recognise a genuine position if he fell over it in the street.

Neil Clark is a genocide denier: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/feb/12/warcrimes.comm...

There's a real problem with people who (correctly) spot that Western governments are lying about certain things, and then infer that (a) they're lying about everthing else and (b) non-western governments aren't worse liars.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#277

Post by varjag »

dredmorbius wrote: post #233
varjag wrote: post #76

On one hand, some shady Wikipedia vigilante. On the other, a bunch of Russia-backed war crime deniers. Quite a moral dilemma!

Sorry, could you unpack and clarify that?

From the fine article:

> Tim Hayward is one of the group of academics (his colleague Paul McKeigue is another) who set up the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media – or if you prefer the Times description, Apologists for Assad. The group’s questioning over whether it could be definitively concluded that the Syrian regime was responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack last month (they have also queried the Novichok attack of the Skripals) is apparently what provoked their pillorying in the Thunderer.

> The RT piece opens with: A mystery online figure called Philip Cross is targeting anti-war and non-mainstream UK figures by prolifically editing their Wikipedia pages – to the point that George Galloway is offering a reward to see him unmasked.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#278

Post by k1m »

notahacker wrote: post #273

I've interacted with Philip Cross many times (UK politics Wikipedia is a very small place) and found him perfectly reasonable and his edits usually well justified. Needless to say, an anonymous critic launching a campaign complete with website and Twitter account against him for allegedly being unfair to conspiracy-mongering figures like Craig Murray and George Galloway and genocide denial specialist Neil Clark and t…

Why don't you engage with the substance of the criticism rather than who's made it. He's made over a hundred thousand edits on Wikipedia in almost 15 years. I'm sure some of them are well justified. We're highlighting the ones that aren't and in which he has a serious conflict of interest.

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#279

Post by AsyncAwait »

FPGAhacker wrote: post #167
AsyncAwait wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 'coura…

The point of the post was not the courageousness of the op, or Russia. The point was propaganda.

> The point was propaganda.

I get that, my point was that if you're going to give examples, it may be worthy to not always point to Russia/China etc. as that is well known and understood, but to take the opportunity to highlight that it is done by countries that are supposed to be our friends to a much greater degree as that is not a point you'll hear on MSM, (Russia you'll hear so much about, it borders on Xenophobia).

Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

#280

Post by notahacker »

pygy_ wrote: post #258
wyclif wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To shroud and conceal their motive and activities.

They'd be less noticeable as many accounts, and would get more than one voice in discussions.

And of course if you were orchestrating a shadowy conspiracy to denigrate certain figures on Wikipedia by subtle edits as opposed to an individual with an interest in politics and lot of time on their hands, you probably wouldn't use the same handle to copyedit political bios and vent your opinion on the particular individuals on Twitter...
Post reply on HN