Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#101

Post by gn4d »

Nation-state actors on Wikipedia which hide behind the byzantine rules and regulations on the site are a far worse problem, imho. I think Wikipedia is still the best tool for information on the net, if the user approaches it with a critical mind, check sources (which a frightening number of times say the exact opposite of what was included in the article!), and check Talk and revision history pages. But, I would bet that most people do not approach Wikipedia in this manner. Furthermore, Wikipedia is used to train LLMs, and the problem compounds via citogenesis.

If you spend time editing Wikipedia a decent amount, you will see the same groups of moderators and actors which rapidly alter certain types of articles to fit particular metanarratvies. Anyone who points this out will get revdel'd, which means that non-admins can't even see what happened. revdelling is supposed to be reserved for doxing and serious matters, but when you see it abused with your own eyes by the same users working in tandem with mods (I am talking within 3-4 minutes of a controversial post going live), then I guarantee you will never look at Wikipedia the same way again. There are obvious nation-state actors acting out in the open, running automated software (dozens of edits across pages within minutes) without an authorized bot, and they are allied with particular circles of mods who are on the same payroll. If any other user attempts even a mere fraction of a percentage of the biased and violative TOS activity in which they engage, you will get revdel'd and/or have your account banhammered.

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#102

Post by knowaveragejoe »

jacquesm wrote: post #67
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason it's unpopular here, but that "place to go" is the altweb of crypto and other networks like I2P, often dubbed "web3". Yes, all of the scams and beige this-or-that are there. But it's so vast and so granular right now that you can definitely find your dreamers and weirdos doing interesting things.

That's the polar opposite.

I have a lot of respect for you and am disheartened to hear such a blasé condemnation of a big umbrella. The signal to noise ratio is poor, but there are genuinely interesting things going on.

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#103

Post by serf »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #91
almatabata wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My great hope is the VW emissions scandal where the CTO of the company had to commit lines of code that said “do billion dollar crime”. We know that VW did not write the code. It was the supplier Bosch that did it. VW simply activated a feature through configuration.

I understood that the VW CTO committed the config chnage ?

the statement of facts[0] essentially disagrees with that perspective.

"33. Supervisors B, C, and F, and others, however, realized that VW could not design a diesel engine that would both meet the stricter US NOx emissions standards that would become effective in 2007 and attract sufficient customer demand in the US market. Instead of bringing to market a diesel vehicle that could legitimately meet the new , more restrictive US NOx emissions standards, VW AG employees acting at the direct of Supervisors B, C, and F and others, including Company A employees, designed, created, and implemented a software function to detect, evade, and defeat US emissions standards.

tl;dr : Bosch (company A) along with VW employees created the evasion function at the behest of supervisors.

[0]: https://www.mass.gov/doc/vw-statement-of-factspdf/download

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#104

Post by palmfacehn »

denton-scratch wrote: post #89
palmfacehn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an outside perspective these things make Wikipedia editing look more like a game. It is similar to other online communities where points are earned. Profile pages full of merit badges and bureaucratic roles speak for themselves. Sign in to create a character. Level up to unlock achievements. Cast spells by citing rare editorial policy scrolls. If players enjoy their game, that's fine. However it should be unders…

I agree with your complaint about merit badges; I think they signify nothing more than that you have allies among Wikipedia editors. Since editing Wikipedia should be non-partisan, advertising that you have allies suggests that you're a suspect editor. But I've been editing WP since about 2004. I have no merit badges, and no admin privileges. I have no allies. I just want to improve the encyclopaedia.

There are some good editors on WP. I've even been lucky enough to encounter a few. In most cases you wouldn't know they are there, because they don't engage in high visibility problematic behavior.

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#105

Post by ckoerner »

JimDabell wrote: post #10
Smoosh wrote: post #4

Perhaps I’m just getting old and weary and the scales are falling from my eyes, but the number of assholes in the world who are willing to destroy some valuable resource or community for a small benefit to themselves seems to be increasing, and also increasing their efforts and their effectiveness.

It’s definitely gotten worse in politics over the last decade. It used to be the case I could look at politicians and hate their policies and values, but know that they were genuinely trying to shape their country into what they thought was best. Now it seems to be overtaken by shameless grifters who will happily tear everything down if it profits them in some way.

>but know that they were genuinely trying to shape their country into what they thought was best.

But _were_ they? (That's rhetorical, they were not.)

Post reply on HN