[deleted]
A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
11–20 of 387 posts
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#12This 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…
Wikipedia, however, appear to be trying to protect him. Please see one Wikipedia editor's efforts to flag his behaviour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#13I'm confused as to why this is newsworthy? Are we operating on the assumption that the 303 more prolific wikipedians are somehow all without a personal ideology? If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be to petition to change wikipedia's rules.
Us internet denizens got upset when librarians complained that Wikipedia was inaccurate compared to encyclopedias. We celebrated the "new information economy" of crowdsourcing and open-access information. I think this crowd should be incredibly concerned to hear that there's clear propaganda and power wars on these websites. It's very newsworthy.
> If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be to petition to change wikipedia's rules.
He's removing well-sourced information that's counter to his claims.
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#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 Wikipedia entries isn't notable or concerning but let's not pretend these guys are pacifists.
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#15Cross's modus operandi seems to be many small edits which accumulate to produce a large negative effect, at odds with Wikipedia's principle of "neutral point of view". It's an example of operating within the letter of the rules but not their spirit.
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#16I'm confused as to why this is newsworthy? Are we operating on the assumption that the 303 more prolific wikipedians are somehow all without a personal ideology? If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be to petition to change wikipedia's rules.
Have you read the article? Well-sourced information is being removed and badly-sourced information added, and that's only the beginning.
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#17Judging by the time card, I would bet multiple individuals are using this account. And they're probably getting paid to do it.
I conclude the opposite. He takes nights off, but doesn't take weekends off. This isn't employment. It's an obsession.
He managed to tick off some people who have the opposite political opinion. Those people also edit wikipedia with a personal agenda, and they are unhappy to be up against effective opposition.
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#18Wikipedia been disappointing for a while. I had few years run when every year I got Jimmy email, I did donated $10 cause they gave me tons of info. Just recent year or so, every single article is locked for edition and by different reason (which really doesn't matter). After spending some time you clearly see "clans" of wiki editors fighting with others, removing their content and clearly having agenda, whether it is to continue discredit some individuals, or keep others record unfairly "clean".
Here are all the locks they use as pretex to forbid you from adding your own content, aka supposedly "wikipedia is build by anyone willing to donate their time".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#fu...
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#19This is extremely concerning. Phillip Cross was easily caught because he was running his mouth on twitter, and was blatantly making one-sided edits from his single account. Imagine if a country like Russia makes an orchestrated effort to achieve similar goals, using an army of fake-wikipedia-profiles. They could easily turn Wikipedia into a platform for disseminating propaganda. In fact, I'd be surprised if they have…
Imaging troll army trying to discredit Russia that doesn't give a f$#k about Wikipedia nor USA elections. Every country has its own agenda. Current agenda is barking at Russia in unison about fake accusations like it was with Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Turkey... you name it. (country has to have some oil or no barking)
Re: A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
#20Judging by the time card, I would bet multiple individuals are using this account. And they're probably getting paid to do it.
I conclude the opposite. He takes nights off, but doesn't take weekends off. This isn't employment. It's an obsession. He managed to tick off some people who have the opposite political opinion. Those people also edit wikipedia with a personal agenda, and they are unhappy to be up against effective opposition.
The purpose of wikipedia, at least in the abstract, is to present NPOV information. You don't achieve that by having people with opposite political opinions war with each other.