21–30 of 387 posts
I don't trust Wikipedia content and tend to examine the Talk pages (sometimes even the Talk page histories) on controversial articles.
I'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.
I think one of the arguments is this isn’t an individual but a group or agency with an agenda and resources to bend Wikipedia to a specific narrative.
Bending wikipedia has been going on for ages, not even counting the paid editing that you seem to presume. The famous example, where Jimmy Wales had to step in, was pedophiles putting a positive spin on their sort of activity. A much tamer example is feral cats; the article minimizes any harm (wildlife loss, contamination, etc.) due to the people obsessed with the subject matter.
Most controversial subjects on wikipedia get a positive spin. It's simply a matter of who is most obsessed with the subject matter.
The Wikipedia editing process is broken. Wiki-lawyering is used to shut down the collaborative editing process, even when not on political topics often by people who don't know much about the topic that they are editing. I don't trust Wikipedia content and tend to examine the Talk pages (sometimes even the Talk page histories) on controversial articles.
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…
I'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.
There's a clear conflict of interest which Wikipedia is refusing to act on.
I'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.
"Well-sourced" is not the only criterion. I could edit a page, citing credible sources, and still distort it by including implicit, one-sided interpretations of those sources results/contents.
Also, if the rules do not have, in short, "be objective", then yes, we should petition to change wikipedia's rules.
seems like a fairly obvious ops campaign by some interested group. I would think that many state organizations would want long term reputable editors to craft their messages.
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 conquistador of some made-up novohispano population in some made-up location.
Imagine how compromised wikipedia must be by people with agendas more lofty than uni students passing some time.
Hell, just the other day I removed "See Also: Donald Trump" from one of the major fallacy articles. The history showed that the scathing political commentary was up there for over 8 months and nobody cared.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a clear conflict of interest which Wikipedia is refusing to act on.
I feel like we're missing the context here. Why is wikipedia ignoring it?