351–360 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What possible benefit would accrue from doing something like that?
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.
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…
I glanced through it and none of the facts removed seem particularly controversial. The editor simply put the fact back in and replaced the source. Moreover, wikipedia doesn't ban RT as a source and correctly argues that biased sources can be legitimate if they are correct in context. It seems these days that simply being an anti-establishment politician of any stripe instantly attracts accusations of Russian conspir…
> ‘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 Ashl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would only be natural for us to take this resource as not-so-reliable But that is not what the author of the comment did. They regularly messed it up, and then complained that other people didn't clean it up fast enough. It's like throwing out trash every day out of the window, and then feel offended that there's lots of trash on the street. Of course it is, you made it! Stop doing it, and there would be less tr…
You are complaining about basically some graffiti and likening that to environmental polution and the cause for bigger polution happening and not being cleaned up. Is that right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that anyone who takes wikipedia at face value and trusts everything they read there without further verification, research, or compatible pre-existing knowledge is not a very discerning individual. Wikipedia is not being coy about their identity, I'm pretty sure everyone knows it's edited by strangers on the internet. If you want an encyclopedic source you know you can trust then buy an encyclopedia.
> I'm pretty sure everyone knows it's edited by strangers on the internet I can assure you that there are at least some who are unaware that even they can edit a Wikipedia article. My housemate (a computer engineering student) didn't. My girlfriend seeking her doctorate degree didn't. My 2 roommates who managed to get to the first 100 at our national examination, also didn't.
> ‘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…
> 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 to the article, regardless of fault So, let's suppose that some particular expert who has a particular level of knowledge or expertise in a given field, and is an establis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are confusing edits with articles. Deletionists tend to confuse their personal ignorance (often of a website called "Google" [yes I know how notability works, no that's not an argument against not bothering to even trivially check whether an article can be improved rather than deleted]) with a mandate to sabotage Wikipedia. People who remove cruft from articles, rather than speedy deleting articles that aren't ab…
No, you've misunderstood my argument. The problem is that it's difficult for editors to remove "cruft" on articles about marginal topics, because there are so few (usually: zero) reliable sources to draw from. You can't start from a premise that "cruft" can be removed without removing classes of articles; that begs the question that deletionists answer.
Phrases like "you've misunderstood my words" can sound quite confrontational and, in my experience, tend to provoke defensive responses rather than Cooperative Idea Sharing TM.
I find ideas flow more freely and coopertively by taking the miscommunication blame on myself, "Oh, I must have been unclear. We're on the same page about X, but what I was really trying to say is..."
Anyway, that's just my feel on the meta-interaction above. Carry on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; One has to be very careful about who their readership are and whom the journalist cater to in their writing. For example we had this study done for reporting on the 2016 election and its only a small selection in green that indicate nonpartisan target audience: http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/G... It should be…
There are no perfect solutions, but dismissing all of them because they are imperfect (or mocking them as 'fun' and outdated) is a failure of thinking. Everyone's code is imperfect and has bugs, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss all code as unreliable. The reality is that some things are much more reliable than others, and critical thought is required to distinguish between them. > doing the work oneself and ma…
Studies has been done. Wikipedia has a page on it with a long list of cited studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia).
I would really enjoy seeing a study done on the 2016 election and see where wikipedia would land. My own view is that the order is something like social media < news < wikipedia < fact checking sites when ordering from least reliable to most reliable. Others might have a different personal view, but it is all good so long we all agree that A) critical thought is required for all reading in regard to controversial topics, and B) there are no perfect solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I glanced through it and none of the facts removed seem particularly controversial. The editor simply put the fact back in and replaced the source. Moreover, wikipedia doesn't ban RT as a source and correctly argues that biased sources can be legitimate if they are correct in context. It seems these days that simply being an anti-establishment politician of any stripe instantly attracts accusations of Russian conspir…
That was the intent of Russian misinformation campaign; to create an environment where all sides stop trusting each other.
Maybe they're going for a "boy who cried wolf" dynamic.