5 ms·

There's a clear conflict of interest which Wikipedia is refusing to act on.

by k1m 8y ago

noobermin 8y ago
I feel like we're missing the context here. Why is wikipedia ignoring it?
- k1m 8y ago
  That's a mystery to me too. Initially when the complaints were made on Twitter (by some of Cross' targets), Jimmy Wales dismissed them, asking for diffs. Now that we've provided diffs and shown the scale of his efforts and the clear conflict of interest, we've heard nothing more. We're hoping the more exposure this story gets the more pressure it will put on them to act. But so far it's not looking hopeful. See how one editor was shut down when he tried to raise the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    I suspect Jimmy Wales and his associates are keeping mum because they realize this is because of a fundamental (perhaps intractable) weakness of the Wikipedia platform — NPOV is an impossible standard to maintain without a highly active network of trusted reviewers under a central authority. Even then, many small changes over a long period are a viable attack vector.
- mjw1007 8y ago
  The admin who summarily closed the conflict-of-interest report explains his motivation as follows: « You can't amass 130,000 edits, as Philip Cross has, without being reasonably committed to Wikipedia. You'd be noticed if you were an agenda account with that many edits. And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right. » ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG ) This doesn't inspire much confidence in me, because obviously it _has_ been widely noticed that "Philip Cross" is an agenda account (and it seems it was noticed already almost a decade ago: http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-philip-cross.html http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-phil... )
  - netsharc 8y ago
    Wow, that admin is a git. He should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
  - bscphil 8y ago
    >And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right That is an absolutely astonishing statement and IMO something you should immediately lose admin privileges for making. I have no love for RT or for Syria sympathizers, but to defend someone's edits on the mere basis that they are opposed by those groups is completely unacceptable.

There's a clear conflict of interest which Wikipedia is refusing to act on.

by k1m 8y ago

There's a clear conflict of interest which Wikipedia is refusing to act on.

noobermin 8y ago

I feel like we're missing the context here. Why is wikipedia ignoring it?

k1m 8y ago
That's a mystery to me too. Initially when the complaints were made on Twitter (by some of Cross' targets), Jimmy Wales dismissed them, asking for diffs. Now that we've provided diffs and shown the scale of his efforts and the clear conflict of interest, we've heard nothing more. We're hoping the more exposure this story gets the more pressure it will put on them to act. But so far it's not looking hopeful. See how one editor was shut down when he tried to raise the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  I suspect Jimmy Wales and his associates are keeping mum because they realize this is because of a fundamental (perhaps intractable) weakness of the Wikipedia platform — NPOV is an impossible standard to maintain without a highly active network of trusted reviewers under a central authority. Even then, many small changes over a long period are a viable attack vector.
mjw1007 8y ago
The admin who summarily closed the conflict-of-interest report explains his motivation as follows: « You can't amass 130,000 edits, as Philip Cross has, without being reasonably committed to Wikipedia. You'd be noticed if you were an agenda account with that many edits. And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right. » ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG ) This doesn't inspire much confidence in me, because obviously it _has_ been widely noticed that "Philip Cross" is an agenda account (and it seems it was noticed already almost a decade ago: http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-philip-cross.html http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-phil... )
- netsharc 8y ago
  Wow, that admin is a git. He should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
- bscphil 8y ago
  >And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right That is an absolutely astonishing statement and IMO something you should immediately lose admin privileges for making. I have no love for RT or for Syria sympathizers, but to defend someone's edits on the mere basis that they are opposed by those groups is completely unacceptable.