7 ms·

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 sin

• k1m 8y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann
  • tptacek 8y ago
    Exactly what is it we're supposed to be looking at here? And what does "Wikipedia", as an entity, mean in your comment?
    • k1m 8y ago
      It's not that long. Did you read it? One Wikipedia editor is trying to highlight the problem of Cross' edits and have him marked as having a conflict of interest on certain articles. The Wikipedia admin (or superiour, I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia hierarchy) shuts him down very rudely and doesn't appear to want to address the issue at all. Leaving the editor to give up: "Forgive me for concluding that Wikipedia is circling its wagons around Philip Cross...I know when the deck is stacked against me."
      • TwoBit 8y ago
        Maybe that editor is Philip Cross?
      • Kim_Bruning 8y ago
        Wikipedia is not a hierarchy. Admins are experienced wikipedians who have a few extra administrative tasks (hence the name). The Admin in question seems to have acted based on their own judgment. (I know because I asked them! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#meatball:ExpandScope_wrt_User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#meatball:ExpandS... ) . You could even talk to the admin yourself, if you would like extra information. Wikipedia has a function to add questions to a talk page, and there is a function to send an email instead/as well, if you have questions. That said, I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here. This is not a "Evil admin stomps on poor innocent victim" story, for sure.
        • k1m 8y ago
          What are you suggesting with your last comment? Did you read the story posted here and the changes Philip Cross has made? "I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here." - Is that the level of evidence needed to do whatever you want on Wikipedia?
          • Kim_Bruning 8y ago
            Yes, I have read most carefully. And I have also talked to one of the admins, as you can see. Obviously, things are not adding up. We can both agree on that much ;-) What I don't quite get is why fivefilters.org is interested?
            • k1m 8y ago
              Because we like the work of many of the people targeted by Cross and decided to write something up on it.
        • twic 8y ago
          Oh, JzG is Guy Chapman! I remember him from usenet back in the day. I haven't interacted with him in almost a decade, but i remember that he was one of the good guys, even if he did take it a bit seriously. Seeing a link to Meatball is also a blast from the past - i just about remember the drama when it split off from Ward's Wiki. Reminiscences aside, i suppose these are both reminders that Wikipedia is a living fossil; it was started in the early days of the web (not the early early days, but early enough), drew its participants and culture from other places which existed at the time, and has been evolving on its own terms ever since.
    • noobermin 8y ago
      The relevant bit is the last two comments by KalHolmann. Attempts to discuss Cross' behavior in the relevant, public boards were closed within minutes of each posting with unsatisfactory explanations. See [0] for example. Not a wikipedian, but from my nerdish poking around and learning about how wikipedia works, it was my impression that these boards are supposed to be public forums to openly discuss issues, in line with its spirit of open collaboration. The fact that editors closed it immediately is evidence that, as KalHolmann says, there is circling of wagons going on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...
      • tptacek 8y ago
        I see an admin with no apparent connection to this subject[0]: (1) instructing KalHolmann not to canvass (this is one of WP's older rules and comes up all the time in AfD, where people will canvass WP and Twitter to get votes to keep marginal articles) (2) backing out KalHolmann's canvassing comments (3) responding to KalHolmann's question about where to direct his concern by telling him to take it to ANI (4) advising against him taking it to the "COI Noticeboard" (I'm not sure I know what that even is but I guess I can guess and I'm not surprised it exists) (5) after KalHolmann takes it there anyways and complains about the outcome, telling him again to take it to ANI. None of this seems bad to me; it seems like a WP admin going out of their way to be helpful (in a WP'ian sort of way) and getting slagged for it on HN. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/NeilN&offset=&limit=500&target=NeilN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contribut...
        • noobermin 8y ago
          NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.
          • tptacek 8y ago
            Ok, look at the admin who closed it --- and their talk page, where they talk more about the reason they closed the COI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Also no apparent connection to the topic. There over a thousand admins on Wikipedia; most of them don't know or have any connection to each other.
    • dboat 8y ago
      It seems obvious to me that by "Wikipedia" he is referring to the Wikipedia admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG) who quashed user KalHolmann's attempts to discuss the issue of Philip Cross's campaign of biased edits. Did you not read the link?
    • jakobegger 8y ago
      It looks like a wikipedia editor requested that Cross should not be allowed to edit articles where he has a conflict of interest. Rather than dealing with the request, it was immediately closed and the editor reporting the conflict of interest was accused of picking a fight.
• Dolores12 8y ago
  Imaging troll army trying to discredit Russia that doesn't give a f$#k about Wikipedia nor USA elections. Every country has its own agenda. Current agenda is barking at Russia in unison about fake accusations like it was with Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Turkey... you name it. (country has to have some oil or no barking)
  • abiox 8y ago
    > Russia that doesn't give a f$#k about Wikipedia nor USA elections why do you feel this is the case? that would actually be very strange if true.
• ssijak 8y ago
  Just look at your news channels...
• Spooky23 8y ago
  A few of my colleagues at work had a running gag of building a persona around one of our coworkers as a joke. The goal was to get a Wikipedia bio crediting him with inventing a particular variant of mullet in the 70s. We were unsuccessful in getting him inventor status, but we did a bio page created, and prominently featured a picture of him with a mullet. You just need a few months and some savvy dealing with the bureaucrats on the site. Slowly make relevant edits to build facts on other articles and you are good to go.
  • ethbro 8y ago
    It's funny how much the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia mirror communism in the Soviet Union. When no one is above the rules, everyone is equal. But given strict adherence to the rules by everyone, enough time, and a collection of ignored misunderstandings that build on each other... change that is not actively opposed is guaranteed.
• bjourne 8y ago
  It is already happening on a daily basis regarding all articles related to a certain country. Correcting erroneous information doesn't work because most issues aren't about facts, but about judgement calls. Is this piece of information relevant in this context or not? Should we use "this definition" that all anthropologists uses or "that definition" that most Wikipedians prefer but no scholar uses? Unless you are getting paid for it, you can't justify spending hours per day bogged down in fights with people who most likely are paid for their time. Wikipedia was a good idea but for political topics it doesn't work at all.
  • belorn 8y ago
    Interesting that you mentioned political topics since I find Wikipedia a much better source than news agencies that are openly aligned to one specific political platform. For news here in Sweden its not uncommon to hear the national radio say "in the political aligned left/right news paper xxx, they wrote ..., while the political aligned (opposing side) wrote ...". Fact checking sites are naturally better and usually go to great length to differentiate themselves from normal (political aligned) news sites and affirm that they are political unaffiliated. Sadly their time and scope is limited so Wikipedia work as a nice middle ground.
    • bjourne 8y ago
      I agree! But when you read news articles you know and expect that the information will have a political slant. But on Wikipedia, the information is advertised as neutral and free of bias, which it isn't. That's the problem with the site. People are treating it as "the truth," rather than just one source among many. People need to be aware of how incredibly messy the Wikipedia editing game is, and that it is dominated by politically affiliated paid editors. Believing otherwise is incredibly naive.
• khawkins 8y ago
  Honestly, advocating for taking steps against disseminating propaganda, then citing Vox as a legitimate news source, concerns me. I wouldn't trust you to be able to draw the line between propaganda and objective writing. How much censorship of opposing views would be done in the name of fighting "Russian propaganda"?
  • _vertigo 8y ago
    Of course, you can't exactly claim Vox isn't a legitimate news source without citing some sources either. (Whether or not Vox is "legitimate" or not is beside the point here, the point is it's hypocritical of you to call someone's sources into question without providing any yourself.)
  • Confiks 8y ago
    Your post is a clear example of an ad hominem and whataboutism [1], an invalid argument, where you cite the usage of a link to Vox to completely dismiss the parent as untrustworthy. [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    • 4bpp 8y ago
      There's an object-level point that can be made about referencing an even more partisan source like Rationalwiki as a response in this particular thread, but the more interesting meta-level observation is that the whole Wikipedia sourcing/attribution mechanism is clearly inadequate for an age where even a fairly casual discussion in HN comments can't be completed without relying on sources that one of the two parties to the debate will consider clearly inadmissible (Vox and Rationalwiki for one side, and maybe Craig Murray and Sputnik for the other).
• TwoBit 8y ago
  Maybe Philip Cross is Russian.
• TomMckenny 8y ago
  >Imagine if a country like Russia makes an orchestrated effort to achieve similar goals This article is citing references from RT and Sputnik to defend a guys who broadcast on RT and Sputnik. It cites several fairly normal edits as outrageous. For example Snopes has it's founders names listed but the article implies listing Media Len's founders is an attack. Likewise removing an un-cited assertions are called attacks. And the article apparently believes offering a £1000 for doxing information is acceptable. And remarkably expanding on all this to imply that all of wikipedia is suspect. I would really take this article with a big grain of salt.
• Shivetya 8y ago
  you mention state actors but overlook the bogeyman in our own backyard, whether it be the CIA, FBI, or even PACs. Yes Political Action Committees have people whose job is to maintain their view. PACs do it through mailing lists that combine specific people to maintain control over what is presented. with regards to sites like reddit you have those assigned to post and the list to rally those to vote up particular posts and downvote others to even mass report. I know that many want to blame the other guy but sometimes that other guy is someone we know and their intentions are no better
• philwelch 8y ago
  What if that’s exactly what this guy is trying to resist? I don’t have a whole lot of information, but it seems like many of ths guy’s “targets” are “journalists” for Sputnik, which is part of Russia’s propaganda apparatus. And I’ve developed a strong, deeply-held skepticism towards any obvious attempt to fire up the ol’ internet outrage machine against some particular person.
• ropeadopepope 8y ago
  Why is this only concerning now? Wikipedia has had this issue for at least a decade. I would be less concerned with Russia and more concerned with the agenda of the people who have been working with impunity on Wikipedia all this time. Infogalactic doesn't have this problem.
  • herpes 8y ago
    I've never heard of "infogalactic." What makes it immune from these kinds of problems that Wikipedia has?
• AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Imagine if a country like Russia Honestly, Israel, KSA etc. are as much, if not more likely to do this, as indeed shown by the Phillip Cross guy, who was making edits to benefit them. Of course it is far easier to constantly mention Russia, (and it should be mentioned), but I'd love if people were more willing to call out our 'partners' who engage in this behavior, as calling out Russia requires no amount of 'courage' at all.
  • FPGAhacker 8y ago
    The point of the post was not the courageousness of the op, or Russia. The point was propaganda.
    • igivanov 8y ago
      Well it has a definite slant against Russia, especially given the lame example in a link about Mueller's indictment against several Russians from an Internet spam outfit, not against Russia the country. Somehow I haven't heard the Cambridge Analytica debacle being presented as a UK's effort "to achieve similar goals". Israel would indeed be a better example with their hasbara effort which is directed by the government.
    • AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > The point was propaganda. I get that, my point was that if you're going to give examples, it may be worthy to not always point to Russia/China etc. as that is well known and understood, but to take the opportunity to highlight that it is done by countries that are supposed to be our friends to a much greater degree as that is not a point you'll hear on MSM, (Russia you'll hear so much about, it borders on Xenophobia).
• PrimHelios 8y ago
  >Imagine if a country like Russia makes an orchestrated effort to achieve similar goals That's pretty much already happened. Remember that time Scientology tried to attack Wikipedia for telling the truth about Sea Org? They got close to getting away with it, and if a larger nation-state tried editing less-controversial articles, I'm sure they would get away with it. It wouldn't surprise me if Russia has already done things like that.