5 ms·

You misssed the fact that he took it to ANI and was shut down there too very quickly. Frustrated with the fact that no attempt was made to deal with the matter,

by k1m 8y ago

You misssed the fact that he took it to ANI and was shut down there too very quickly. Frustrated with the fact that no attempt was made to deal with the matter, he, quite sensibly, concludes that it appears they are trying to protect Cross. I should also add that the people targeted by Cross all have a fairly large audiences on Twitter, and have been vocal about this issue. Jimmy Wales is aware (he's tweeted to them, as I say in another comment, but to dismiss the matter). I, too, would conclude they were trying to protect him if I was met with that kind of response.

tptacek 8y ago
Who is "they" and why is it sensible that they're "protecting" some random WP admin? What seems more likely to me is that people have very legitimate concerns about Cross's POV, but aren't following WP norms in raising those concerns, and are getting shut down as a result. That's an expected outcome, not a sign of something nefarious happening.
- netsharc 8y ago
  Oh wow, so they don't follow the bureaucracy, so their concerns are shut down, until what? Until they follow the bureaucracy? If I can take a stab at guessing what is happening, the Wikipedia admins probably feel like a super-active member is one of their own, and he/she is being attacked by "outsiders", so what they're doing is defending him with made-up reasons to fool themselves that what they're doing is just. A bit like US police, they're meant to be a part of the community and serve them, but after demonstrations against them because a few members did terrible things, they think they're under attack and their response is to protect their own and treat the public as the aggressive enemy.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Yes. I understand that lots of people on HN hate that, but, yes. Wikipedia is an incredibly complicated and intricate project with its own objectives and norms. It has been manifestly successful; it is one of the great achievements of the Internet to date. People arguing to override those norms have a heavy burden to meet. One of the reasons for those norms is that on controversial issues, everybody can marshal a plausible argument. WP's processes try to make sure that admins can make procedural rather than substantive decisions to resolve conflicts. It's reasonable to have a couple thousand people who understand a process. It's not reasonable to expect a couple thousand people to be authoritative for all the substantive controversies litigated on the encyclopedia. Another reason is that the norms are interdependent. For instance: many of the rest of WP's processes don't work without the "no canvassing" rule. Admins and 'crats can't evaluate an argument if it's flooded with partisan complaints. Admin decisions aren't votes.
    - netsharc 8y ago
      So I suppose the "anyone can edit" tagline is a crock of shit? If an organization is publishing some info about me, it sounds like a giant pain in the butt if I have to learn their bureaucracy to get e.g. false information changed. At least have an ombudsman who could represent my grievances, if you built such a site. But nooooo, it seems because anyone can join and be involved in the mud-wrestle, that's what they have to do to be heard! I wonder if politicians/celebrity can GDPR (to use that term as a verb) Wikipedia to delete all info the site has about them. After learning about this 5 minutes ago, I'm outraged! (Do note, this sentence is tongue-in-cheek!)
      - tptacek 8y ago
        You obviously can edit. And it's especially easy if you're the subject of an article to correct false information about yourself; see WP:BLP. What you're not promised is the ability to win any given debate between yourself and other editors. What would you expect? How could the project possibly work otherwise?
        Retric 8y ago
        No, you can't edit, even simple spelling mistakes get reverted regularly. It's designed to be an overly byzantine bureaucracy to discourage edits so a relatively small group can maintain control. Remember if 100 million people made meaningful contributions daily there would be no way to maintain that control. Arguably that works well, but it's almost meaningless to call it a wiki.
        tptacek 8y ago
        One of the indisputably nice things about WP is that there's a record of everything that happens. Can you cite an example where a simple spelling mistake was reverted, so that the page right now is running the incorrect spelling of something?
        Retric 8y ago
- mjw1007 8y ago
  That's certainly the sort of thing that can happen, but as far as I can tell the COIN report was within Wikipedia norms, and closing the report two minutes later with "Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." was not. (Unless "don't criticise a top-1000 user" counts as a Wikipedia norm, I suppose.) I disbelieve that that the admin in question is both a neutral arbiter and capable of determining within two minutes that Cross is not an "avowed rival" of Galloway (see WP:BLPCOI), particularly given the "And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right" bit on his talk page. [The relevant part of BLPCOI is: « Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person » ]
  - tptacek 8y ago
    A biased point of view isn't a conflict of interest. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_conflict_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...? We all have biases. But we have conflicts when we have direct relationships with topics. Similarly: edits are supposed to have NPOV. But editors almost always have a POV.
    - barrkel 8y ago
      Is truth defined by perseverance?
      - tptacek 8y ago
        No?
  - mjw1007 8y ago
    Quick summary of what happened next for anyone who comes across this thread in the future: Under pressure from outside, the wikipedia admins decided to reopen this case. They fairly quickly came to consensus that Cross was violating the paragraph of the biography-of-living-persons-conflict-of-interest policy quoted above and banned him from editing Galloway's article. There's continuing discussion of whether Cross is doing anything more seriously wrong.
- gnud 8y ago
  The admin who dismisses the conflict of interest complaint later comments that 'being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right'. It's very easy to see how someone might view this as being up against a "they".

by k1m 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

Who is "they" and why is it sensible that they're "protecting" some random WP admin? What seems more likely to me is that people have very legitimate concerns about Cross's POV, but aren't following WP norms in raising those concerns, and are getting shut down as a result. That's an expected outcome, not a sign of something nefarious happening.

netsharc 8y ago
Oh wow, so they don't follow the bureaucracy, so their concerns are shut down, until what? Until they follow the bureaucracy? If I can take a stab at guessing what is happening, the Wikipedia admins probably feel like a super-active member is one of their own, and he/she is being attacked by "outsiders", so what they're doing is defending him with made-up reasons to fool themselves that what they're doing is just. A bit like US police, they're meant to be a part of the community and serve them, but after demonstrations against them because a few members did terrible things, they think they're under attack and their response is to protect their own and treat the public as the aggressive enemy.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Yes. I understand that lots of people on HN hate that, but, yes. Wikipedia is an incredibly complicated and intricate project with its own objectives and norms. It has been manifestly successful; it is one of the great achievements of the Internet to date. People arguing to override those norms have a heavy burden to meet. One of the reasons for those norms is that on controversial issues, everybody can marshal a plausible argument. WP's processes try to make sure that admins can make procedural rather than substantive decisions to resolve conflicts. It's reasonable to have a couple thousand people who understand a process. It's not reasonable to expect a couple thousand people to be authoritative for all the substantive controversies litigated on the encyclopedia. Another reason is that the norms are interdependent. For instance: many of the rest of WP's processes don't work without the "no canvassing" rule. Admins and 'crats can't evaluate an argument if it's flooded with partisan complaints. Admin decisions aren't votes.
  - netsharc 8y ago
    So I suppose the "anyone can edit" tagline is a crock of shit? If an organization is publishing some info about me, it sounds like a giant pain in the butt if I have to learn their bureaucracy to get e.g. false information changed. At least have an ombudsman who could represent my grievances, if you built such a site. But nooooo, it seems because anyone can join and be involved in the mud-wrestle, that's what they have to do to be heard! I wonder if politicians/celebrity can GDPR (to use that term as a verb) Wikipedia to delete all info the site has about them. After learning about this 5 minutes ago, I'm outraged! (Do note, this sentence is tongue-in-cheek!)
    - tptacek 8y ago
      You obviously can edit. And it's especially easy if you're the subject of an article to correct false information about yourself; see WP:BLP. What you're not promised is the ability to win any given debate between yourself and other editors. What would you expect? How could the project possibly work otherwise?
      - Retric 8y ago
        No, you can't edit, even simple spelling mistakes get reverted regularly. It's designed to be an overly byzantine bureaucracy to discourage edits so a relatively small group can maintain control. Remember if 100 million people made meaningful contributions daily there would be no way to maintain that control. Arguably that works well, but it's almost meaningless to call it a wiki.
        tptacek 8y ago
        One of the indisputably nice things about WP is that there's a record of everything that happens. Can you cite an example where a simple spelling mistake was reverted, so that the page right now is running the incorrect spelling of something?
        Retric 8y ago
mjw1007 8y ago
That's certainly the sort of thing that can happen, but as far as I can tell the COIN report was within Wikipedia norms, and closing the report two minutes later with "Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." was not. (Unless "don't criticise a top-1000 user" counts as a Wikipedia norm, I suppose.) I disbelieve that that the admin in question is both a neutral arbiter and capable of determining within two minutes that Cross is not an "avowed rival" of Galloway (see WP:BLPCOI), particularly given the "And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right" bit on his talk page. [The relevant part of BLPCOI is: « Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person » ]
- tptacek 8y ago
  A biased point of view isn't a conflict of interest. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_conflict_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...? We all have biases. But we have conflicts when we have direct relationships with topics. Similarly: edits are supposed to have NPOV. But editors almost always have a POV.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    Is truth defined by perseverance?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      No?
- mjw1007 8y ago
  Quick summary of what happened next for anyone who comes across this thread in the future: Under pressure from outside, the wikipedia admins decided to reopen this case. They fairly quickly came to consensus that Cross was violating the paragraph of the biography-of-living-persons-conflict-of-interest policy quoted above and banned him from editing Galloway's article. There's continuing discussion of whether Cross is doing anything more seriously wrong.
gnud 8y ago
The admin who dismisses the conflict of interest complaint later comments that 'being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right'. It's very easy to see how someone might view this as being up against a "they".