3 ms·

George Galloway offered the reward Well, we're not George Galloway. If the real interest was in the edits as opposed to promoting conspiracy theories about Wi

by k1m 8y ago

George Galloway offered the reward Well, we're not George Galloway. If the real interest was in the edits as opposed to promoting conspiracy theories about Wikipedia colluding with conflicted editors to damage the good name of Messrs Murray and Galloway, presumably people would be devoting their time to reasoned explanations of why X is important or Y is irrelevant in talk page discussions on article wording I'll just repeat what I said in another comment here: What it seems you're suggesting is that those unfairly targeted on Wikipedia, as Cross is doing, should learn the labyrinthine processes Wikipedia expects to correct their entries. And then presumably to put in the same amount of time Cross is putting in (hours and hours on weekdays and weekends) to monitor their pages for more abuses from him. Should we not be more concerned about blocking those who are clearly in the wrong here?

notahacker 8y ago
I'm far from the biggest fan of Wikipedia's jargon or bureaucracy, but if there is a specific false or objectionable claim on a page it's generally a lot less time-consuming and more productive to remove it, explain why it was removed and then watch the page for future updates than spend hours searching through the responsible editor's social media accounts and then launch a campaign to ban him through multiple social media channels...
- ricardobeat 8y ago
  In my experience contentious articles are often locked for edits from the general public, require approval, or in case they are not, your edits are reverted 10 minutes later.
- k1m 8y ago
  If someone is persistently editing unfairly, has a conflict of interest with many of the people he edits, you think the best thing is just to let this continue and try to put in as much time as he's putting in to watch for and challenge bad edits? Don't agree.
nneonneo 8y ago
If there's an editorial dispute, please solve it in an editorial manner. Editors opposing Cross on Wikipedia have shown prior bad-faith activity. For example, User:Leftworks1 created over a dozen sockpuppets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leftworks1/Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investiga...) to push their viewpoint, only to get smacked by several editors including Cross repeatedly. If there's a real editorial dispute - if anyone wanting to "correct" the bias on the articles is actively doing that, with reputable sources, and getting smacked down, then you can bring that to dispute resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) and come to consensus. But yelling about Wikipedia being broken or unfairly targeting people is just bunk until you've worked through the process. In case you think this is me telling you to submit to the bureaucracy - that's exactly what I'm suggesting. If you have a dispute in the real world, you would go to the courts and use the legal system, not just yell about it endlessly to passersby.
- hsod 8y ago
  > If you have a dispute in the real world, you would go to the courts and use the legal system Or you go to the media...
- k1m 8y ago
  You might want to read Leftworks' response to you here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162387 You have much more faith in the Wikipedia process than I do. Please read our update which highlights how a certain admin has tried to shut down debate around this from the beginning: http://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html http://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html It's only finally now being debated thanks to lots of people "yelling" about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#George_Galloway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...
jackson_bullox 8y ago
There is really nothing to do. Depute resolution only mentioned the damage it has done to their already besmirched reputation, Cross blanked his talk page, ( you can read all his comments and controversy in the view history, but ... get this, and this is funny, he was awarded TWO, count them TWO barn stars. He wins, Wikipedia looses, everyone looses. "the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter, and threatens to damage the credibility of Wikipedia in the public eye." They are worried, but still. Nothing has been done: "On May 14, 2018, Philip Cross acknowledged George Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross has again edited this BLP." I do not have to make any of this up.

by k1m 8y ago

notahacker 8y ago

I'm far from the biggest fan of Wikipedia's jargon or bureaucracy, but if there is a specific false or objectionable claim on a page it's generally a lot less time-consuming and more productive to remove it, explain why it was removed and then watch the page for future updates than spend hours searching through the responsible editor's social media accounts and then launch a campaign to ban him through multiple social media channels...

ricardobeat 8y ago
In my experience contentious articles are often locked for edits from the general public, require approval, or in case they are not, your edits are reverted 10 minutes later.
k1m 8y ago
If someone is persistently editing unfairly, has a conflict of interest with many of the people he edits, you think the best thing is just to let this continue and try to put in as much time as he's putting in to watch for and challenge bad edits? Don't agree.

nneonneo 8y ago

If there's an editorial dispute, please solve it in an editorial manner. Editors opposing Cross on Wikipedia have shown prior bad-faith activity. For example, User:Leftworks1 created over a dozen sockpuppets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leftworks1/Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investiga...) to push their viewpoint, only to get smacked by several editors including Cross repeatedly. If there's a real editorial dispute - if anyone wanting to "correct" the bias on the articles is actively doing that, with reputable sources, and getting smacked down, then you can bring that to dispute resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) and come to consensus. But yelling about Wikipedia being broken or unfairly targeting people is just bunk until you've worked through the process. In case you think this is me telling you to submit to the bureaucracy - that's exactly what I'm suggesting. If you have a dispute in the real world, you would go to the courts and use the legal system, not just yell about it endlessly to passersby.

hsod 8y ago
> If you have a dispute in the real world, you would go to the courts and use the legal system Or you go to the media...
k1m 8y ago
You might want to read Leftworks' response to you here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162387 You have much more faith in the Wikipedia process than I do. Please read our update which highlights how a certain admin has tried to shut down debate around this from the beginning: http://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html http://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html It's only finally now being debated thanks to lots of people "yelling" about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#George_Galloway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...

jackson_bullox 8y ago

There is really nothing to do. Depute resolution only mentioned the damage it has done to their already besmirched reputation, Cross blanked his talk page, ( you can read all his comments and controversy in the view history, but ... get this, and this is funny, he was awarded TWO, count them TWO barn stars. He wins, Wikipedia looses, everyone looses. "the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter, and threatens to damage the credibility of Wikipedia in the public eye." They are worried, but still. Nothing has been done: "On May 14, 2018, Philip Cross acknowledged George Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross has again edited this BLP." I do not have to make any of this up.