15 ms·
Wikipedia bans agenda-driven editor, but punishes the messenger too
- baud147258 8y agoSo this website is going to lose its raison d'être? Also his soft-grey on white background is hard to read. Edit: It's just in my browser of choice that it appears as grey on white. It looks much better on Chrome.
- Avamander 8y agoDo you happen to have myopia or astigmatism?
- baud147258 8y agoI have myopia, but I wear glasses when using a computer or a smartphone.
- pc86 8y agoWhat is your browser of choice and why is it displaying websites incorrectly?
- baud147258 8y agoIE. I don't think I need to explain why some website might not display correctly with it, even if most website are displaying correctly. But I haven't look why this one in particular is not working.
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoI'm no expert, but I guess it might be a font that renders differently on IE vs Chrome / other browsers - or it's a font not supported and what you're seeing is a less legible fallback.
- baud147258 8y agoWell it's not a font problem, the issue is that the background in IE is white, whereas it's dark grey on chrome. It's readable, but not very legible.
- k1m 8y agoI'm sorry about this! I should've checked on IE. Just have and Edge shows right background colour but chunky font which is difficult to read. And IE 11 shows white background. We used Typora to write this up and used its bundled Night theme. Assumed it had been tested in IE, but appears not. I'll make sure we fix this soon. Edit: It's also possible that we tweaked the CSS it generated, which might have caused this, so I'd rather not blame it on their theme before I test it.
- baud147258 8y agoConsidering the IE marketshare, I don't think it's much of a problem to not test on IE (or even Edge). And I'm less bothered by a browser compatibility issue than illegible design. Also on Edge I see the same white background as on IE, but I'm on Windows 10 1703, if it's a version dépendent bug.
- k1m 8y agoIt appears this was related to CSS variable support. Typora's themes use CSS3 variables which aren't supported in IE and weren't supported in Edge until more recently. I tried on Edge 42 (EdgeHTML 17) when I said the background colour displayed correctly. Perhaps you're using an older version of Edge (the version is displayed at the bottom of the settings panel). In any case, I've added CSS to set the background colour without using CSS variables. It now shows correctly for me in IE 11 too. Thanks for letting us know.
- bhouston 8y agoWikipedia internal solidarity politics are just messed up if you approach the inner circle. There is no fixing it. There is a lot of behind the scenes back scratching, horse trading, and manipulation via back channels between the members. Just stay away from them and avoid their gaze. It has also been like this, it isn't new nor does it mean there is impending doom for Wikipedia. It is just how it is. It is like the black whole at the center of the galaxy, you want to just stay away from it.
- Spooky23 8y agoThis is just how bureaucracies work. In other contexts, it's hidden from public view, and often hidden from internal view as well. Many careers have been knee-capped by bureaucratic factors where the subject never even knows.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zimablue 8y agoI guess this is one of those many laws of bureaucracies, any time there's enough power and hierarchy the top is self serving tribal warfare. I guess the question is to what extent that warfare is isolated from the interests of the members. If you look in parallel to the government, I guess you're talking about separation of powers - political leaders vs independent arbitrators, does this exist in wiki? There's no overall elections right more a kind of election at each level for the one above?
- tux3 8y ago>There's no overall elections right more a kind of election at each level for the one above? Not at all! The highest positions in terms of the user rights granted would be Admins and Bureaucrats. The elections for those are the RfA and RfB (requests for Adminship and Bureaucratship respectively). And contrary to what you might think, anyone with an account is free to nominate themselves, or to chime in on someone else's nomination (to the point that the process can be really hard to go through, as your history will be combed through relentlessly by overzealous users). Note that those are not traditional elections either, instead of a pure vote, the process is more of a structured discussion to establish a consensus. Like all places on the internet that grant special roles and privileges, you'll find people hungry for power, but Wikipedia fares pretty well in this respect.
- holstvoogd 8y agough, i think it is time to scrap the internet. everything is being corrupted to the extend there is no point imo
- kypro 8y agoI really miss the web from 10 years ago. It felt so liberating back then. Everything felt so open and genuine. I made so many friends in the early days of the internet. I don't even know how, forums, MSN messengers, games. You'd just add people and talk to them for hours. Now the internet today seems to be mostly ads, corporate corruption, government censorship, and political outrage. It's a shame. I don't enjoy the internet half as much anymore. Maybe it's more my age or that I'm used to the technology now, but it really feels like we lost something innocent and special about the early days of the internet.
- oblio 8y agoWere you a kid back then?
- Twirrim 8y agoThose are some nice rose-tinted glasses you're wearing. The internet has been kind of a shit show since before the world wide web was even a thing.
- binxbolling 8y ago2008 as the golden age of the web...?!!
- maze-le 8y agoI don't know how old you are, but my bet is: its an age thing. Actually I miss the web from 1999-2004 for the exact same reasons you do, and 2008 was already way downhill for me. But when I think about it a bit more carefully... How old was I at the time? 14-19... An age where almost everything is exciting and new: music, parties, friends, philosophy, technology you name it. I can easily apply this sentiment to most categories of interest during this time period. I wonder if in 15 years from now, the people around 30 will rumble about how wonderful it was back then, when it was all the rage to be on Instagram etc. and how easy it was to connect to people, and how quickly you could organize events via social media.
- sverige 8y agoThe idea that anyone (including me and you, dear reader) is free from bias, especially when discussing politics, seems painfully obvious after reading lots of history. And yet, the claim that this or that person or organization is 'neutral' is very common. Further, the desire to create a 'neutral' 'encyclopedia' online is presumably what drives the entire Wikipedia community. I'd wish for a Wikipedia that consistently allows all viewpoints to be given an opportunity to be presented on any given topic, but I have no faith that such a thing is possible given the pervasiveness of the idea of neutrality and the interests at work to preserve that myth.
- throwaway5752 8y agoThat is nihilism, plain and simple. You can recognize bias and try to avoid it, like Wikipedia, by requiring credible citations and having processes to avoid editorial bias from impacting the end result (which it obviously did, eventually, as we're reading about here). Like CNN, the WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, WP, and many other sources of information (across the political spectrum) do every day. Or you can go the route of Fox news, take a pronounced editorial bias that takes clear precedence over reporting facts. I would post video of Jeanine Pirro or Hannity, but it seems unecessarily crude.
- syrrim 8y agoThis ignores the problem of bias by ommission, where an editor merely doesn't include something that goes against their bias. This is impossible to solve with sources because editors still need to be able to choose to ignore something they see as unimportant. It also ignores that the degree to which a sources "credibility" derives from your agreement with it, and therefore its political bias. When a source you agree with says something wrong, this is seen as an honest mistake, but when you disagree with them, it acts as a tarnish on their credibility forever more. Wikipedia editors can use "credibility" to prevent others from correcting their ommissions.
- throwaway5752 8y agoCredibility is earned and lost. Question if this article would happen if the source material was Alex Jones/Infowars. There would not be an article about "British politics bias" there. It's noteworthy if they concede that there aren't sinister forces trying to steal your precious bodily fluids. The only reason the posted article exists and that we are having this thread is that Wikipedia takes pains to be unbiased and has some expectations of being so by reputation.
- kevin_b_er 8y agoWikipedia is like a microcosm of public politics, large version of a high school social system, or maybe a cult. There's cliques, arcane rules, and always always an agenda. It would make for a fascinating study on human behavior and how it relates to politics in the real world. Wikipedia internal politics are a scary beast fraught with peril. And the actual content suffers horribly.
- convery 8y agoIndeed, it's always fun to read about a controversial topic one day and find a totally different article the next. Then watch the talk where some news-sources are unacceptable when they support the wrong narrative but unsubstantiated blogs can be used to push the right one. It's fascinating although a little scary.
- cheeko1234 8y agoAny examples?
- wavefunction 8y agoI think the most productive move that folks critical of Wikipedia can make is to create an alternative. It's unfortunate that Jimmy Wales and his clique comport themselves the way they do, because Wikipedia would be much stronger if they didn't. I find it useful for browsing on subjects that interest me but I don't tend to use it for subjects that are too controversial. At least superficially. And yet given what I know about the biases of Internet denizens I have to wonder how much of what I expose myself to is accurate and not the result of some weird personal biases. I also consider the citations listed in the footnotes which gives me a bit more confidence than none, I suppose.
- KaoruAoiShiho 8y agoHow would any alternative be any less biased?
- chris_wot 8y agoI had an idea that you could create a Wikipedia with the same content, but allow for certain, more opinionated alternative articles. A link to these would be incorporated into the UI of the site and by default the best, most neutral one would be shown but you would suspend neutrality on the alternative articles. All the other Wikipedia policies would still apply.
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoHow would you judge neutrality? I think that's the main challenge. Plus if it's about idk, community votes, those are easily cheated on with bots, farms and/or brigades.
- mirimir 8y agoThat makes sense to me. Instead of aiming for a consensus article, just point searches to a consensus neutral article. Or maybe not even that, if there's too much contention, but just a list of labeled articles. Just as there are now disambiguation pages. But of course, you'd need consensus labels, but at least that seems more feasible than consensus articles.
- chris_wot 8y agoMy initial reaction to this was that this was typical. I was similarly treated. But frankly, I know Guy and something doesn’t seem quite right. I’m not certain we have heard the full story on this. One thing I will say: I often regret creating the admin’s noticeboard. It helped centralise control and the incidents offshoot is a cesspool of conflict. It often is not managed well at all.
- mirimir 8y agoI gotta say that, after reading this,[0] I am very glad that I never started contributing to Wikipedia. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive299#Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...
- lucideer 8y agoI don't know Guy, but purely from that linked discussion (Guy on George Galloway): > He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way That is, without any need for further context, a statement of bias, and if the user Guy is espousing such views of relevant subjects here they absolutely shouldn't be involved in decision-making of any kind on this topic. This follow-up statement is worse again: > ... and allow PC to definitively clear his name Presumption of innocence is one thing, but presumption of a future outcome of arbitration is quite another. It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset, and it's not good.
- lobotryas 8y agoAre you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. Look at Assange. First he was hailed as a hero in the West; now he's looked at as a Russian agent.
- mirimir 8y agoUmmm. Parent isn't saying that. They're quoting Guy, who's saying that. Edit: Unless I missed a multiple negative.
- gadders 8y agoSome of the back story to this is an argument between journalists Oliver Kamm and Neil Clark. Not picking any particular side, but there seems to have been some real life disagreement that is playing out on Wikipedia. [1] http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/neil_clark.html http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/neil_clark.html [2] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/comment-page-1/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-c... [3] http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-vicious-vendettas-of.html http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-vici...
- chris_wot 8y agoTweet from Jimmy Wales: https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/994264792062885895?s=21 https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/994264792062885895?s=...
- dmix 8y agoSounds like there's a lot more to this story than it seems at first... I really hope this is not based in some right vs left wing political drama and is legitimately about abusive behaviour. Listening to the BBC show (as I'm not very familiar with this story), it sounds like it's a lot of one and a little of the other https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csws6q https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csws6q
- lobotryas 8y agoCertainly feels like someone found a reason to kick a right-leaning admin off Wikipedia. Just because someone has an agenda and seek out negative information about people, doesn't mean said information is wrong.
- phkahler 8y agoBut it does mean they have an agenda.
- jessaustin 8y agoNot so much "right vs left" as "warmongering centrists vs unorthodox pacifists".
- Twirrim 8y agoPeople repeatedly showed him the diffs he asked for, and he turned a blind eye to it.
- FlashGit 8y agoEnglish wikipedia on various aspects of 'British' history is pretty biased and prejudiced. There is the typical careful framing to tilt perception positively and negatively as required, such a desperate bunch.
- _louisr_ 8y agoEverything looks good here. The biased Wikipedia editor can no longer edit pages on post-1978 British politics. The whistleblower can no longer speculate on any editor's off-wiki behaviour. No more biased edits from the accused, and no more witch-hunting from the whistleblower. Relevant quotes from article: Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter KalHolmann is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter Well done Wikipedia.
- lucideer 8y ago> no more witch-hunting from the whistleblower. I think the issue raised is the definition of Holmann's actions as whistleblowing or witchhunting. If it's the latter, that would seem to imply he shouldn't have engaged in that witchhunt, in which case the ban on Philip Cross would definitely not have come to pass. Are you saying this should be the case? If it's the former (whistleblowing), it can't be defined as witchhunting and you must agree Holmann should not be restricted. You can only agree with one of the above and remain logically consistent.
- Kim_Bruning 8y agoKalholmann didn't open the arbcom case, and they didn't provide the bulk of useful evidence. I'd say they were neither whistleblowing nor witchhunting; just producing more heat than light (sadly).
- k1m 8y agoKalHolmann's post about Philip Cross' conflict of interest was posted on 18 May 2018 on the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard. It ended with the following proposal: > I request that Philip Cross be topic banned from editing George Galloway and the other "goons" with whom he is at war—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens— all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. KalHolmann (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Five minutes after posting that, your acquintance Wikipedia admin Guy rejected it, as he'd done the previous attempt (also within minutes). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis... As it turns out, two months later, the arbitration committee essentially ruled agreeing with his initial request (and in fact broadening the ban to all of post-1978 British politics). So your claim that he was "producing more heat than light" is nonsensical.
- sodosopa 8y agoI guess I won't donate this year.
- dingo_bat 8y agoAgenda driven editor sounds exactly like the kind of editors you need for an encyclopedia. If you have no agenda, won't you just sit at home and watch TV?
- kaendfinger 8y agoCue the people trying to claim that anyone in this entire world is unbiased. I'm biased, you're biased, everyone's biased. CNN is biased, NYT is biased, Fox News is biased, NPR is biased. We should all stop pretending that our own news source is unbiased. It's simply not true.
- jonhendry18 8y agoHowever, some news sources make some effort to reduce bias and otherwise function within an ethos that bias is something that reporters should try to avoid unless there's good reason for apparent bias. (For example, stories about smoking causing lung cancer, or about plate tectonics, don't require "balance" and contribution from opposing viewpoints because the opposition viewpoints are a tiny fringe without support.) Other news sources, like Fox, don't even bother.
- manfredo 8y agoSure, but a reputable source actively tries to mitigate bias. Not to mention, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of factual information as opposed to news publications that often deliberately focus on their own opinions rather than facts - not that editorials are inherently bad, just that news publications are distinct from encyclopedias.
- Kim_Bruning 8y agoFivefilters.org is very good at cherry-picking; they are quite ...selective... with the truth. Take everything they say with a barrel of salt, and keep your eyes peeled for what they leave out. Philip Cross cannot be said to be an agenda driven editor; people checked all the evidence (One person went so far as to hand-check and score large samples of his edits; a hellish job!). The facts just weren't there to support that assertion. KalHolmann was ultimately NOT the messenger here, and was also not the person who brought the arbitration case. In fact, when KalHolmann was explicitly invited to help sort things out, they couldn't back out fast enough. What little KalHolmann did do brought more heat than light to the situation.
- phnk 8y ago> Fivefilters.org is very good at cherry-picking Correct, and if I recall correctly, former threads discussing pages on that website had highlighted that. It does not seem to be the be the case in this thread.
- k1m 8y agoPlease feel free to post links to those threads. I did my best to respond to HN commentors in earlier discussions here.
- k1m 8y ago> Philip Cross cannot be said to be an agenda driven editor; people checked all the evidence (One person went so far as to hand-check and score large samples of his edits; a hellish job!). The facts just weren't there to support that assertion. Philip Cross edits in different areas, e.g. jazz and film. He's highly prolific. He needn't have an agenda in all areas to be called an agenda-driven editor in other areas. And the fact that he's made over a 100,000 edits means someone who approaches an examination of his edits by looking at a small random sample of his total output (as the editor you mention did) is not likely to come up with anything useful (I think this was pointed out to him). So to say "the facts just weren't there to support that assertion" is not really true. We've documented his editing in three articles now: * https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/ * https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html * https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/ Readers can make up their own minds. > KalHolmann was ultimately NOT the messenger here, and was also not the person who brought the arbitration case. Who was the messenger, then? As far as we're aware, he was the Wikipedia editor who attempted to notify the community to the problems when the story emerged. Only to be shut down by admin Guy - who, it should be mentioned, appears to be an acquaintance of yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155#meatball:ExpandScope_wrt_User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155#meat... > In fact, when KalHolmann was explicitly invited to help sort things out, they couldn't back out fast enough. What little KalHolmann did do brought more heat than light to the situation. He withdrew because of the way he was treated by Wikipedia admins, including Guy (your friend/acquaintance), and the arbitrators who started censoring his contributions. Anyone can read his contribution to the case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845422299&oldid=845421753&title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FBLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles%2FEvidence&type=revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845422299&oldid=84... and the edit history which shows editing of his contributions (mostly permanently deleted now by the arbitrators): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Evidence&offset=&limit=500&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra... > Fivefilters.org is very good at cherry-picking; they are quite ...selective... with the truth. You've not really demonstrated that with your contributions here.
- tomtimtall 8y agoThis likely won’t have huge concequences for Wikipedia, but they lost at least one donor.