4 ms·

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/information-wars/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/information-... ‘Long term readers will recal

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/information-wars/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/information-... ‘Long term readers will recall the Philip Cross Affair. A Wikipedia Editor named “Philip Cross” was relentlessly conducting a propaganda operation’ .. ‘The incredible thing about “Philip Cross” was that he never took a single day off. From 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018 “Philip Cross” edited Wikipedia every day, including Christmas days, for 1,721 days.’

whycombagator 6y ago
> Being the BBC it downplays the affair in a number of ways – crucially, it gives several examples to show that Philip Cross’s edits are harmless, and not a single example of his thousands of vicious edits, such as his editing my Wikipedia entry to call my wife a stripper.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I don't think of Craig Murray as the peak of unbiased writing.
  - 9q9 6y ago
    Everybody has biases. Murray wears his on his sleeve. More interesting: do you have concrete and verifiable information that his reporting of the Philip Cross Affair, that Murray' conjectures about its background, are wrong? Can you put forward an alternative explanation?
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      "he wears his on his sleeve" - his biases you mean. You've downright stated he's openly biased. So we agree. But that does not mean he's automatically wrong, nor that he's worthy of dismissal overall. Just that I'd take more care to filter what he says than I would with, say, the beeb . Not that the beeb are beyond criticism BTW. And I'm not disagreeing with him that this PC guy is odd and worthy of investigation. It's just that overall fact that he indeed is openly very opinionated. That's fine, so am I, just caveat emptor.
saltedonion 6y ago
But if this was a coordinated misinformation campaign, why not just use a VPN or dynamic ip?

whycombagator 6y ago

> Being the BBC it downplays the affair in a number of ways – crucially, it gives several examples to show that Philip Cross’s edits are harmless, and not a single example of his thousands of vicious edits, such as his editing my Wikipedia entry to call my wife a stripper.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
I don't think of Craig Murray as the peak of unbiased writing.
- 9q9 6y ago
  Everybody has biases. Murray wears his on his sleeve. More interesting: do you have concrete and verifiable information that his reporting of the Philip Cross Affair, that Murray' conjectures about its background, are wrong? Can you put forward an alternative explanation?
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    "he wears his on his sleeve" - his biases you mean. You've downright stated he's openly biased. So we agree. But that does not mean he's automatically wrong, nor that he's worthy of dismissal overall. Just that I'd take more care to filter what he says than I would with, say, the beeb . Not that the beeb are beyond criticism BTW. And I'm not disagreeing with him that this PC guy is odd and worthy of investigation. It's just that overall fact that he indeed is openly very opinionated. That's fine, so am I, just caveat emptor.

saltedonion 6y ago

But if this was a coordinated misinformation campaign, why not just use a VPN or dynamic ip?