3 ms·
Nazis: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/ https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na... Then t
by x0x0 5y ago
Nazis: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/ https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na...
Then there's this:
> Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wikipedia-written-by-american-in-mangled-english https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki...
Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705
And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link.
This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
- nextaccountic 5y agoThose two are examples of lone individuals spreading misinformation, but not a concerted effort of Wikimedia itself or one of its chapters
- x0x0 5y agoUsing wikipedia. Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
- lelandfe 5y agoAnd the first example isn’t even that - it’s an editor who is trying to reduce the usage of sources that stem from Nazi propaganda and to limit flowery unsourced language around the Nazis. Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
- dredmorbius 5y agoThe first is not an example of misinformation at all. The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
- x0x0 5y agoRemoving valorization of the Nazi cause implies that there was, well, valorization of the Nazi cause. Which is exactly > actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics