3 ms·

whatever the merits of this particular claim, the vulnerability of Wikipedia to subversion should be pretty clear for all of us. If you were NatSec it would be

whatever the merits of this particular claim, the vulnerability of Wikipedia to subversion should be pretty clear for all of us. If you were NatSec it would be a simple matter to recruit or train a few editors to focus on and continually update / amend a contested topic. Even KPI's could be pretty simple to manage - 'ensure mentions of [insert targeted country] always carries [insert pejorative Y]'

blululu 4y ago
It would be equally simple for a few citizens of [insert targeted country] to contest the claims that it is linked with [insert pejorative Y]. The open nature of the encyclopedia means that there is at the very least a record of the controversy and in general a countervailing force against such distortions. While an open project like Wikipedia is more vulnerable to this type of attack it is also more resilient to this style of attack but the exact same reasons.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  true but there would be a massive resource imbalance. A small team of paid professionals whose job was solely wikipedia edits would quickly overwhelm the efforts of well meaning amateurs. Additionally, there is a market size problem. For example, a highly literate, politically mobilised population would out-edit a less literate, politically apathetic competitor.
  - JetSpiegel 4y ago
    > true but there would be a massive resource imbalance. A small team of paid professionals whose job was solely wikipedia edits would quickly overwhelm the efforts of well meaning amateurs. Is this a real problem, in the USA at least? Trump spent literal billions to have armies of paid professionals make him look good and still lost the popular vote by millions. > For example, a highly literate, politically mobilised population would out-edit a less literate, politically apathetic competitor. Politically mobilized populations will trounce everything, the sky is the limit. Controlling Wikipedia is one of the least interesting thing they could do. Wikipedia did not cause culture wars.

blululu 4y ago

It would be equally simple for a few citizens of [insert targeted country] to contest the claims that it is linked with [insert pejorative Y]. The open nature of the encyclopedia means that there is at the very least a record of the controversy and in general a countervailing force against such distortions. While an open project like Wikipedia is more vulnerable to this type of attack it is also more resilient to this style of attack but the exact same reasons.

hunglee2 4y ago
true but there would be a massive resource imbalance. A small team of paid professionals whose job was solely wikipedia edits would quickly overwhelm the efforts of well meaning amateurs. Additionally, there is a market size problem. For example, a highly literate, politically mobilised population would out-edit a less literate, politically apathetic competitor.
- JetSpiegel 4y ago
  > true but there would be a massive resource imbalance. A small team of paid professionals whose job was solely wikipedia edits would quickly overwhelm the efforts of well meaning amateurs. Is this a real problem, in the USA at least? Trump spent literal billions to have armies of paid professionals make him look good and still lost the popular vote by millions. > For example, a highly literate, politically mobilised population would out-edit a less literate, politically apathetic competitor. Politically mobilized populations will trounce everything, the sky is the limit. Controlling Wikipedia is one of the least interesting thing they could do. Wikipedia did not cause culture wars.