15 ms·

For an example of a biased and probably state-backed Wikipedia editor, see the example of Philip Cross. I very casually edit Wikipedia, a few times a year, and

For an example of a biased and probably state-backed Wikipedia editor, see the example of Philip Cross. I very casually edit Wikipedia, a few times a year, and I within an hour of certain changes ran into this "individual". Cross is almost certainly a team of people, and they didn't fully remove my edits, but it was very clear that certain topics are heavily monitored and shaped. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44495696 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44495696 > Political analyst and former UK British ambassador Craig Murray described the scale of Cross’s activities: > Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing. 133,612 edits to Wikipedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing if it is one individual.’ https://www.mintpressnews.com/phillip-cross-the-mystery-wikipedia-editor-targeting-anti-war-sites/250824/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/phillip-cross-the-mystery-wiki...

pelasaco 4y ago
I can imagine that who controls or enforce what is posted on Wikipedia, controls at least partially the narrative. How often is wikipedia used as fact check?
jamespo 4y ago
Craig Murray? sigh
- dj_gitmo 4y ago
  I am not British and don’t know who that is. FWIW I was not editing anything related to British politics.
r721 4y ago
George Galloway, Craig Murray and MintPress News are also propagandists (possibly even state-backed judging from their positive attitude to authoritarian regimes), not some objective truth seekers.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  Ok - but they don't claim to be otherwise (except state-backed, I guess). That doesn't make the factual claims in the GP's post false. If you ever catch them getting into wiki edit wars you can hold them up as an example of political propaganda on wikipedia too.
  - r721 4y ago
    The crux of their problem with "Philip Cross" is not the amount of his edits (he could be a disabled person without other hobbies after all), but that he fact-checks pro-authoritarian propaganda (and that's why this was reported by "Russian state-owned outlets Sputnik and RT" - quote from BBC story).
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      The crux of the GP's comment is a specific example of a high-profile political propagandist on Wikipedia, whom the poster specifically ran into. I think your characterization of the "guy", that he "fact-checks pro-authoritarian propaganda", is just a positive rephrasing of "political propagandist." It doesn't seem relevant what George Galloway and Mint Press News' problem with "Philip Cross" is, just whether the evidence they present that he is an extremely prolific editor is true (seems to be the case). It seems to be up to your personal judgment whether you think this strongly implies he's not an individual or not. Certainly it's relevant information supporting the claim that he's not.
amiga386 4y ago
Both these articles are from 2018. It would be remiss of you not to mention the 2018 ArbCom case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... > Philip Cross has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute with George Galloway while simultaneously making significant content edits to George Galloway’s article over an extended period of time. > Philip Cross has demonstrated a conflict of interest with respect to George Galloway and certain other individuals in the area of post-1978 British politics. But also: > There is no evidence to indicate that Philip Cross has used alternate accounts or sockpuppets to edit or support his views on-wiki, nor that he has coordinated with any other editors, outside individuals, or organizations in his editing. ArbCom took a very dim view of Galloway's, and another Wikipedian's, attempts to "out" Cross's identity. Ultimately, ArbCom banned Cross from doing _any_ editing on "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". That is an enormously wide topic ban. You can also see from his user contributions and the block log that he has been banned by admins for repeatedly defying his topic ban. A 1-week ban in August 2018, a 1-month ban in November 2021, a 3-month ban in July 2022... and now he has a PERMANENT ban since last month. He can't appeal for at least a year. It doesn't seem like a shadowy cabal to me, it sounds like one person who does nothing but edit all day. Wikipedia has quite a few such users, and that's why there's a big list of contentious topics which are more heavily patrolled and restricted than the rest of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Active_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Ac...
- throwoutway 4y ago
  Is there a book or long form of Wikipedia’s contentious history? Would make interesting reading I’d think
pelasaco 4y ago
reading your comment, brought me to the following article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33684686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33684686 (october, 22, The Hunt for Wikipedia's Disinformation Moles)

pelasaco 4y ago

I can imagine that who controls or enforce what is posted on Wikipedia, controls at least partially the narrative. How often is wikipedia used as fact check?

jamespo 4y ago

Craig Murray? sigh

dj_gitmo 4y ago
I am not British and don’t know who that is. FWIW I was not editing anything related to British politics.

r721 4y ago

George Galloway, Craig Murray and MintPress News are also propagandists (possibly even state-backed judging from their positive attitude to authoritarian regimes), not some objective truth seekers.

cool_dude85 4y ago
Ok - but they don't claim to be otherwise (except state-backed, I guess). That doesn't make the factual claims in the GP's post false. If you ever catch them getting into wiki edit wars you can hold them up as an example of political propaganda on wikipedia too.
- r721 4y ago
  The crux of their problem with "Philip Cross" is not the amount of his edits (he could be a disabled person without other hobbies after all), but that he fact-checks pro-authoritarian propaganda (and that's why this was reported by "Russian state-owned outlets Sputnik and RT" - quote from BBC story).
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    The crux of the GP's comment is a specific example of a high-profile political propagandist on Wikipedia, whom the poster specifically ran into. I think your characterization of the "guy", that he "fact-checks pro-authoritarian propaganda", is just a positive rephrasing of "political propagandist." It doesn't seem relevant what George Galloway and Mint Press News' problem with "Philip Cross" is, just whether the evidence they present that he is an extremely prolific editor is true (seems to be the case). It seems to be up to your personal judgment whether you think this strongly implies he's not an individual or not. Certainly it's relevant information supporting the claim that he's not.

amiga386 4y ago

Both these articles are from 2018. It would be remiss of you not to mention the 2018 ArbCom case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... > Philip Cross has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute with George Galloway while simultaneously making significant content edits to George Galloway’s article over an extended period of time. > Philip Cross has demonstrated a conflict of interest with respect to George Galloway and certain other individuals in the area of post-1978 British politics. But also: > There is no evidence to indicate that Philip Cross has used alternate accounts or sockpuppets to edit or support his views on-wiki, nor that he has coordinated with any other editors, outside individuals, or organizations in his editing. ArbCom took a very dim view of Galloway's, and another Wikipedian's, attempts to "out" Cross's identity. Ultimately, ArbCom banned Cross from doing _any_ editing on "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". That is an enormously wide topic ban. You can also see from his user contributions and the block log that he has been banned by admins for repeatedly defying his topic ban. A 1-week ban in August 2018, a 1-month ban in November 2021, a 3-month ban in July 2022... and now he has a PERMANENT ban since last month. He can't appeal for at least a year. It doesn't seem like a shadowy cabal to me, it sounds like one person who does nothing but edit all day. Wikipedia has quite a few such users, and that's why there's a big list of contentious topics which are more heavily patrolled and restricted than the rest of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Active_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Ac...

throwoutway 4y ago
Is there a book or long form of Wikipedia’s contentious history? Would make interesting reading I’d think

pelasaco 4y ago

reading your comment, brought me to the following article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33684686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33684686 (october, 22, The Hunt for Wikipedia's Disinformation Moles)