4 ms·
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 ge
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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.