5 ms·

Is it just me or is it weird to see articles posted on academic journals that sound like complains targeting wikipedia? It reads like someone losing an editor

Is it just me or is it weird to see articles posted on academic journals that sound like complains targeting wikipedia? It reads like someone losing an editor war and taking the conversation to some other medium where the people involved in the process have no way to address, let alone present facts or even their case.

rendall 4y ago
> It reads like someone losing an editor war and taking the conversation to some other medium where the people involved in the process have no way to address, let alone present facts or even their case. Wikipedia is vulnerable to coordinated, tendentious editing, and the "in Wikipedia" process has no effective way, nor even will, to address it. Making accusation itself can get you sanctioned.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > Wikipedia is vulnerable to coordinated, tendentious editing Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia quotes primary sources. If you insist in pushing a belief that's not supported by primary sources then you are the problem, not wikipedia. To me this article reads like someone trying to push unfounded propaganda I'm wikipedia to whitewash conspiracy theories with a veneer of authoritative source, but was stopped by their inability to present primary sources that supports his personal claim. Once that character lost an edit war, he resorted to attack wikipedia with yet another conspiracy theory. It's telling that the article has been framed with a conspiracy behind wikipedia while leaving the supposed sources as unquestionable.
  - ameliaquining 4y ago
    Nit: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based primarily on secondary sources, not primary ones, though some uses of primary sources are accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    Your use of terms like “conspiracy theory” make it seem like you’ve come to some very strong opinions about this specific debate. Your original question at the top of this thread made it seem like you had a reasonable meta-question about whether it’s appropriate to “escalate” editorial conflicts to a journal, and that was answered by several posters. But I don’t think you really had a question: you seem to have a dog in this fight. Might I suggest that HN is not the right forum to pursue it.
    - simplotek 4y ago
      > Your use of terms like “conspiracy theory” make it seem like you’ve come to some very strong opinions about this specific debate. Holocaust denial is a long lived conspiracy theory. There is no way of getting around that fact. > Your original question at the top of this thread made it seem like you had a reasonable meta-question about whether it’s appropriate to “escalate” editorial conflicts to a journal (...) There is no escalation. There's at best a blatant attempt to throw accusations in a way that prevents those attacked of defending themselves, and at worst there is libel. Let's look at the facts: the wikipedia article on the Holocaust is clear in pointing out that the 6 million figure was actually provided by the leading Nazi official responsible for the Holocaust. The same wikipedia article then says in no unclear terms that "Historians estimates range from 4,204,000 to 7,000,000." What exactly is questionable about these facts? Nothing.
  - rendall 4y ago
    > Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia quotes primary sources. If you insist in pushing a belief that's not supported by primary sources then you are the problem, not wikipedia. I'll assume you meant secondary sources. I would normally agree. The original idea was for dispassionate scholarly discussions followed by consensus. Except that gangs who have no intention of allowing that to happen can and do circumvent that process. Bullying, hostility, gaslighting and weaponizing sanction procedures are tools in the toolbelt of these gangs, and as I said there is no effective in-Wikipedia process for recognizing and defeating it. There is in fact a willful denial that this is even a possibility, which essentially guarantees that it's rampant.
badcppdev 4y ago
I think it's really interesting and not weird at all. Wikipedia has change records which are an absolutely brilliant way of seeing how small edits can change the meaning and intent of a document. The particular topic is not surprising either because it is very important to modern politics. The whole concept of an editor war is a fascinating topic in itself.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matthewdgreen 4y ago
If the issue here is that Wikipedia’s editor set is being dominated by motivated nationalists, then the issue should absolutely be addressed in a non-Wikipedia forum. Both to gain access to an audience that isn’t captured, and to make sure there is public awareness that Wikipedia’s internal editorial controls might be compromised. If the folks arguing the other side feel differently, then can certainly respond in a similar forum. ETA: Or failing that they can hunt down any open Internet forum that is discussing the article and brigade it with opinionated takes. Which may explain what’s happening in this HN thread.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > If the issue here is that Wikipedia’s editor set is being dominated by motivated nationalists, then the issue should absolutely be addressed in a non-Wikipedia forum. This sort of whataboutisn is a blatant attempt at reframing the issue as an irrational ideological battle where one side just so happens to be winning instead of what it really is: a random guy trying to push unfounded conspiracy theories into a medium designed to express consensus supported by primary sources.

rendall 4y ago

> It reads like someone losing an editor war and taking the conversation to some other medium where the people involved in the process have no way to address, let alone present facts or even their case. Wikipedia is vulnerable to coordinated, tendentious editing, and the "in Wikipedia" process has no effective way, nor even will, to address it. Making accusation itself can get you sanctioned.

simplotek 4y ago
> Wikipedia is vulnerable to coordinated, tendentious editing Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia quotes primary sources. If you insist in pushing a belief that's not supported by primary sources then you are the problem, not wikipedia. To me this article reads like someone trying to push unfounded propaganda I'm wikipedia to whitewash conspiracy theories with a veneer of authoritative source, but was stopped by their inability to present primary sources that supports his personal claim. Once that character lost an edit war, he resorted to attack wikipedia with yet another conspiracy theory. It's telling that the article has been framed with a conspiracy behind wikipedia while leaving the supposed sources as unquestionable.
- ameliaquining 4y ago
  Nit: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based primarily on secondary sources, not primary ones, though some uses of primary sources are accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  Your use of terms like “conspiracy theory” make it seem like you’ve come to some very strong opinions about this specific debate. Your original question at the top of this thread made it seem like you had a reasonable meta-question about whether it’s appropriate to “escalate” editorial conflicts to a journal, and that was answered by several posters. But I don’t think you really had a question: you seem to have a dog in this fight. Might I suggest that HN is not the right forum to pursue it.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > Your use of terms like “conspiracy theory” make it seem like you’ve come to some very strong opinions about this specific debate. Holocaust denial is a long lived conspiracy theory. There is no way of getting around that fact. > Your original question at the top of this thread made it seem like you had a reasonable meta-question about whether it’s appropriate to “escalate” editorial conflicts to a journal (...) There is no escalation. There's at best a blatant attempt to throw accusations in a way that prevents those attacked of defending themselves, and at worst there is libel. Let's look at the facts: the wikipedia article on the Holocaust is clear in pointing out that the 6 million figure was actually provided by the leading Nazi official responsible for the Holocaust. The same wikipedia article then says in no unclear terms that "Historians estimates range from 4,204,000 to 7,000,000." What exactly is questionable about these facts? Nothing.
- rendall 4y ago
  > Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia quotes primary sources. If you insist in pushing a belief that's not supported by primary sources then you are the problem, not wikipedia. I'll assume you meant secondary sources. I would normally agree. The original idea was for dispassionate scholarly discussions followed by consensus. Except that gangs who have no intention of allowing that to happen can and do circumvent that process. Bullying, hostility, gaslighting and weaponizing sanction procedures are tools in the toolbelt of these gangs, and as I said there is no effective in-Wikipedia process for recognizing and defeating it. There is in fact a willful denial that this is even a possibility, which essentially guarantees that it's rampant.

badcppdev 4y ago

I think it's really interesting and not weird at all. Wikipedia has change records which are an absolutely brilliant way of seeing how small edits can change the meaning and intent of a document. The particular topic is not surprising either because it is very important to modern politics. The whole concept of an editor war is a fascinating topic in itself.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

matthewdgreen 4y ago

If the issue here is that Wikipedia’s editor set is being dominated by motivated nationalists, then the issue should absolutely be addressed in a non-Wikipedia forum. Both to gain access to an audience that isn’t captured, and to make sure there is public awareness that Wikipedia’s internal editorial controls might be compromised. If the folks arguing the other side feel differently, then can certainly respond in a similar forum. ETA: Or failing that they can hunt down any open Internet forum that is discussing the article and brigade it with opinionated takes. Which may explain what’s happening in this HN thread.

simplotek 4y ago
> If the issue here is that Wikipedia’s editor set is being dominated by motivated nationalists, then the issue should absolutely be addressed in a non-Wikipedia forum. This sort of whataboutisn is a blatant attempt at reframing the issue as an irrational ideological battle where one side just so happens to be winning instead of what it really is: a random guy trying to push unfounded conspiracy theories into a medium designed to express consensus supported by primary sources.