4 ms·

How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges into the Public Record

69 points by jseliger 2y ago

TraceWoodgrains 2y ago
Hm, I'm disappointed that this was flagged. This is my third article that's been flagged here recently, after my FAA article a few months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39184451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39184451) and my deep dive into the backstory of a fight several months before that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37390961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37390961). My older articles didn't get flagged and were often quite successful on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=tracingwoodgrains.medium.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=tracingwoodgrains.med... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32898573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32898573 I don't submit my own articles here but always appreciate when they reach the HN audience. I admit I find the system here quite opaque and have a hard time understanding what gets flagged and why. Is it because my articles often explore controversies and might get undue attention over some of the more technical content here? Is there some way I could reach out to someone for more info on why my articles keep getting flagged?
- breck 2y ago
  can we summon dang by putting in his username? In general, I agree with your complaints about the flagging system on this site. It seems pretty indefensible, to provide no disclosure at all about who the judges (admins) are, and to require no public explanation of judgements. They often hide behind "users flagged it". How many users? Which users? Perhaps user flags should not be anonymous, perhaps even require a user to publicly state why they flagged it. We wouldn't allow that in our court system in the real world, why allow that in this impactful online forum?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bhouston 2y ago
The article is way way too long. Who would read +20 pages on a single Wikipedia editor? Feels obsessive if you need +20 pages to make a case. But on the first issue brought up in the article -- I am not going to read all the rest, too long: Removing things cited to Free Beacon seems fair game. It isn't a reliable source. I know it hurts when your favourite site is declared as unreliable, but it happens to both extreme left and right rags. There is a list of potential sources on Wikipedia and collective decisions about their reliability here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  No org or entity is perfect but Wikipedia attracts an unusual amount of ire.
  - bhouston 2y ago
    Wikipedia is a nearly impossible project and I can not believe it actually ends up working. While simple articles are no brainer, Wikipedia has to deal with articles that are at the intersections of different interest groups who both are trying to control the presentation of facts. It is these articles where partisans are rampant and most engaged. You'll never be able to make everyone happy on those articles at the intersections of different partisans.
    - yummypaint 2y ago
      Fortunately keeping people happy isn't the purpose of wikipedia, and it's good that the editors haven't lost sight of that.
      - linearrust 2y ago
        It isn't a matter of keeping people happy. It's that 'facts' and 'truth' aren't as obvious and straightforward as people believe. Take something as innocuous as calculus. Who discovered it? British say newton did. The germans credit leibniz. What should the editors do? Flip a coin. Credit both? Credit neither since neither discovered the concept of 'the limit'. It's like this but far worse for many topics. Everything seems simple because we lived in our own national propaganda ecosystem. But with the internet, wikipedia must try to pick 'truths' out of many 'truths'.
FactKnower69 2y ago
[flagged]
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
A big section of this is about neoreactionaries not being connected to LessWrong or readers of SlateStarCodex as they were "distinct and well-defined groups, neither of which particularly liked each other" and claiming that suggesting otherwise is basically a slander invented by the target of the article. On the other hand, there was a question posted in the SlateStarCodex sub Reddit that asks "Why are there so many neoreactionaries in this sub?” and an answer, from someone who doesn't seem (like several other people answering) to be particularly averse to NeoReactionaries is: > Anyway the reason is that neoreaction developed in the same Bay Area libertarian circles as LessWrong with a wide degree of community overlap https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9xm2p8/why_are_there_so_many_neoreactionaries_in_this_sub/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9xm2p8/why_...
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  They're neighboring groups with overlap, sure. I think the argument or disagreement is mostly whether that conveys transitive sin. "X is connected to Y" is what one usually says if one wants to tar Y with X but has failed to find anything more concrete.
  - jubalfh 2y ago
    they clearly are completely different groups who only party and fuck around together
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Brightly1989 2y ago
[flagged]
metalcrow 2y ago
This is a good standalone example of the problems people (including a lot of comments on this site) have with Wikipedia. Admins who will rules lawyer you and use their accumulated social capital to manipulate outcomes based on bias. This happens everywhere, but having it happen on what is considered the main source of truth on the Internet is especially bad.
richrichie 2y ago
[flagged]
mostcallmeyt 2y ago
Tip of the iceberg: https://rdrama.net/post/215764/there-are-two-dozen-sexual-harassment https://rdrama.net/post/215764/there-are-two-dozen-sexual-ha...

69 points by jseliger 2y ago

Hm, I'm disappointed that this was flagged. This is my third article that's been flagged here recently, after my FAA article a few months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39184451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39184451) and my deep dive into the backstory of a fight several months before that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37390961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37390961). My older articles didn't get flagged and were often quite successful on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=tracingwoodgrains.medium.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=tracingwoodgrains.med... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32898573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32898573 I don't submit my own articles here but always appreciate when they reach the HN audience. I admit I find the system here quite opaque and have a hard time understanding what gets flagged and why. Is it because my articles often explore controversies and might get undue attention over some of the more technical content here? Is there some way I could reach out to someone for more info on why my articles keep getting flagged?

breck 2y ago
can we summon dang by putting in his username? In general, I agree with your complaints about the flagging system on this site. It seems pretty indefensible, to provide no disclosure at all about who the judges (admins) are, and to require no public explanation of judgements. They often hide behind "users flagged it". How many users? Which users? Perhaps user flags should not be anonymous, perhaps even require a user to publicly state why they flagged it. We wouldn't allow that in our court system in the real world, why allow that in this impactful online forum?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bhouston 2y ago

The article is way way too long. Who would read +20 pages on a single Wikipedia editor? Feels obsessive if you need +20 pages to make a case. But on the first issue brought up in the article -- I am not going to read all the rest, too long: Removing things cited to Free Beacon seems fair game. It isn't a reliable source. I know it hurts when your favourite site is declared as unreliable, but it happens to both extreme left and right rags. There is a list of potential sources on Wikipedia and collective decisions about their reliability here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
No org or entity is perfect but Wikipedia attracts an unusual amount of ire.
- bhouston 2y ago
  Wikipedia is a nearly impossible project and I can not believe it actually ends up working. While simple articles are no brainer, Wikipedia has to deal with articles that are at the intersections of different interest groups who both are trying to control the presentation of facts. It is these articles where partisans are rampant and most engaged. You'll never be able to make everyone happy on those articles at the intersections of different partisans.
  - yummypaint 2y ago
    Fortunately keeping people happy isn't the purpose of wikipedia, and it's good that the editors haven't lost sight of that.
    - linearrust 2y ago
      It isn't a matter of keeping people happy. It's that 'facts' and 'truth' aren't as obvious and straightforward as people believe. Take something as innocuous as calculus. Who discovered it? British say newton did. The germans credit leibniz. What should the editors do? Flip a coin. Credit both? Credit neither since neither discovered the concept of 'the limit'. It's like this but far worse for many topics. Everything seems simple because we lived in our own national propaganda ecosystem. But with the internet, wikipedia must try to pick 'truths' out of many 'truths'.

FactKnower69 2y ago

[flagged]

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

A big section of this is about neoreactionaries not being connected to LessWrong or readers of SlateStarCodex as they were "distinct and well-defined groups, neither of which particularly liked each other" and claiming that suggesting otherwise is basically a slander invented by the target of the article. On the other hand, there was a question posted in the SlateStarCodex sub Reddit that asks "Why are there so many neoreactionaries in this sub?” and an answer, from someone who doesn't seem (like several other people answering) to be particularly averse to NeoReactionaries is: > Anyway the reason is that neoreaction developed in the same Bay Area libertarian circles as LessWrong with a wide degree of community overlap https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9xm2p8/why_are_there_so_many_neoreactionaries_in_this_sub/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9xm2p8/why_...

FeepingCreature 2y ago
They're neighboring groups with overlap, sure. I think the argument or disagreement is mostly whether that conveys transitive sin. "X is connected to Y" is what one usually says if one wants to tar Y with X but has failed to find anything more concrete.
- jubalfh 2y ago
  they clearly are completely different groups who only party and fuck around together

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Brightly1989 2y ago

[flagged]

metalcrow 2y ago

This is a good standalone example of the problems people (including a lot of comments on this site) have with Wikipedia. Admins who will rules lawyer you and use their accumulated social capital to manipulate outcomes based on bias. This happens everywhere, but having it happen on what is considered the main source of truth on the Internet is especially bad.

richrichie 2y ago

[flagged]

mostcallmeyt 2y ago

Tip of the iceberg: https://rdrama.net/post/215764/there-are-two-dozen-sexual-harassment https://rdrama.net/post/215764/there-are-two-dozen-sexual-ha...