k1m

43 ms·

451.
by k1m 8y ago
We didn't claim to be quoting the entirety of the page. And I don't understand the Cross comparison. What did we get wrong? JzG initially tried to shut down discussion of this issue when it was brought to his attention (he decided
452.
by k1m 8y ago
@leftworks1 got in contact to say they tried to reply to your comment here but had some trouble. I offered to post it: I suggest, perhaps, that the current focus should be on the evidence that I, and others, are now uncovering and presentin
453.
by k1m 8y ago
I'm not going to speak for @leftworks1. But looking at the links you provided it seems they were trying to add information relating to a court case at the high court, with a public claim number. You might want to see Neil Clark's
454.
by k1m 8y ago
Feel the same.
455.
by k1m 8y ago
You make it sound like it's the perfect system just lacking enough participation. What makes you think everyone has the time to devote to it. Or that there aren't people with more money and resources who can influence it? It'
456.
by k1m 8y ago
Very convenient to dismiss evidence with baseless accusations.
457.
by k1m 8y ago
We're highlighting these primarily for the benefit of those unfamiliar with what's been going on. There's also plenty of diffs and context that will hopefully help any Wikipedia resolution. I'm not sure why you think eve
458.
Update: The agenda-driven edits of Philip Cross and Wikipedia's response(wikipedia.fivefilters.org)
102 points by k1m 8y ago|52 comments
459.
by k1m 8y ago
George Galloway offered the reward Well, we're not George Galloway. If the real interest was in the edits as opposed to promoting conspiracy theories about Wikipedia colluding with conflicted editors to damage the good name of Messr
460.
by k1m 8y ago
I'm really not sure where you're going with all this. We haven't offered rewards for doxxing anyone. We've written an article highlighting a problem with a particular editor's behaviour on Wikipedia where he has a
461.
by k1m 8y ago
Admiring a figure is not a prerequisite for writing articles on them... Sure, he has political opinions and wears them on his sleeve, but that applies to pretty much everybody else involved in political Wikipedia. Who said you have to adm
462.
by k1m 8y ago
Why don't you engage with the substance of the criticism rather than who's made it. He's made over a hundred thousand edits on Wikipedia in almost 15 years. I'm sure some of them are well justified. We're highlighti
463.
by k1m 8y ago
No, we are not Media Lens.
464.
by k1m 8y ago
There's no mention of us in that article and we didn't exist in 2006. As for Media Lens, I googled the author's name and Media Lens and this article came up. Might be interesting too: http://medialens.org/inde
465.
by k1m 8y ago
Because we like the work of many of the people targeted by Cross and decided to write something up on it.
466.
by k1m 8y ago
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&ty... and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&ty... I'm not suggesting anyone base the block on th
467.
by k1m 8y ago
We're a huge fan of Media Lens. They do great work. But we're not Wikipedia. We don't need to live up to the standards they set themselves. We don't run an encyclopedia that pretends to be neutral.
468.
by k1m 8y ago
One of Cross' targets attempted to edit his page and his changes were quickly reverted by Cross due to conflict of interest. What it seems you're suggesting here is that those unfairly targeted on Wikipedia, as Cross is doing, sho
469.
by k1m 8y ago
What are you suggesting with your last comment? Did you read the story posted here and the changes Philip Cross has made? "I went looking around, and there appear to be politicians and russian media involved here." - Is that the l
470.
by k1m 8y ago
You misssed the fact that he took it to ANI and was shut down there too very quickly. Frustrated with the fact that no attempt was made to deal with the matter, he, quite sensibly, concludes that it appears they are trying to protect Cross.
471.
by k1m 8y ago
It's not that long. Did you read it? One Wikipedia editor is trying to highlight the problem of Cross' edits and have him marked as having a conflict of interest on certain articles. The Wikipedia admin (or superiour, I'm not
472.
by k1m 8y ago
That's a mystery to me too. Initially when the complaints were made on Twitter (by some of Cross' targets), Jimmy Wales dismissed them, asking for diffs. Now that we've provided diffs and shown the scale of his efforts and th
473.
by k1m 8y ago
Wikipedia, however, appear to be trying to protect him. Please see one Wikipedia editor's efforts to flag his behaviour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann
474.
by k1m 8y ago
There's a clear conflict of interest which Wikipedia is refusing to act on.
475.
Time to ditch Wikipedia? A look at a Wikipedia editor's activity(wikipedia.fivefilters.org)
4 points by k1m 8y ago|1 comments
476.
by k1m 8y ago
Any particular aspect of the code you're interested in? The article detection, extraction and conversion happens with our Full-Text RSS product which we sell (see link for demo in another comment). So the code here is mostly sending a
477.
by k1m 8y ago
That would bother people. Say you convert something that's private or not public yet. Not sure you'd want the next person to see it. I don't like it when sites do it.
478.
by k1m 8y ago
Thanks! Tried adding this to dark.css @viewport { width: device-width, initial-scale=1; } But didn't work in mobile Firefox. Seems Firefox and Chrome on mobile handle plain text differently. Firefox shows the text quite sm
479.
by k1m 8y ago
Thanks! :)
480.
by k1m 8y ago
I thought you weren't getting the content text at all. :) Should be fixed now. We now strip that out: https://github.com/fivefilters/ftr-site-config/blob/master/e... But I don't consider that a

More ›