Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
by jakobegger on Sunday May 20, 2018 @02:54AM
(#17111587)
That’s a very generous interpretation. Usually, when you find something that is not sufficiently well sourced, you add “citation needed” or mention it on the talk page or something. You don’t just delete entire sections that aren’t obvious vandalism.
Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
by notahacker on Sunday May 20, 2018 @04:39AM
(#17111848)
You generally do on Biographies of Living Persons, particularly when it's controversial political figures and particularly when the material has a source which just happens to be RT
Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
by philwelch on Sunday May 20, 2018 @10:12PM
(#17115767)
In my opinion, it's only fair to respond to hit pieces with generous interpretations. The internet outrage machine needs more coolant, not less.
Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
by jakobegger on Tuesday May 22, 2018 @02:15AM
(#17124046)
That is a good point.
Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
by chris_wot on Sunday May 20, 2018 @02:57AM
(#17111591)
The linked article shows quite a few edits that violate the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
by crdoconnor on Sunday May 20, 2018 @07:44AM
(#17112326)
I glanced through it and none of the facts removed seem particularly controversial. The editor simply put the fact back in and replaced the source.
Moreover, wikipedia doesn't ban RT as a source and correctly argues that biased sources can be legitimate if they are correct in context.
It seems these days that simply being an anti-establishment politician of any stripe instantly attracts accusations of Russian conspiracy theories. It's weird.
Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
by muddi900 on Monday May 21, 2018 @12:43AM
(#17116185)
That was the intent of Russian misinformation campaign; to create an environment where all sides stop trusting each other.
Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign
by crdoconnor on Monday May 21, 2018 @06:09AM
(#17117276)
If the intent was to have every idiot seeing Russian conspiracy theories around every corner then mission accomplished I guess.
Maybe they're going for a "boy who cried wolf" dynamic.
The revision history is interesting to look through as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&o...
Many of Cross's revisions seem to revolve around removing unreliable sources (such as RT and Sputnik), integrating edits such that the verbiage flows better, and so forth. I can't find any edits that he's performed that were out of line.
It's also not especially interesting to have a high number of edits. For example, of Cross's most recent 50 edits, the vast majority are to a single article (which is not the George Galloway biography): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Philip_C...
The more I look into this, the more convinced I am that the bad actor isn't this guy, it's the Russian propaganda network who are mad that he's getting in the way of them using Wikipedia as an outlet.