Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by Ognistysztorm » Fri May 26, 2023 12:18 am

adamovicm wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 8:09 pm
Boink makes some nice valid arguments and friendly. It looks like he knows what he is speaking about. Nice conversation.

That Gaslighting of me in Critics is really... disgusting. Why that admin, (Jake is the admin there, if I understand correctly) allow it, if somebody has an idea? Or just the guess?
I suspect it'll be a good idea in the meantime to get in touch with the media and let people know how corrupt Wikipedia has become but IANAL (I'm not a lawyer) after all.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by adamovicm » Fri May 26, 2023 5:41 am

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Fri May 26, 2023 12:18 am
I suspect it'll be a good idea in the meantime to get in touch with the media and let people know how corrupt Wikipedia has become but IANAL (I'm not a lawyer) after all.
This is (probably) not a case of corruption because there is no proof that anyone got money to discredit Numbeo by writing a deliberately poorly written and intentionally biased article that doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding Criticism and NPOV.

While I have an idea on how to shape a story / blog entry that's catchy to journalists, and while we have 1.2M newsletter subscribers, the problem with that approach is that would certainly drag attention to the criticism of Numbeo as well and could harm us more than what it could help us. If you have some opinions about it, I'd be happy to hear.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by Ognistysztorm » Fri May 26, 2023 7:01 am

adamovicm wrote:
Fri May 26, 2023 5:41 am
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Fri May 26, 2023 12:18 am
I suspect it'll be a good idea in the meantime to get in touch with the media and let people know how corrupt Wikipedia has become but IANAL (I'm not a lawyer) after all.
This is (probably) not a case of corruption because there is no proof that anyone got money to discredit Numbeo by writing a deliberately poorly written and intentionally biased article that doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding Criticism and NPOV.

While I have an idea on how to shape a story / blog entry that's catchy to journalists, and while we have 1.2M newsletter subscribers, the problem with that approach is that would certainly drag attention to the criticism of Numbeo as well and could harm us more than what it could help us. If you have some opinions about it, I'd be happy to hear.
I for one know about a serious scandal within Wikipedia which if published on the press as investigative story, will literally turn the Internet against Wikipedia overnight. But for now I'd prefer to privately PM you about that so that the "antagonists" within the scandal can't destroy evidences and complicate the accountability efforts. Trust me you'll never view Wikipedia the same way as you used to be again after learning about it.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by adamovicm » Fri May 26, 2023 12:36 pm

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Fri May 26, 2023 7:01 am
I for one know about a serious scandal within Wikipedia which if published on the press as investigative story, will literally turn the Internet against Wikipedia overnight. But for now I'd prefer to privately PM you about that so that the "antagonists" within the scandal can't destroy evidences and complicate the accountability efforts. Trust me you'll never view Wikipedia the same way as you used to be again after learning about it.
Sure. Perhaps I could contact those journalists as they might show interest in Numbeo / Wikipedia article. I guess sounds interesting to newspapers that Wikipedia blocked founder of the most popular cost of living database, former Google engineer, while at the same time had totaly negative article about the company (that is also crowdsourced like Wikipedia). While we are happy that journalists write about it in a neutral or positive way for us, we might not want some shit to propagate to a portion of our 1.2M newsletter subscribers.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by ericbarbour » Sat May 27, 2023 12:24 am

adamovicm wrote:
Fri May 26, 2023 12:36 pm
Perhaps I could contact those journalists as they might show interest in Numbeo / Wikipedia article. I guess sounds interesting to newspapers that Wikipedia blocked founder of the most popular cost of living database, former Google engineer, while at the same time had totaly negative article about the company (that is also crowdsourced like Wikipedia).
Again, you can try that. But I doubt it will change anything. I've seen rotten tricks like this involving companies that Wikipedians wanted to defame, over and over. Literally hundreds of times since 2005.

For example, the Blacklight Power lawsuit. It failed for one reason: the lawyers could not obtain the real identity of "Andythegrump". Subpoenas were filed, people were threatened, the WMF was threatened, and the lawyers STILL failed. This is a substantial Washington law firm that specializes in defamation and libel cases, and not an "ambulance chaser".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=836&p=20769&hilit= ... ght#p20769

My serious advice, like it or not: hire a professional Wikipedia "editing service", one that hasn't been banned/demonized yet. For example, William Beutler aka "WWBtoo", Sarah Stierch aka "Missvain", or WikiPR (they keep changing their name because they keep getting banned). Successful paid editors usually have enough insider support to either get the article deleted, or edited to be more neutral. It might take months or years--you MUST be patient, sorry to report. So long as your article is being watched by multiple asshole admins, it will be very difficult to change. This is based on my 10+ years of watching Wikipedia evolve, and gathering voluminous notes. I could BURY you in horror stories about paid editing and defamation on Wikipedia. Blacklight is one of the few that ended up with lawyers involved--and they failed.

If you want to see the paid editors they hate the most, read this. Ugly mess? Of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _companies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... r_Registry

The ones they LIKE, who have tacit inside approval, will never be listed there. Stierch has been doing a lot of paid editing and you will NEVER see her on any list. Note that John Vandenberg, listed in the "editor registry", is a former arbitrator and president of Wikimedia Australia. He's been walking a very fine line for 15+ years and he's made quite a few enemies. Beutler has his enemies also. Yet they continue to edit for money--and get away with it.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by Ognistysztorm » Sat May 27, 2023 7:59 am

To paraphrase Mr. Barbour, putting Wikipedia in a mainstream critical spotlight is an uphill battle since it's the realm where heroes lose or die.

However, given the Holocaust scandal two of the most easiest ways to upend the status quo is to unfurl a "Wikipedia distorts Holocaust!" banner at the Golden Gate Bridge, or paint it at the base of the mermaid statue in Denmark.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by adamovicm » Sat May 27, 2023 8:12 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 12:24 am
For example, the Blacklight Power lawsuit. It failed for one reason: the lawyers could not obtain the real identity of "Andythegrump".
If you could you tell me more about that guy, whatever you know or think? I'm interesting...
My serious advice, like it or not: hire a professional Wikipedia "editing service", one that hasn't been banned/demonized yet....
It might take months or years--you MUST be patient, sorry to report. So long as your article is being watched by multiple asshole admins, it will be very difficult to change.
Someone removed the Disputed template from Numbeo page, without addressing disputes on the Talk page and admins did nothing.
Completely biased actions.

As Numbeo page is probably on a watchlist of many unfriendly admins and editors, paid editors would probably have a harsh time over there. As you mention it would take months probably years. I don't think we are going that route.

But something interesting happened. I cannot speak about it yet, but you will hear about it.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by Ognistysztorm » Sat May 27, 2023 8:21 am

adamovicm wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 8:12 am
ericbarbour wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 12:24 am
For example, the Blacklight Power lawsuit. It failed for one reason: the lawyers could not obtain the real identity of "Andythegrump".
If you could you tell me more about that guy, whatever you know or think? I'm interesting...
My serious advice, like it or not: hire a professional Wikipedia "editing service", one that hasn't been banned/demonized yet....
It might take months or years--you MUST be patient, sorry to report. So long as your article is being watched by multiple asshole admins, it will be very difficult to change.
Someone removed the Disputed template from Numbeo page, without addressing disputes on the Talk page and admins did nothing.
Completely biased actions.

As Numbeo page is probably on a watchlist of many unfriendly admins and editors, paid editors would probably have a harsh time over there. As you mention it would take months probably years. I don't think we are going that route.

But something interesting happened. I cannot speak about it yet, but you will hear about it.
If I were a Dane and know how to cover my tracks and other dark arts I would've paint the base of the little mermaid statue with every Wikipedia scandal I've known about, per Kumioko's comment that Wikipedia movement could collapse if scandals like those is brought up frequently enough.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by adamovicm » Sun May 28, 2023 5:33 am

I have two unrelated questions. I have closed the topic on Critics, so I'm posting it only here for now.

1) Numbeo has proposed some references that could be used to neutralize the content, i.e. these two

In the book "Toward a Just Society", by Columbia University Press it is stated that "The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.63 between Numbeo and the first and an impressive 0.92 between Numbeo and the second, and the test of independence was decisively rejected in both cases. Despite reasonable misgivings therefore, in our judgment there is no a priori reason to reject the data on the basis of quality." see:

Code: Select all

 @incollection{jayadev20183, title={3. The Middle Muddle: Conceptualizing and Measuring the Global Middle Class}, author={Jayadev, Arjun and Lahoti, Rahul and Reddy, Sanjay}, booktitle={Toward a Just Society}, pages={63--92}, year={2018}, publisher={Columbia University Press} }
In the International Journal of Urban Sciences article it is stated that "A relatively accurate source of information could be Numbeo", see:

Code: Select all

@article{helble2021affordable, title={How (Un) affordable is housing in developing Asia?}, author={Helble, Matthias and Ok Lee, Kwan and Gia Arbo, Ma Adelle}, journal={International Journal of Urban Sciences}, volume={25}, number={sup1}, pages={80--110}, year={2021}, publisher={Taylor \& Francis} }
For these two, which policies actually prevent excerpts like this to be used? Or their interpretation of policies?


2) Somebody created an account that looks like sockpuppet edited Numbeo page to bring it for Voting for Deletion and was blocked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... biaemerges

That wasn't me and I have no clue who that is. I'd say that there is like 90% probability that it has been someone from these two forums, 5% probability someone else, and 5% unlucky novice user who stumbled on that page.

He left the message on his Talk page: "why was my account block as a checkuserblock? There was no justification for this. Nubiaemerges "

Could someone explain me, what do you think actually happened?

Post Reply