Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors

[CrowsNest]

h/t Kumi

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets

This article lays out the supposed issues which make it hard for Wikipedia to combat POV pushers - being published by the SPLC it of course deals with the alt-right/racist bogeyman.

It's hard to tell which bits of it are results of their own research, and which bits came from their interview subjects, Doug Weller and Magnus Hansen. It seems like a rather transparent attempt to appeal to more people to get to involved in Wikipedia, rather than a serious piece of journalism.

Serious journalists who look for sources outside the Wikipedia cult would have identified the truth at the heart of this story. See, Wikipedia has problems combatting these people, because they themselves are just as guilty of the behaviour in their so called fight.

In no particular order....

-Wikipediots have made a conscious choice not to act when shown evidence of people coordinating offside, nominally for reasons of privacy, but it likely has just as much to do with the fact looking the other way also ensures the editors doing it to fight the good fight, suffer no consequences. No surprise then that bad actors take advantage of the same laxity.

-Wikipediots have made a conscious choice not to strictly enforce the idea (already recognised in their own rules) that anyone who consistently edits toward a particular POV and doesn't engage in the recognised encyclopedic technique of writing for the enemy should really be blocked as a POV pusher, because that would mean a hundred or so highly active libtards who edit day and night woud need banning, as well as bad actors. No suprise then, that bad actors soon realise the benefits of being civil POV pusher.

-Wikipediots have made a conscious choice to ignore Larry Sanger's original vision of NPOV, unsurprisingly because it makes it quite hard for the 'good' Wikipediots to push their libtard agendas, so it is no surprise they lack the authority or precedent to deal with basic shit like false equivalence or source exploitation.

-Wikipediots have made a conscious choice to be pretty slack in how they track and monitor the behaviours of users, not even properly recording warnings, naturally because this would be something that can equally harm bad actors supposedly fighting the good fight as well as civil POV pushers. So it is no surprise bad actors of all stripes find it easy to hide in plain sight, exploiting AGF.

-Wikipediots have made a conscious choice to treat people who are capable of making cogent and nuanced policy based points which refer to detailed evidence, no differently to some spaz whose Wikipedia abilities extend to being able to type "support block, they are a POV pusher". This is because it's really time consuming for good actors to play Wikipedia properly, so they don't. Therefore it is no surprise people looking to exploit Wikipedia find it easy to realise what can be achieved because of that weakness.

-Wikipediots have made a conscious choice to depreciate any and all forms of dispute resolution other than AN/I and ArbCom, also because they found that playing Wikipedia properly is too time consuming, and not really worth it when all you can achieve is a block of a pseudonymous account name. No surprise then, that bad actors who are smart enough to know the limitations of AN/I, are able to exploit that weakness.

-Wikipediots have made a conscious choice to ignore game players who are operating for the right side, so it is no surprise to see the bad actors remain unconvinced by any kind of morality based argument to stop being game players and engage with Wikipedia according to their rules.

-Wikipediots have made a conscious choice to organise themselves, specifically in terms of the standards they hold admins to when assessing consensus, so that ten people making an absurd argument can quite easily defeat one person making a cogent one. This is of course because it makes it easier for libtards to express their typically emotion based fact free opposition to some change and 'win'. It really shouldn't be any surprise then that the enemy find this technique attractive.

[CrowsNest]

Unsurprisingly Volunteer Marek is impressed by the "depth" of the article. That dumb fucker wouldn't know depth if you pushed him into a pool.

[CrowsNest]

Lol @ this from MastCell, as this piece gets discussed on Jimbotalk.....

people who punch Nazis are also a problem, and let's never ever forget that

Only yesterday, I was reminded that Gamaliel proudly proclaims himself a "Nazi puncher" in his Twitter bio. That's Gamaliel, a.k.a Robert Fernandez, who is as steeped in all things Wiki/WMF as it is possible for anyone to be.

Wikipedia can no more disavow Nazi punching than it can reflect in the reasons it banned the Daily Mail. Or to give it its proper name according to several prominent Wikipedians, the Daily Heil.

You'll not see that reported by the SPLC, they're not interested in that kind of hate speech.

[ericbarbour]

Only yesterday, I was reminded that Gamaliel proudly proclaims himself a "munchkin puncher" in his Twitter bio.

If by "munchkin" he means "his own penis", then yeah....

[Catapult]

Mikemikev was mentioned by the SPLC:

One of the white nationalists who co-founded Rightpedia, a far-right free encyclopedia that split from Metapedia, created more than 140 accounts in the past 10 years.

Mikemikev to date has 143 suspected socks (based on behavioural evidence) and 120 confirmed socks (by technical evidence) on Wikipedia.

In the comments section we also find someone who notes:

Mikemikev the Rightpedia cofounder has confirmed the socks talked about in this article belong to him https://gab.ai/Mikemikev/ and he seems to find the whole situation funny.

Mikemikev posted on his gab "LOL the SPLC mentioned my Wikipedia socks."

[Strelnikov]

Only yesterday, I was reminded that Gamaliel proudly proclaims himself a "munchkin puncher" in his Twitter bio.

If by "munchkin" he means "his own penis", then yeah....

This board is rigged to turn the common term for a National Socialist (NSDAP) and turn it into the word "munchkin."

[michaeldsuarez]

This board is rigged to turn the common term for a National Socialist (NSDAP) and turn it into the word "munchkin."

Is there a special reason or an interesting story (in-joke?) behind this? Or is it a random thing? I'm not pushing for a change or anything; I'm merely curious.

[Strelnikov]

This board is rigged to turn the common term for a National Socialist (NSDAP) and turn it into the word "munchkin."

Is there a special reason or an interesting story (in-joke?) behind this? Or is it a random thing? I'm not pushing for a change or anything; I'm merely curious.

We have had so many troll attacks and board drama, I've forgotten why. PM suckadmin for the details; he may have rigged the site like that from the beginning.

[CrowsNest]

It's kind of sad how Jimmy cuts a pretty lonesome figure on Wikipedia now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =830758883

He's still happily telling people what the theory of Wikipedia is and how it should be run. He just doesn't seem to realise, nobody is listening. If he has the first idea how to stop Wikipedians treating people they disagree with as if they're idiots or worse, it isn't clear what it is.

Wikipedia is in the total grip of the left wing. Their dominance is absolute. In truth, it isn't a battleground, but not because there is harmonious debate. The battle for Wikipedia was won long ago, and both neutrality and the right wing lost. As a result, the evil forces in this world simply decided that if they can't get a fair deal in the mainstream, they'll go over, around and underneath it. We have seen the results.

What a fucked up world it is, where if you believe in small government, personal responsibility and responsible fiscal policy, you're better off turning a blind eye to the activities of fascist and traitors than embracing the principles of democracy. Similarly, if you support gun control and are pro-choice, you have to ally yourself with the extreme left, which as can be seen, Wikipedians seem to think don't even exist.

Months ago they laughingly called the issue of antisemitism in the British left (the mainstream party having recently swung hard left) a non-issue, a political diversion, not worth documenting in Wikipedia. Indeed, they tried to actively suppress it. Well, that seems to have backfired.....cue this week, protests in the streets, civil war in his party, and public apologies from their leader for not having taken it seriously. The ensuing controversy has of course overshadowed the many worthwhile issues that are pressing in politics today, that he was trying to highlight. It will probably also add to the pile of evidence that he is not fit to govern, and so seeing another right wing government's five year term, unopposed and in coalition with actual bigots.

Thank you very much, Wikipedians. You didn't do it all, but you played your part about reshaping how the world debates socio-political issues. And if you believe your own hype about your project's influence, it must have been a very big one!

[ericbarbour]

Months ago they laughingly called the issue of antisemitism in the British left (the mainstream party having recently swung hard left) a non-issue, a political diversion, not worth documenting in Wikipedia. Indeed, they tried to actively suppress it. Well, that seems to have backfired.....cue this week, protests in the streets, civil war in his party, and public apologies from their leader for not having taken it seriously. The ensuing controversy has of course overshadowed the many worthwhile issues that are pressing in politics today, that he was trying to highlight. It will probably also add to the pile of evidence that he is not fit to govern, and so seeing another right wing government's five year term, unopposed and in coalition with actual bigots.

Thank you very much, Wikipedians. You didn't do it all, but you played your part about reshaping how the world debates socio-political issues. And if you believe your own hype about your project's influence, it must have been a very big one!

Typical. If they don't like something it's "invisible". Until it lands on their fat little heads like an anvil.

PS I've got a copy of Morris Dees' 2001 autobiography, given by a friend. It's really quite unintentionally funny. The semicoherent ravings of a sneaky, dishonest narcissist, doing good work and occasional bad work. His general resemblance to Jimbo is remarkable. Dees pumps himself up to be a regular Gandhi, the Dalai Lama of Alabama. As you have probably heard by now, the SPLC's famous "Hate Map" is partly fictitious. They routinely take one crackpot fascist newsletter publisher in a small town and blow him up into a "movement". The Daily Stormer (a website!) is now shown as a separate "organization" in almost every state. Great fundraising scheme!

More people should be disgusted that so many on the left are liars and manipulators, more interested in promoting themselves than in fighting hate groups. It probably ends up helping right-wing extremists more than it discourages them. Pathetic. Cough Chip Berlet cough.