Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:19 pm
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.
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.