Tortuous justifications for no harm, no foul
Tortuous justifications for no harm, no foul
Wikipedians being what they are, it is common for them to attempt to downplay and minimise the harm their pernicious cult has caused on this world. This thread will serve to dissect the more notable examples.
Re: Tortuous justifications for no harm, no foul
To kick things off, we'll start with something the Wikipedian user Milowent said about this recent piece......
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/lifest ... rmy-and-me
To summarise, back in 2011 a 10th grader named Jimmy Lovrein vandalized Wikipedia's Cinco de Mayo article to insert his name as the Mexican army general responsible for the victory being commemorated. It wasn't a subtle change, he literally added this 'fact' to the first line of the article, and didn't even bother to remove mention of the real general, who was still credited at the end of the very same sentence. As such, there's no real reason the edit should have ever been accepted at all, even provisionally pending a source (impossible, obviously), since it didn't even make sense.
The fact it was the first line and the day he did it (4 May), explains what happened next, and it's impact.
The above link sees Jimmy, now a journalist, recounting events in his own column, with the perspective of seven years and his chosen profession. In his own words.....
We are literally telling people, journalists even, not to trust Wikipedia as a source, even for undisputed facts which haven't changed for 150 years, because not only can Wikipedia not prevent them being changed and spread as if true, people still do not realise Wikipedia works that way. Even though they have been openly admitting since forever, via their disclaimer, that they are a piece of junk, which nobody should be using for any reason, if they had any sense.
The Wikipedia disclaimer makes it clear Wikipedia is only of use to the very people who are too lazy or stupid to appreciate what their disclaimer means, or what lessons are to be learned from incidents like this. And that, or course, includes virtually all high schoolers, which is why Jimmy's dumb teacher put him in a position where he ended up learning this lesson for himself, at the expense of God knows who else. Because who even reads the disclaimer?
And obviously, as anyone knows, the fundamental vulnerability that allowed this vandalism to happen, and Jimmy's fake news to spread far and fast, still exist. Wikipedia has done virtually nothing about it, and taken almost no responsibility for it. What little they have done, would not have prevented a repeat of this or a similar piece of obvious vandalism. And it is clear it would travel just as far and just as fast, because there is no such thing as digital literacy these days. Arguably that is because of Wikipedia, who espouse the idea any fucking idiot can be a writer, and that their homebrewed knowledge really is free and instantly available. It isn't. If you're getting facts from Wikipedia quickly and at no expense to yourself, then you, you fucking mug, you're the product. Just like the Disclaimer makes clear.
Examining the reaction of a Wikipediot like Milownet explains why all of this is still a thing.....
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 17#p218317
It is telling that Milowent said this garbage on the so called Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy, and it is unsurprising that at time of writing, his apologist bullshit hasn't been responded to at all by any other poster there, never mind in a manner that would be appropriate if the people there had the slightest intention of exposing Wikipedia's true flaws, and fighting the propaganda they use to explain it all away as no big deal.
I'd have responded to it, as above, suitably cleaned up for reasons of decorum. But I am banned by Wikipediocracy for upsetting the apologists, which is apparently possible on that site if you present certain facts, no matter how polite you are.
So fuck off Zoloft. You can consider yourself a co-author of that crap. Own it. Eat it.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/lifest ... rmy-and-me
To summarise, back in 2011 a 10th grader named Jimmy Lovrein vandalized Wikipedia's Cinco de Mayo article to insert his name as the Mexican army general responsible for the victory being commemorated. It wasn't a subtle change, he literally added this 'fact' to the first line of the article, and didn't even bother to remove mention of the real general, who was still credited at the end of the very same sentence. As such, there's no real reason the edit should have ever been accepted at all, even provisionally pending a source (impossible, obviously), since it didn't even make sense.
The fact it was the first line and the day he did it (4 May), explains what happened next, and it's impact.
The above link sees Jimmy, now a journalist, recounting events in his own column, with the perspective of seven years and his chosen profession. In his own words.....
As he makes clear, the effect of Wikipedia's policy of allowing vandalism and relying on sheer chance for such things to be noticed and corrected, and worse, relying on every single downstream user to appreciate this critical flaw of Wikipedia so as to ensure it doesn't spread fast and far, has been devastating on the field of journalism, and indeed knowledge in general.Cinco de Mayo is coming up this week, a day that, as a working journalist, will always remind me how important it is to carefully check my facts.
......
Later that day, sitting around one of our cafeteria's circular tables, I shared my prank with some friends. One pointed out that it was still on Wikipedia several hours later (usually these bogus Wikipedia updates — let's call it vandalism — are taken down within minutes by other volunteer editors). I wondered: If it was on Wikipedia for so long, how many people might think it was real?
A quick Google search of "General Jimmy Lovrien" and "Jimmy Lovrien Cinco de Mayo" revealed dozens of blogs, forums, Facebook posts and Tweets that had copied that first line, crediting me as a Mexican general in 1862. Before long, it grew to hundreds.
......
Most pages just repeated what was written on Wikipedia verbatim.
.....
Misinformation travels fast on the internet, and the spreading of my name as a general in the Mexican army 150 years ago demonstrates the need for people to closely examine their sources of information — especially online.
Thankfully, this prank has been turned into a lesson on digital literacy.
English teachers and community college instructors in Alexandria, Minn., have added this story to their curriculum about reliable sources — just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true, and Wikipedia should not be used as a source in research.
......
It was a lesson I was happy to learn firsthand. Now, when I see something online, I investigate it. What source is it coming from? Are other credible sources saying the same thing? It's something I keep in mind every day as I work not to tarnish my credibility as a journalist.
We are literally telling people, journalists even, not to trust Wikipedia as a source, even for undisputed facts which haven't changed for 150 years, because not only can Wikipedia not prevent them being changed and spread as if true, people still do not realise Wikipedia works that way. Even though they have been openly admitting since forever, via their disclaimer, that they are a piece of junk, which nobody should be using for any reason, if they had any sense.
The Wikipedia disclaimer makes it clear Wikipedia is only of use to the very people who are too lazy or stupid to appreciate what their disclaimer means, or what lessons are to be learned from incidents like this. And that, or course, includes virtually all high schoolers, which is why Jimmy's dumb teacher put him in a position where he ended up learning this lesson for himself, at the expense of God knows who else. Because who even reads the disclaimer?
And obviously, as anyone knows, the fundamental vulnerability that allowed this vandalism to happen, and Jimmy's fake news to spread far and fast, still exist. Wikipedia has done virtually nothing about it, and taken almost no responsibility for it. What little they have done, would not have prevented a repeat of this or a similar piece of obvious vandalism. And it is clear it would travel just as far and just as fast, because there is no such thing as digital literacy these days. Arguably that is because of Wikipedia, who espouse the idea any fucking idiot can be a writer, and that their homebrewed knowledge really is free and instantly available. It isn't. If you're getting facts from Wikipedia quickly and at no expense to yourself, then you, you fucking mug, you're the product. Just like the Disclaimer makes clear.
Examining the reaction of a Wikipediot like Milownet explains why all of this is still a thing.....
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 17#p218317
And why would you have? It is just one of thousands of such incidents. And it's not like Wikipedia or the WMF likes to keep reminding people of their fuck ups, much less use them as teaching aids. They see that as the responsibility of everyone else, who must compensate for your cult's effects.Interesting. I'd never heard of this one before.
Ah, good, so you do at least appreciate the problem.....I wonder if you are prepared to take responsibility for it, and learn the right lessons (spoiler alert: he doesn't)It shows that even the most minor of hoaxes left up for a short period of time can get some traction
Jesus.though I'd say the actual harm caused with this one wasn't too big.
You nasty prick. This is such a Wikipediot thing to do, to view any critic of their cult as somehow out to promote themselves.Its biggest benefit has been a minor amount of notoriety for the author to write about as an adult.
This is another classic Wikipediot reaction to criticism. Complaining about the fact it wasn't "several hours" as alleged, merely one and a quarter, as if somehow that undermines the critic, when in reality, it makes not one blind piece of difference to the point he is making, indeed it only magnifies it.The edit was up for 1 hour and 15 minutes on 4 May 2011.
Explaining what happened doesn't really help anyone, does it......especially when you're not being honest. The reason he said "most" pages simply copied Wikipedia verbatim, is because some went even further, and didn't even notice the error despite using the flawed information they found in Wikipedia in a more involved way.Some personal blogs apparently happened to cut and paste the text in that period, since it was the day before Cinco de Mayo in the United States when it appeared.
Really? Are you Wikipediots still not really accepting the idea that fake news travels fast on Facebook?According to Lovrien, it was also copied into Facebook posts, which seems plausible.
It isn't really relevant given the incident happened seven years ago, but I see why you mentioned these figures.Lovrien has cited this one from Tahoe Cruises which 6 people liked and 4 shared, and is still up.
Rather than nastily slurring Lovrein again, or ridiculously claiming the second attempt lasting just minutes is some kind of success, why not address the real issues this information reveals? Such as why he was never blocked first time around. Or why articles on anniversaries are not being premptively protected. Do you have any view on making sure those two things actually happen, automatically, as a meagre improvement? I didn't think so.....Editing as "Qui-GonJim" he tried to do the same thing the next year on 2 May 2012, but two attempts were reverted within minutes. 1, 2.
Yay! The system works. Sometimes. Although obviously Wikipedians never seem to realise that due to their size and reach, an anti-vandal system needs to work all of the time, certainly for articles over a certain threshold of importance, where it arguably needs to prevent vandalism going live at all, if they want to be able to claim they are not harming the world and not playing their part in the problem of fake news.The account was then blocked
It is telling that Milowent said this garbage on the so called Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy, and it is unsurprising that at time of writing, his apologist bullshit hasn't been responded to at all by any other poster there, never mind in a manner that would be appropriate if the people there had the slightest intention of exposing Wikipedia's true flaws, and fighting the propaganda they use to explain it all away as no big deal.
I'd have responded to it, as above, suitably cleaned up for reasons of decorum. But I am banned by Wikipediocracy for upsetting the apologists, which is apparently possible on that site if you present certain facts, no matter how polite you are.
So fuck off Zoloft. You can consider yourself a co-author of that crap. Own it. Eat it.