Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

[Ognistysztorm]

see Cla68's doomsday scenario

You cannot fix stupid but it can be supplanted thus AI (computer generated content) will be the "doomsday machine" for Wikipedia as Microsoft and Google (and other big tech and perhaps media players) pursue their profit imperative. AS of today, Wikipedia is just less relevant.

Kinda agree. Before AI there was a general need to "protect Wikipedia" and stick the heads in sands since it is practically an only go-to source for information and so on, but after this point as AI is taking over the place while major search engines switching their dependence to it, there will be a time where criticism against Wikipedia will be seen as "kosher" in the mainstream consciousness.

The end could be like AOL, although it could resemble Theranos if something (i.e. Jennsaurus findings) triggered a violent collapse.

[wexter]

it could resemble Theranos

Wikipedia makes "fraudulent representations" about itself; that have been institutionalized as popular delusions, but the utter nonsense it contains is real; it holds a treasure trove of entertainment value and nonsense in a low bandwidth (and thus low cost) package.

I don't think an "angry mob with pitchforks and torches" is going to burn Wikipedia down no matter the controversy. As we are starting to see, In the weakness of decline it will be more vulnerable to criticism and grousing in the form of click-bait articles. The opinions of the peanut gallery don't matter at all; it is all about money/revenue for Google.

"The advertising revenue stream that aided Google's success may no longer be a given. If AI chatbots such as ChatGPT begin carrying adverts, it could cut into Google’s leading position in the world of search engine advertising." External

EB - internal " They exploit Wikipedia, and return the favor by funneling as much traffic as possible to Wikipedia. And Google and Google employees donate millions of hard dollars to the WMF routinely. No outsider can interfere with this relationship."

I know folks that switched to Bing just to get access to AI image generation; Wikipedia will lose revenue generation potential for Google and that is why it has started its journey towards terminal decline.

"Wikipedia is more like a Monty Python skit than Theranos: As Wikipedia is now bleating about AI --> "I am not quite dead yet!"


The sadistic arrogance of being "a self-perceived institution" means that "the arbitration committee" has the effrontery that outside analysis must bend the knee to its will!

Wikipedia even refuses to attribute sadism to the Marquis du Sade - anyone saying so would be banned! How many experts complain that they tried to correct something totally wrong on Wikipedia and then they got blasted!

Wikipedia's article on sadist figurehead, genuine rape advocate, and abuser of prostitutes reads like fanfiction
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2374

Post by ericbarbour » Axel Boldt, one of WP's earliest administrators, has considerable love for the Marquis. Which means this article is on various watchlists... think the Marquis was a "cool guy".

So we are dealing with a revenue stream for Google which is a total embarrassing Joke in terms of informational veracity, process, internal controls, and quality (.6% certified); internally it is a toxic social network but that is their business (if they are happy to abuse each other so be it). Thankfully, they are done but they don't know it yet.

We get to watch the train wreck itself in slow motion Sensurround.

https://kellykazek.files.wordpress.com/ ... ?w=2000&h=

[Ognistysztorm]

The votes for Volunteer Marek's site ban current stands at a razor thin 3-2. Whether this is another trap for Wikipedia remains to be seen.

[ericbarbour]

The votes for Volunteer Marek's site ban current stands at a razor thin 3-2. Whether this is another trap for Wikipedia remains to be seen.

Once again: Arbitrators have done far worse things in the past. WP survived just peachy-keen anyway. No doubt the past epic stupidity like BADSITES, and the resulting non-effect on WP's popularity, has made them feel as if they could get away with literal murder. Maybe they have murdered someone, and we don't know about it--yet.

[wexter]

The votes for Volunteer Marek's site ban current stands at a razor thin 3-2. Whether this is another trap for Wikipedia remains to be seen.

Once again: Arbitrators have done far worse things in the past. WP survived just peachy-keen anyway. No doubt the past epic stupidity like BADSITES, and the resulting non-effect on WP's popularity, has made them feel as if they could get away with literal murder. Maybe they have murdered someone, and we don't know about it--yet.

In re "Badsites" -> perhaps an attempt to shut down critique at all costs.

Social Networks are personal - so Wikipedia speaks to the person and to people which is quite unfortunate. As a "work-product" the people should be totally irrelevant. For example, who cares who assembled your toaster! The people in the toaster factory are totally irrelevant sad sacks eking out a paupers existence - they are not relevant to you the consumer.

How many "nimrods" actually write or administrate Wikipedia or WMF? A: A very small number of people; and irrelevant nimrods they are.

Conflating products and people is one of the many things Wikipedia intentionally does as PR. eg even "Mr. Ed can write an encyclopedia!"

The problem is not "Volunteer Marek, or Piotrus, or Gizzycatbella" the problem is the "work product" which has been produced in a "factory" without any quality controls, process, or standards thus everything is personal and therefore toxic.

Robots, which will supplant Wikipedia within five years will be very consistent; they will do what they have been programmed to do. You won't care who programmed the robot or how and where it got its information... you will accept the information on face value and without consideration..

Toaster was the nickname that the Colonials have for the Cylons, due to the fact that the original models resembled "walking chrome toasters" because of their highly reflective metal bodies and toaster slot-shaped visual sensor (Miniseries). Some Cylons consider "Toaster" to be an offensive racial epithet ("Resistance", "Flight of the Phoenix"). Battle Star Galactica Wiki paraphrase

"Wikipedia sucks" and in dotage it will be sucking puree though a straw and drooling on itself. It will still be "alive in five years" but it will be supplanted.

For Wikipedia: "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination." said Starbuck

[Boink Boink]

Seems to be the usual dysfunction thus far, chiefly Wikipedia trying to rationalise the irrational, keeping Volunteer Marek around.....

1. Even if his content positions are 100% correct, which is a mighty generous if, Volunteer Marek's approach to editing is deeply toxic, to the point it seems obvious that his contribution to the mission is a case of minimal gains in return for untold damage. It is people like him that ensure Wikipedia is far from complete even in a solidly scholarly area like 20th Century world history. Nobody with an ounce of sense or self respect would tolerate being expected to deal with him as the price of editing, proving the point that Wikipedia in its current form and likely forever more, is only of interest to the least capable among us. People who are easily preyed upon and manipulated by the likes of Marek (up to and including escaping an obviously meritorious site ban).

2. it would not be unkind to characterise Volunteer Marek's approach to editing as the polar opposite of what is expected. He is aggressive, stubborn, and a born asshole. You can tell with every post he makes, his first draft was ten times more insulting.

3. Volunteer Marek clearly cannot be managed and sanctions that aim to do so are ineffective. He approaches the system of governance as a born wikilawyer and battleground editor. Gaming the system is his speciality. It is the first thing he thinks about when waking up, and the last thing he is thinking about as he goes to sleep. How to win. He wants to win. He has to win. The prospect of defeat is intolerable. And yet here we are, yet again, with some people pointing out the rather obvious fact that when an editor racks up so many sanctions, and the resolution now is apparently to reinstate some and add even more, the issue is clearly him, not some elaborate conspiracy or super effective harassment campaign, losing the argument again.

4. Volunteer Marek is clearly not an academic, indeed he is most likely a unemployed loser with far too much time on his hands. Wikipedia is probably the only means by which he can have any influence on this world. If he were to run for Adminship, he would record historic levels of opposition, based on civility and temperament. But he would be adamant he would be the best Admin that Wikipedia ever had. Indeed he would insist Wikipedia needs him as an Admin more than he needs it. Even though his entire approach to the RfA would show that he really really needs it. Administrators who are tired of or frustrated by him, only have their colleagues to blame. The gulf between the high standard of Adminship and what is expected of a mere editor is not so large that he couldn't have been hung by his own rope many times now. All it would have taken is for one Admin to step up and defend the principles of Wikipedia, even if it meant taking a fellow Admin to ArbCom (where in such cases, quite rightly, the rogue Admin is the one who loses their ability to influence how the principles of Wikipedia are upheld).

5. If a topic area is relying on an abundance of foreign language sources to settle interminable content disputes, and if people are trying to use unreliable sources so often you need to implement special measures to combat it, it's a clear sign you have a big problem. Either this is a topic where editors are trying to document a de facto non-notable topic, and/or are trying to engage in original research or push a fringe point of view. If one editor crops up in all these disputes, the problem is that editor. Remove them, and articles likely return to a normal state, characterised by normal editing. Any repeat is likely due to socking.

6. If only one editor (Volunteer Marek) in this area seems to respond to the severe harassment of Icewhiz by continuing to do the things that motivate Icewhiz to want to destroy him (it of course being completely rational to want to harass someone who is given impunity by ineffective or even complicit Admins to do BATTLE with you), while other editors are either content to just ignore him or walk away from the topic, then it's probably fair to say the harassment is being used as an excuse by Volunteer Marek to justify his own deplorable behaviour. He is not a genuine victim. It is entirely fair to blame the victim, in his deplorable case.

[Ognistysztorm]

Seems to be the usual dysfunction thus far, chiefly Wikipedia trying to rationalise the irrational, keeping Volunteer Marek around.....

1. Even if his content positions are 100% correct, which is a mighty generous if, Volunteer Marek's approach to editing is deeply toxic, to the point it seems obvious that his contribution to the mission is a case of minimal gains in return for untold damage. It is people like him that ensure Wikipedia is far from complete even in a solidly scholarly area like 20th Century world history. Nobody with an ounce of sense or self respect would tolerate being expected to deal with him as the price of editing, proving the point that Wikipedia in its current form and likely forever more, is only of interest to the least capable among us. People who are easily preyed upon and manipulated by the likes of Marek (up to and including escaping an obviously meritorious site ban).

2. it would not be unkind to characterise Volunteer Marek's approach to editing as the polar opposite of what is expected. He is aggressive, stubborn, and a born asshole. You can tell with every post he makes, his first draft was ten times more insulting.

3. Volunteer Marek clearly cannot be managed and sanctions that aim to do so are ineffective. He approaches the system of governance as a born wikilawyer and battleground editor. Gaming the system is his speciality. It is the first thing he thinks about when waking up, and the last thing he is thinking about as he goes to sleep. How to win. He wants to win. He has to win. The prospect of defeat is intolerable. And yet here we are, yet again, with some people pointing out the rather obvious fact that when an editor racks up so many sanctions, and the resolution now is apparently to reinstate some and add even more, the issue is clearly him, not some elaborate conspiracy or super effective harassment campaign, losing the argument again.

4. Volunteer Marek is clearly not an academic, indeed he is most likely a unemployed loser with far too much time on his hands. Wikipedia is probably the only means by which he can have any influence on this world. If he were to run for Adminship, he would record historic levels of opposition, based on civility and temperament. But he would be adamant he would be the best Admin that Wikipedia ever had. Indeed he would insist Wikipedia needs him as an Admin more than he needs it. Even though his entire approach to the RfA would show that he really really needs it. Administrators who are tired of or frustrated by him, only have their colleagues to blame. The gulf between the high standard of Adminship and what is expected of a mere editor is not so large that he couldn't have been hung by his own rope many times now. All it would have taken is for one Admin to step up and defend the principles of Wikipedia, even if it meant taking a fellow Admin to ArbCom (where in such cases, quite rightly, the rogue Admin is the one who loses their ability to influence how the principles of Wikipedia are upheld).

5. If a topic area is relying on an abundance of foreign language sources to settle interminable content disputes, and if people are trying to use unreliable sources so often you need to implement special measures to combat it, it's a clear sign you have a big problem. Either this is a topic where editors are trying to document a de facto non-notable topic, and/or are trying to engage in original research or push a fringe point of view. If one editor crops up in all these disputes, the problem is that editor. Remove them, and articles likely return to a normal state, characterised by normal editing. Any repeat is likely due to socking.

6. If only one editor (Volunteer Marek) in this area seems to respond to the severe harassment of Icewhiz by continuing to do the things that motivate Icewhiz to want to destroy him (it of course being completely rational to want to harass someone who is given impunity by ineffective or even complicit Admins to do BATTLE with you), while other editors are either content to just ignore him or walk away from the topic, then it's probably fair to say the harassment is being used as an excuse by Volunteer Marek to justify his own deplorable behaviour. He is not a genuine victim. It is entirely fair to blame the victim, in his deplorable case.

Klein and Grabowski so far are silent about the proposed decisions, but as the topic area will still be in distortionist control (albeit weakened a bit) I suspect that they will grow the controversy into a much larger anti-Wikipedia movement. The CJN podcast already indicated the option of setting up a consortium and pressuring search engines to de-rank Wikipedia.

[wexter]

Klein and Grabowski so far are silent about the proposed decisions,

The incomprehensible and nonsensical arbitration outlasted (maneuvered, manipulated, tolled, exhausted) the "news cycle."

Holding an arbitration was the solution to the problem as far as the WMF was concerned.

This whole mess was driven by news. Wikipedia is not going to rectify, adjust, improve, or reform in any way. As they said, K&G will escalate to Google and nothing will come of it...

The beginning of the end of Wikipedia;

"Google has unveiled its vision for how it will incorporate AI into search," tweeted The Verge's James Vincent. "The quick answer: it's going to gobble up the open web and then summarize/rewrite/regurgitate it (pick the adjective that reflects your level of disquiet) in a shiny Google UI."

[Cla68]

Klein and Grabowski so far are silent about the proposed decisions,

The incomprehensible and nonsensical arbitration outlasted (maneuvered, manipulated, tolled, exhausted) the "news cycle."

Holding an arbitration was the solution to the problem as far as the WMF was concerned.

This whole mess was driven by news. Wikipedia is not going to rectify, adjust, improve, or reform in any way. As they said, K&G will escalate to Google and nothing will come of it...

The beginning of the end of Wikipedia;

"Google has unveiled its vision for how it will incorporate AI into search," tweeted The Verge's James Vincent. "The quick answer: it's going to gobble up the open web and then summarize/rewrite/regurgitate it (pick the adjective that reflects your level of disquiet) in a shiny Google UI."

That's a good point about what may happen next, that if WP fails to remove the "Holocaust denial" or the editors promoting it, the Holocaust academics and their media allies (most of the media) will petition Google to start downgrading Wikipedia in search results. If they can convince Google on their POV, then Google will comply, and WP will have an existential crisis.

[Bbb23sucks]

Volunteer Marek banned
6.1) Volunteer Marek is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Sucks. (Read the entire decision on WP, much easier to read there than here) The entire episode, as I said above, is to lay the groundwork to extort reparations from Poland. Sucks!

I knew it!