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

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

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

Post by wexter » Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:43 pm

SkepticalHistorian wrote:
Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:31 am
Grabowski et.al. realize this gas chamber in the Warsaw Concentration camp was phony*, now it’s time for others to point out the absurdity of the other gas chambers.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_co ... camp_story
When I looked at Britannica they stated that "During World War II the Germans established more than 200 labour, prison, and concentration camps (e.g., Majdanek and Sobibór) in the area." They concisely list a few details, outline an overview, and provide context.

So basically Britannica points out the two major camps in the context of many. What you are noticing is that Wikipedia uses too many words and topics to present countervailing viewpoints that are out of context and therefore are wrong. Both sides are wrong; nobody has an overview, and there is no context. Two different stories can be told (and sold as the truth) in many different articles.


In an encyclopedia "A discredited Warsaw concentration camp" would not be relevant. That is the absurdity here - wtf is total nonsense doing in "an encyclopedia"


What is also relevant is that there are "countervailing narratives" being spun on Wikipedia.
In this case Szmenderowiecki and GizzyCatBella are at war with each other. Circa 2021 Szmenderowieki was at war with Volunteer Marek.

The failed Wikipedia process allows any nonsense to get expressed (by anyone) the more conflicting words used and more conflicting topics created the better. A flaw of the Wikipedia process is that folks fight with each other in an effort to win by making a point.

Lets not fall for that nonsense here as the issue is Wikipedia and to that we should agree.
Arbitration Statement by Szmenderowiecki

This is just a sample of what a shitshow is going to happen here once the case is accepted.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

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

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

Post by Ognistysztorm » Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:51 pm

Cla68 wrote:
Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:01 pm
Over 10 years ago ArbCom declared that their focus would be on behavioral issues of the editors they investigate and they specifically stated that they would not address content issues, such as allegations that editors are misusing sources. The other admins in WP have generally followed their lead. You can understand why, because if admins were expected to use analysis and objective truth to determine if editors were presenting content, including the sourcing, correctly, it would increase the workload and responsibility of WP's admin corps tenfold. They just don't want that level of responsibility.

The thing is, they do need to embrace that level of responsibility. If you're going to claim that your website is an "encyclopedia" then that means the "encyclopedia"'s designated administrators have to ensure that it really does meet that definition. De facto, they're responsible for its content, whether they want it or not. If you're going to volunteer to be an admin, then you're pledging to make sure the content is correct, to the best of your ability.

This Poland and the Holocaust issue is forcing ArbCom, and by extension, all of WP's admins to finally face this reality. ArbCom is going to try to weasel out of it with this case, but they won't be able to. The reason is, if they don't enact measures to fix the content in question, the Holocaust history industry is going to up the pressure and come after them harder. And that industry has a thousand times the resources, support, and motivation that WP's administration has.

If the arbitrators had half a clue about trying to maintain the status quo and preserving limits on their responsibility, they would be saying that there is no way in H-ll that they're going to touch this case, and would be telling the WMF, "This is yours to handle. Get your lawyers involved and take care of it. We're not paid enough to start regulating content and we don't want to and refuse to anyway."
It's interesting to see that Wikipedia hardcore defenders and Polish nationalists are badgering discussions on Twitter et al to try to deflect the topic to Icewhiz. Perhaps they all should be allowed to fail hard this time.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

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

Post by boredbird » Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:26 pm

SkepticalHistorian wrote:
Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:31 am
now it’s time for others to point out the absurdity of the other gas chambers.
No it's not.

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

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:41 pm

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:51 pm
It's interesting to see that Wikipedia hardcore defenders and Polish nationalists are badgering discussions on Twitter et al to try to deflect the topic to Icewhiz. Perhaps they all should be allowed to fail hard this time.
Links to a couple of examples would be helpful
Cla68 wrote:This Poland and the Holocaust issue is forcing ArbCom, and by extension, all of WP's admins to finally face this reality. ArbCom is going to try to weasel out of it with this case, but they won't be able to.
They have successfully weaseled their way around this issue many times in the past. Arbcom are an example of the most perverse of institutions, a left-leaning reactionary exclusionary activist group. Might as well call themselves the "Politburo" and be honest.

Because they got away with avoiding Holocaust squabbles before, and because they have a cult protecting them, they figure they can always slime their way around related content editwars. Just ban somebody and keep screeching "WE DO NOT ADJUDICATE CONTENT ISSUES" blah blah. No one on their stupid website will effectively oppose them, because they can always toss "troublemakers" off their site.

User avatar
Cla68
Sucks
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:18 pm
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 90 times

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

Post by Cla68 » Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:23 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:41 pm
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:51 pm
It's interesting to see that Wikipedia hardcore defenders and Polish nationalists are badgering discussions on Twitter et al to try to deflect the topic to Icewhiz. Perhaps they all should be allowed to fail hard this time.
Links to a couple of examples would be helpful
Cla68 wrote:This Poland and the Holocaust issue is forcing ArbCom, and by extension, all of WP's admins to finally face this reality. ArbCom is going to try to weasel out of it with this case, but they won't be able to.
They have successfully weaseled their way around this issue many times in the past. Arbcom are an example of the most perverse of institutions, a left-leaning reactionary exclusionary activist group. Might as well call themselves the "Politburo" and be honest.

Because they got away with avoiding Holocaust squabbles before, and because they have a cult protecting them, they figure they can always slime their way around related content editwars. Just ban somebody and keep screeching "WE DO NOT ADJUDICATE CONTENT ISSUES" blah blah. No one on their stupid website will effectively oppose them, because they can always toss "troublemakers" off their site.
I'm not sure the arbitrators understand the position they're in right now. If they refuse to "fix" the content issues in the Poland-and-the-Holocaust suite of articles, then they will infuriate a sizeable portion of the Western world, especially if the mainstream media picks it up, and the institutions those people belong to will come after the arbitrators. May God have mercy on their souls if that happens.

However, if they do base their decision on adjudicating a content dispute, then they've set a precedent. Once they do that, I encourage all editors experiencing protracted and severe content disputes, especially with any of the other pernicious POV cabals in Wikipedia, to immediately start bombarding ArbCom and the Admin noticeboards with requests (demands) for the admins to adjudicate THEIR content dispute just like ArbCom did with the Poland one.

What will then likely happen is that the admins will ignore the requests and/or try to explain that ArbCom did not actually adjudicate a content dispute, "what they really did was yada, yada, yada..." Then, the Poland History editors will have standing to sue the pants off the arbitrators and the WMF. All the other editors involved in content disputes will also have standing to sue.

In the case of the Poland editors, they'll have standing because ArbCom sanctioned them based on content issues, but haven't done it to any other editors in spite of being asked repeatedly to do so. The other editors will have standing because WP's admin corps, including ArbCom, won't adjudicate their content dispute, but they did in the case of Poland. Multiple subpoenas will hit the offices of the WMF, who will give up the IP addresses of the arbitrators and other admins so they can be dragged into court. Doesn't the WMF keep a file with the real names and addresses of all the arbitrators?

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

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

Post by Ognistysztorm » Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:50 pm

Cla68 wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:23 pm
ericbarbour wrote:
Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:41 pm
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:51 pm
It's interesting to see that Wikipedia hardcore defenders and Polish nationalists are badgering discussions on Twitter et al to try to deflect the topic to Icewhiz. Perhaps they all should be allowed to fail hard this time.
Links to a couple of examples would be helpful
Cla68 wrote:This Poland and the Holocaust issue is forcing ArbCom, and by extension, all of WP's admins to finally face this reality. ArbCom is going to try to weasel out of it with this case, but they won't be able to.
They have successfully weaseled their way around this issue many times in the past. Arbcom are an example of the most perverse of institutions, a left-leaning reactionary exclusionary activist group. Might as well call themselves the "Politburo" and be honest.

Because they got away with avoiding Holocaust squabbles before, and because they have a cult protecting them, they figure they can always slime their way around related content editwars. Just ban somebody and keep screeching "WE DO NOT ADJUDICATE CONTENT ISSUES" blah blah. No one on their stupid website will effectively oppose them, because they can always toss "troublemakers" off their site.
I'm not sure the arbitrators understand the position they're in right now. If they refuse to "fix" the content issues in the Poland-and-the-Holocaust suite of articles, then they will infuriate a sizeable portion of the Western world, especially if the mainstream media picks it up, and the institutions those people belong to will come after the arbitrators. May God have mercy on their souls if that happens.

However, if they do base their decision on adjudicating a content dispute, then they've set a precedent. Once they do that, I encourage all editors experiencing protracted and severe content disputes, especially with any of the other pernicious POV cabals in Wikipedia, to immediately start bombarding ArbCom and the Admin noticeboards with requests (demands) for the admins to adjudicate THEIR content dispute just like ArbCom did with the Poland one.

What will then likely happen is that the admins will ignore the requests and/or try to explain that ArbCom did not actually adjudicate a content dispute, "what they really did was yada, yada, yada..." Then, the Poland History editors will have standing to sue the pants off the arbitrators and the WMF. All the other editors involved in content disputes will also have standing to sue.

In the case of the Poland editors, they'll have standing because ArbCom sanctioned them based on content issues, but haven't done it to any other editors in spite of being asked repeatedly to do so. The other editors will have standing because WP's admin corps, including ArbCom, won't adjudicate their content dispute, but they did in the case of Poland. Multiple subpoenas will hit the offices of the WMF, who will give up the IP addresses of the arbitrators and other admins so they can be dragged into court. Doesn't the WMF keep a file with the real names and addresses of all the arbitrators?
In case of the former, if and when that happens, I see the possibility of Wikipedia criticism becoming a mainstream topics, which would be unthinkable just a few years ago when social media hive minds would shut down any criticism of the "sacred encyclopedia" with ad hominem such as lumping disgruntled editors with vandals. Perhaps the SPI pages and so-called long term abuser pages are probably having the additional purpose of operating on the premise with the intention of using the power of the internet to shame the "vandals" in hopes of getting them to stop, very much a cancel culture. Imagine the consequences if they get vindicated and rehabilitated. In this sense it is like Theranos shortly before Carreyou's WST article.

I'd very much like to see your insight on this.

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

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:07 pm

Cla68 wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:23 pm
I'm not sure the arbitrators understand the position they're in right now.
Of course they don't. Criticism of Arbcom on WP usually ends with people being banned and harassed off WP.They "vanish" their enemies.

Remember the Fram hellstorm in 2019? That happened. Yet Wikipedians are pretending it didn't. Fram had been openly attacking Arbcom--one of the reasons used to repeatedly ban and unban him. It got media coverage.

AND THEY LEARNED NOTHING.
However, if they do base their decision on adjudicating a content dispute, then they've set a precedent.
Many precedents were already set years ago. They will keep hiding behind Section 230.
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:50 pm
In case of the former, if and when that happens, I see the possibility of Wikipedia criticism becoming a mainstream topics, which would be unthinkable just a few years ago when social media hive minds would shut down any criticism of the "sacred encyclopedia" with ad hominem such as lumping disgruntled editors with vandals.
Do you not remember the 2007-2012 period, when The Register was routinely posting Wikipedia internal scandals? The Wiki-bastards absolutely HATED the Register writers who authored most of these pieces, especially Cade Metz. I've been told he was harassed on and off-line by "anonymous people" for years. It was probably a major reason he quit writing for The Register. And I suspect a majority of his personal harassment was the work of Wikipedia insiders and their idiotic cult supporters.

You're new to this, apparently. Let me post links to the articles. Yes, there were THAT many. Only over a 5-year period. And they had almost no effect--except to make WP insiders more paranoid and secretive. In fact, I'm suspecting that these articles were a reason for the rise of abusive vandalism patrollers and "deletionists". It started in 2008 and by 2014 they had completely taken over.

READ THEM ALL, in sequence. Then you will know more about the rancid real history.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02 ... dia_fraud/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06 ... ia_crisis/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/09 ... er_result/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06 ... olunteers/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04 ... t_mailing/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06 ... overstock/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/07 ... s_message/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13 ... ted_felon/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18 ... a_paradox/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03 ... l_marsden/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/05 ... anny_wool/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/06 ... ikipedian/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/29 ... ed_doj_ip/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/07 ... y_lawsuit/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/20 ... _wikinews/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/06 ... revisited/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/05 ... ourt_case/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/07 ... yflathead/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/11 ... rne_again/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/14 ... dismissed/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19 ... t_scandal/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01 ... _shorting/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/21/wikia_layoffs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10 ... s_wikiban/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18 ... kiscandal/ 2
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/09 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/22 ... crackdown/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/26 ... ps_google/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11 ... k_germany/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/07 ... arre_hoax/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26 ... ouncillor/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29 ... ientology/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/16 ... ns_fresco/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/25 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/17 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25 ... sion_test/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/15 ... kikicking/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24 ... declining/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02 ... boys_club/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09 ... o_the_fbi/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09 ... ron_purge/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/16/cade_wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/03 ... _seal_row/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/10/balls_festival/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06 ... an_wisdom/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20 ... _santorum/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/15 ... for_girls/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/12 ... ne_master/

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

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

Post by Ognistysztorm » Tue Mar 07, 2023 2:11 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:07 pm
Cla68 wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:23 pm
I'm not sure the arbitrators understand the position they're in right now.
Of course they don't. Criticism of Arbcom on WP usually ends with people being banned and harassed off WP.They "vanish" their enemies.

Remember the Fram hellstorm in 2019? That happened. Yet Wikipedians are pretending it didn't. Fram had been openly attacking Arbcom--one of the reasons used to repeatedly ban and unban him. It got media coverage.

AND THEY LEARNED NOTHING.
However, if they do base their decision on adjudicating a content dispute, then they've set a precedent.
Many precedents were already set years ago. They will keep hiding behind Section 230.
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:50 pm
In case of the former, if and when that happens, I see the possibility of Wikipedia criticism becoming a mainstream topics, which would be unthinkable just a few years ago when social media hive minds would shut down any criticism of the "sacred encyclopedia" with ad hominem such as lumping disgruntled editors with vandals.
Do you not remember the 2007-2012 period, when The Register was routinely posting Wikipedia internal scandals? The Wiki-bastards absolutely HATED the Register writers who authored most of these pieces, especially Cade Metz. I've been told he was harassed on and off-line by "anonymous people" for years. It was probably a major reason he quit writing for The Register. And I suspect a majority of his personal harassment was the work of Wikipedia insiders and their idiotic cult supporters.

You're new to this, apparently. Let me post links to the articles. Yes, there were THAT many. Only over a 5-year period. And they had almost no effect--except to make WP insiders more paranoid and secretive. In fact, I'm suspecting that these articles were a reason for the rise of abusive vandalism patrollers and "deletionists". It started in 2008 and by 2014 they had completely taken over.

READ THEM ALL, in sequence. Then you will know more about the rancid real history.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02 ... dia_fraud/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06 ... ia_crisis/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/09 ... er_result/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06 ... olunteers/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04 ... t_mailing/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06 ... overstock/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/07 ... s_message/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13 ... ted_felon/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18 ... a_paradox/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03 ... l_marsden/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/05 ... anny_wool/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/06 ... ikipedian/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/29 ... ed_doj_ip/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/07 ... y_lawsuit/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/20 ... _wikinews/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/06 ... revisited/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/05 ... ourt_case/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/07 ... yflathead/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/11 ... rne_again/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/14 ... dismissed/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19 ... t_scandal/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01 ... _shorting/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/21/wikia_layoffs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10 ... s_wikiban/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18 ... kiscandal/ 2
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/09 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/22 ... crackdown/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/26 ... ps_google/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11 ... k_germany/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/07 ... arre_hoax/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26 ... ouncillor/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29 ... ientology/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/16 ... ns_fresco/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/25 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/17 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25 ... sion_test/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/15 ... kikicking/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24 ... declining/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02 ... boys_club/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09 ... o_the_fbi/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09 ... ron_purge/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/16/cade_wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/03 ... _seal_row/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/10/balls_festival/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05 ... wikipedia/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06 ... an_wisdom/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20 ... _santorum/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/15 ... for_girls/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/12 ... ne_master/

The difference between 2007-2012 and 2023 is that the EU has GDPR in the latter, which may not bode well for Wikipedia one day given their large number of vandal doxxing/shamming pages despite being in the US, which also has growing ruminations in support of a GDPR-like law. In California there's already CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018).

Sure, The Register's articles were instrumental in creating a lasting impression that Wikipedia's not to be trusted among academic circles, but I have to agree with Cla68 that this one is going to be a very fatal blow, because cancel culture isn't really a thing pre-2012, to the best of my understanding.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

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

Post by wexter » Tue Mar 07, 2023 7:22 pm

Only about 50,000–120,000 Polish Jews survived the war on native soil, a fraction of their prewar population of 3,500,000.
You are litigating the wrong issue in the wrong venue

The issue is who would write the bizarre article you quoted;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ns/Matalea

All the edits (narrative framing) are circa 2011 and they are all narrowed in on Polish Jews and Polish Conduct. Poles and Nazi's Good Guys Bad Guys; Every Wikipedia article within this range of topics is all based on "I know you are but what am I!"

Grabowski · 2023 — ... data for user Poeticbent includes edits made by his sock, Matalea.

and NO Poeticbent was not on a mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poeticbent of course he was! perhaps of another flavor but he was narrative framing for sure..
...the content of the article concerns edits made by long gone users (Poeticbent etc) with a lot of these edits dating back to 2008 or earlier....

As an aside I'm wondering why User:Poeticbent, who has not made any edits in four years ... Volunteer Marek
Equally look at the contributor list below (which includes Matalea)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history
20 June 2005‎ Piotrus
The "Eastern European Warfare" kerfuffle started in 2005 - almost two decades; "I know you are but what am I" infighting conflict, narrative framing, and just making stuff up has been going on unabated for two fucking decades...


This is what the WMF had to say (PDF download)

https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/ ... additional
Here is what EB had to say

For proper completeness: the notorious Haaretz article about the "Polish concentration camp hoax". Which doxes Wikipedia editor "Poeticbent", the person guilty of the most outrageous crap in this area. He was topic-banned, and left WP after posting a long essay (under his real name!), denying.....stuff.

https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... ent#p20890

http://richardtylman.atspace.com/


Playing defendo = what is going on.. now
“The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax” conspiracy theory invented by a banned Wikipedian
By Richard Tylman


On October 3, 2019 the Haaretz News published a provocative opinion piece in translation from the Hebrew original; in its opening-line proclaiming to the world in large-print: “The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed.” The qualifying subtitle alleged: “For over 15 years, false claims that thousands of Poles were gassed to death in Warsaw were presented as fact.” – The source and inspiration behind this article written by Omer Benjakob was an interview by email with Wikipedia user Icewhiz. According to WikiBlame, the first actual citation in Haaretz from the earliest versions of the Wikipedia article claiming "the number of the camp’s victims well above 212,000, mainly Poles..." was not in Wikipedia until December 2009. The phrase, first added by an IP sock from Hawaii, appeared 5 years after the article was created, but that is a small potato in comparison to what followed in Benjakob’s report. As it turns out – most of it is a conspiracy theory of its own but not about World War II but about the inner workings of the free encyclopedia itself, as perceived by a single disgruntled Wikipedian.

on and on and on and on and on

As a long-time contributor to Wikipedia with an account registered on 9 April 2006, and over 2 thousand pages created, I quit on 17 May 2018. It was caused by a 6-month topic ban from the most significant area of my global contributions spanning over a dozen years, which was:.... while speaking out against the grotesque removal of information from Wikipedia about the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poeticbent
Is Richard Tylman using a sock presently on Wikipedia - only the shadow knows
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

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

Post by boredbird » Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:06 am

SkepticalHistorian wrote:
Tue Mar 07, 2023 4:36 am
It’s not “obviously a false claim.” There were many work camps in Poland, 30,000 seems way too low. The Lublin Reservation is where the Nazis planned to expel Jews. There were a lot of population transfers between Germany, Poland and the Soviet Union. The Poles wanted a homogeneous society, that’s not necessarily antisemitism.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _Books.jpg

Raquel Baranow wrote: Description
English: Holocaust denial books: A forensic, logistic, historic and demographic examination of the alleged murder and cremation of the “Six Million”. Holocaust denial is illegal in many countries, Amazon banned these books.
Books, authors on the bookshelf: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel, Jürgen Graf, Robert Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno, Leuchter report, Institute for Historical Review, The Barnes Review (TBR).
Date 26 December 2022, 10:11:13
Source Own work
Author Raquel Baranow
I like how he has at least four copies of "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century", I guess to helpfully lend them to others.

Post Reply