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

[sashi]

I was struck by something Grabowski says in that interview (that he went to the police immediately after receiving online threats concerning the paper about Wikipedia). This is the thing that I've never understood about Volunteer Marek... whom I've repeatedly read claiming that both he and his family were threatened, but who I've never once read follow that claim with "so I filed a police report". It just seems to me like the story would be so much more credible if he could say "Back in 2019, I filed a complaint with my local police department, due to phone calls I received and threats directed at me and my family online and I've forwarded my copy of the complaint to ArbCom".

Perhaps this is just a difference in legal contexts in countries like France and Canada, where you can file a complaint against X by presenting screenshots and the times at which your phone records show that you've received phone calls you claim to have been harassed.

[boredbird]

This is the thing that I've never understood about Volunteer Marek... whom I've repeatedly read claiming that both he and his family were threatened, but who has never once followed that claim with "so I filed a police report," at least in the repeated claims I've seen.

One is invoking alleged threats to gain an advantage on Wikipedia and the other isn't.

[Cla68]

This is the thing that I've never understood about Volunteer Marek... whom I've repeatedly read claiming that both he and his family were threatened, but who has never once followed that claim with "so I filed a police report," at least in the repeated claims I've seen.

One is invoking alleged threats to gain an advantage on Wikipedia and the other isn't.

That's part of it. There are also likely other reasons, including:

1) The "threats" Marek has received probably aren't that actionable, such as a death threat. They're probably something more like, "You may think you and your buddies can protect those articles forever, but eventually you'll lose." or something along those lines. That's kind of a threat, but not one that crosses a legal line.

2) If Marek filed a police report, it might come out that he spends a lot of his time, including when he's on the clock for his employer and on his work computer, editing Wikipedia and engaging in "Holocaust denial." That might affect his employment and his reputation.

That Slate article and the one in the Jewish newsletter are lobbing a soft but menacing warning at Wikipedia. As I said before, Western media is trying to give Wikipedia a break because they know WP and its administration generally try to support the establishment narrative on most, if not all, topics that the establishment cares about. However, if WP doesn't continue to toe the line, such as "fixing" articles on the Holocaust that are "problematic," the media will turn on them until they get back in line. The WP insiders, in their bubble, don't seem to realize this. If they did, as I previously stated, ArbCom would have told the WMF to handle this issue and washed their hands of it.

[Ognistysztorm]

This is the thing that I've never understood about Volunteer Marek... whom I've repeatedly read claiming that both he and his family were threatened, but who has never once followed that claim with "so I filed a police report," at least in the repeated claims I've seen.

One is invoking alleged threats to gain an advantage on Wikipedia and the other isn't.

That's part of it. There are also likely other reasons, including:

1) The "threats" Marek has received probably aren't that actionable, such as a death threat. They're probably something more like, "You may think you and your buddies can protect those articles forever, but eventually you'll lose." or something along those lines. That's kind of a threat, but not one that crosses a legal line.

2) If Marek filed a police report, it might come out that he spends a lot of his time, including when he's on the clock for his employer and on his work computer, editing Wikipedia and engaging in "Holocaust denial." That might affect his employment and his reputation.

That Slate article and the one in the Jewish newsletter are lobbing a soft but menacing warning at Wikipedia. As I said before, Western media is trying to give Wikipedia a break because they know WP and its administration generally try to support the establishment narrative on most, if not all, topics that the establishment cares about. However, if WP doesn't continue to toe the line, such as "fixing" articles on the Holocaust that are "problematic," the media will turn on them until they get back in line. The WP insiders, in their bubble, don't seem to realize this. If they did, as I previously stated, ArbCom would have told the WMF to handle this issue and washed their hands of it.

The podcast already mentioned the possibility of pressuring search engines to derank Wikipedia and prop up articles that present undistorted version of the Holocaust. In terms of "the media will turn on them", I am still wondering whether it will finally entail the elevation of criticisms against Wikipedia's structure such as governance and community health into mainstream discourse, and turning this into reality.

That is, without taking account that there is a second Holocaust scandal with one of its participants being a chomo.

[wexter]

The podcast already mentioned the possibility of pressuring search engines to derank Wikipedia

The podcast suggested that Wikipedia would fail (mishandle) to address the issue of narrative framing which is pervasive
The next step was to force Google to take action.

-All roads lead to Google
-The open letter to Google is here https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... php?t=2384
----(the mailed version was met with an obtuse response from legal - even though it was not a legal concern!)
-Google realizes could lose search revenue to advances in technology (GPT - the CEO talked to this point in a 60 minutes interview)

EB stated (paraphrase) that more people were annoyed/alienated by Wikipedia hence more people were engaging with this blog

What changed?
--The technology is old (the participants are aging out as well)
--The process is non existent - and that is becoming evident
--The social network is toxic
--The information is wrong (dangerously so in some cases)
--The dirty laundry and bias of Wikipedia is easy to see (including recent activities of "the Founder")
--Replacement technologies are in early development

(As an aside in 1984 there was a movie called "Electric Dreams" which predicted many technologies that were actually developed in years/decades that followed; Even in 1985 Back to the future has "Alexa" complete with errors. The future impact changing technologies was apparent to some people early on - the majority of people could not see into the future -- and here we are at the same place in time once again)

What changed? technology is changing and it will make Wikipedia vulnerable within a five year time frame. With a replacement in the works, there is going to be less tolerance for toxic-business at usual Wikipedia going forward..

[Ognistysztorm]

GCB was smoked as a suspected sock of Jacurek, although my money is that she's coached and canvassed by the latter over the years.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 50#p324582

[Bbb23sucks]

GCB was smoked as a suspected sock of Jacurek, although my money is that she's coached and canvassed by the latter over the years.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 50#p324582

ArbCom blocked! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GizzyCatBella They even made it a hard block (i.e. no talk page or even e-mail). I wonder if Volunteer Marek et al will be next...?

Edit: Anyone else notice that all three users in this thread all have very similar signatures?

[Ognistysztorm]

GCB was smoked as a suspected sock of Jacurek, although my money is that she's coached and canvassed by the latter over the years.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 50#p324582

ArbCom blocked! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GizzyCatBella They even made it a hard block (i.e. no talk page or even e-mail). I wonder if Volunteer Marek et al will be next...?

Edit: Anyone else notice that all three users in this thread all have very similar signatures?

There is prior sockpuppetry case involving Jacurek and what I found is there are mentions of him hiring or canvassing editors for his cause. It's an obvious tag team, or a cabal.

[ericbarbour]

ArbCom blocked! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GizzyCatBella They even made it a hard block (i.e. no talk page or even e-mail). I wonder if Volunteer Marek et al will be next...?

lol and also ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

[Ognistysztorm]

Paradoxically I hope they let Piotrus and VM off as Wikipedia by then is sure to get a WP:TNT treatment. I fear that Murphy's Law will come into play as long as the toxic community is allowed to fester and harm more people.