Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party

[CrowsNest]

Isn't this a remarkable example of how Wikipedia really works?

For those who don't know, despite allegations that it is all a neocon plot, the controversy over antisemitism in the Labour Party just rumbles on and on. Even with the massively distorting effect of Brexit dominating the news, it has been hard to miss it. Consequently, the Wikipedia article "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" has ballooned to a massive page with 296 references.

On 3 February a Wikipedia editor by the name of Woofboy seems to have had enough, and launched a counter-article, "Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party". He must have been researching it for some time, since the version he initially published contains no less than 171 references, across 22 subsections.

There's a quick way to check the likely quality of a Wikipedia article - check the first and last reference. The first of Woofboy's initial draft was a left wing politics blog, the last was the Basildon Canvey Southend Echo.

A month later, despite attracting the attention of other editors, Woofboy remains inarguably the only person who can claim to have authored this article - he has made 78% of all edits, and 97% of what is there now, was written by him. The corresponding pie-charts for the Labour party article show it is a genuine result of collaboration, both in terms of number of edits and text contributed, with nobody registering over 20% on either measure.

The advantages of writing a mirror article are obvious. In the nominal parent article, "Antisemitism in the United Kingdom", itself being where you are directed to from the UK section of "Antisemitism", Woofboy's creation has equal billing alongside the two places a navigation link to the Labour party article is provided.

If we are to believe Wikipedia, the way they ensure neutrality in an area of controversy, is by pitting opposing groups of editors against each other, and *poof*, a neutral article is the product of the ensuing struggle session. The obvious way around that of course, is not to enter the frey.

As such, I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that despite his apparent interest in the subject of antisemitism in British politics, Woofboy has made just two edits to the Labour equivalent of his brand new article. The first was to add a link to his article in the "See Also" section at the bottom. The second was to add links to his article and the ones on "Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party", "Racism in the UK Conservative Party" and "Racism in the United Kingdom".

Woolfboy has just twelve edits to the nominal parent articles of his new creation, the Conservative party or antisemitism in the UK articles, in contrast to his third most edited article, "Novara Media", a "radical left-wing alternative media organisation" who are evidently very supportive of Jeremy Corbyn, who is of course the leader of the Labour Party, his leadership basically forming the crux of the current controversy.

Who knows whether Woofboy's article is a genuinely well researched piece, a necessary historical counter-balance to the current controversy, although first impressions suggest not. What is clear, by simple virtue of its singular authorship and their evident motive, it is unlikely to be neutral, and this will likely remain the case for as long as antisemitism in the Conservative Party is not a not topic in the news, which it isn't.

[ericbarbour]

Woofboy is either a crazy person or a sockpuppet used for political/religious purposes. Showed up in 2005, did very little until 2007, then churned out material about the "Christadelphians", claiming to be a member thereof. They are Biblical literalists, pacifists, and waaay out in the back 40 if you're trying to pigeonhole Christians. Quite a few "Delphians" have edited the associated content but Woofboy seems to be most prolific. Tends to avoid talkpage squabbles and noticeboards.

Then WB was relatively inactive until late 2018, when the fighting and grinding over UK political stuff began. No apparent relation to the Christadelphian stuff here. Doesn't make any sense? Then he (?) is a "good Wikipedian" in "good standing". They love crazies, as long as the crazies generate content and don't fight with insiders.

Speaking of fighting, wait till the WP inners find out that Woofboy regards homosexuality as a sin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chri ... /Archive_7

Also helped to make this one of WP's longest articles. Now I have a headache.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Unit ... l_election

[ericbarbour]

Woofboy is nothing. Try looking at Slatersteven's history. Cuckoo.