Breitbin

[Moral Hazard]

Tim's previous comments provide a counter-example to this dichotomy, which is why his opinion may be especially interesting now.

[Midsize Jake]

Tim's previous comments provide a counter-example to this dichotomy, which is why his opinion may be especially interesting now.

To some extent I would exempt members of this site, and to some extent established Wikipedians as well, from this "dichotomy" because we were observing it fairly closely at the time and we remember how it all happened.

What I remember is that this all did start out as a bunch of gamers yelling "GOTCHA!" when they learned that a game designer, whose games — one in particular — were not very good (i.e., Quinn), might have been getting good reviews because she had been in a relationship with one or more reviewers. It was only after that picked up steam, mostly on Twitter and Reddit, that the right-wing anti-feminist types got involved. The exploitation of hashtags and Twitter's general algorithmic vulnerability had a lot to do with their initial success, but I suspect the right-wing folks got into it more because they were impressed with the gamers' ability to organize and stay on-message without resorting to cheesy acronyms and splintering into a million different groups with different agendas, and of course the fact that they're always looking for ways to become more youth-oriented.

In the past, Mr. TDA has stated that GG didn't start out as an especially political thing, and despite my not being a right-winger myself (neither is Mr. Randy), I agreed with him then and I still agree with him now. What I don't agree with is about what happened after that with the media coverage — simply put, the MSM got interested too late to cover it as a "gamer journalism" thing or a "consumer revolt." It became a harassment campaign very quickly, and once that had happened, that was really all it was as far as the MSM was concerned. Hard cheese on the gamers of course, but on the internet, it's often pretty hard to choose your friends, if that's even something you're inclined to do.

[Tarc]

The alt-right; what pitiful little dickmittens.

What's amusing here is that most people have largely moved on from GG...except for the neckbeards. Zoe Quinn has a comic series out for DC Comics, Brianna Wu is running for Congress in Massachusetts.

It was an important moment in time and it still means something of course, but it doesn't define those two...or me, or Bernstein or Baranof, others on our "side" (that some think being opposed to hate is something one must choose a side on is still mind-boggling).

These are sad men with small ideas.

[Randy from Boise]

Randy/Tim/Carrite (T-C-L) (the hero with 1000 faces),

You have criticized Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate so often and your sense of fairness is so well established that I am surprised by your reaction.

Is TDA wrong about Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate (T-H-L)?

(I have not read this Breitbart piece.)

I offer no commentary at this point on the core argument of TDA in his piece. If I lose my bet to him, I'll give you a thousand words or two...

tim

[Moral Hazard]

Wikipedia’s War on #GamerGate Set the Site’s Tone for the Trump Era
T.D. ADLER (T-H-L) (The Devil's Advocate (T-C-L)) 28 Nov 2019 Breitbart (T-H-L)

These ArbCom protectors, often openly biased against GamerGate, included significant individuals such as [...] the one-time lawyer of late Comic Book legend Stan Lee (T-H-L).

TDA links this article about Stan Lee (T-H-L) and Stan Lee Media (T-H-L):

Stan Lee Triumphs Over Stan Lee Media in California Court
by Eriq Gardner
The Hollywood Reporter 10 JULY 2012

Judge Wilson hasn't issued a written order yet, but according to Ira Matetsky (T-H-L), an attorney for Lee, the judge has dismissed the lawsuit because "res judicata" -- the matter had already been judged.

Congratulations to Ira Brad Matetsky (T-H-L) / Newyorkbrad (T-C-L) for his work with Stan Lee!
I do not recall NYB being biased or acting improperly with GamerGate, and I doubt that TDA's discussion of him is fair.

Mods: The censor command does not work.

[Poetlister]

China critics the Epoch Times and conservative outlet the Gateway Pundit have been banned from use as reliable sources on Wikipedia in the latest cases of news outlets that support President Trump being banned from the online encyclopedia. ...

The Epoch Times Wikipedia ban proposal was apparently prompted by one of its articles being cited on the Wikipedia page for Joseph Mifsud, a key controversial figure in the origins of the discredited Russia investigation. Gateway Pundit’s ban was in response to the outlet being cited for past media silence over Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election

Over the past year, Wikipedia editors have been on a banning spree targeting conservative news sources. Having previously banned the Daily Mail as a source, the following year marked the beginning of an acceleration of the process. Since then, editors have imposed similar bans on fifteen other sites aside from Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit. While some data-focused sites and state-owned outlets in Venezuela and Iran have also been banned, the bulk of the sites banned have been conservative-leaning news outlets. Breitbart News was blacklisted as a “reliable source” on Wikipedia in 2018.

Breitbart

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia’s GamerGate article has long been subjected to biased editing by opponents of the anti-corruption movement in gaming. They have been aided by major media sources that spent years defaming the movement, which had paid particular attention to press corruption. Breitbart News has found that many of these outlets, including BBC News, USA Today, the Daily Telegraph, and the Los Angeles Times have sometimes relied on Wikipedia itself for their false characterizations of GamerGate without crediting the online encyclopedia.

Breitbart

[Poetlister]

Researchers found in a 2017 study that edits to Wikipedia about scientific subjects influenced the content of scientific literature and what studies would be cited in papers based on their usage on the “online encyclopedia.” Last year, another study found edits about Spanish cities had a measurable impact on tourist activity and an earlier study found investor sentiment could also be influenced. In the case of scientific research, the results showed that the creation of one Wikipedia page influenced up to 250 scientific papers.

Breitbart

Many here will agree with Breitbart that Wikipedia can be dangerously influential, even if we disagree with some of the details.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia has deleted its ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’.

Stalin — who set the template for airbrushing inconvenient people out of history — would no doubt have heartily approved of this wanton act of censorship.

But what would probably have pleased him more is the magnificently twisted justification offered by the editor responsible.

“The result was delete. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”

What this Wikipedia editor is saying, in other words, is that if you’re a scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming then that automatically makes you not a scientist.

Breitbart

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (T-H-L)

For the record, the closing admin was Bishonen. The article is still on Fandom if anyone wants it.

[rhindle]

However, those that are sceptical that get to actually research discover that this is actually true.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opin ... eptic.html *

*Note may be behind a paywall or need to register to view article.

[Poetlister]

However, those that are sceptical that get to actually research discover that this is actually true.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opin ... eptic.html *

*Note may be behind a paywall or need to register to view article.

Good point. Maybe the article should have been titled "List of scientists who have not properly investigated climate change and so have made incorrect statements".

[Giraffe Stapler]

Another piece from The Devil's Advocate: Wikipedia Editors Censor Evidence Exonerating Michael Flynn

On Wikipedia articles about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, editors have worked to exclude or downplay evidence cited by the Justice Department in support of dismissing charges that claim Flynn knowingly made materially false statements to the FBI regarding conversations with a Russian Ambassador. Such evidence includes FBI agents believing he was not lying and Flynn only pleading guilty after prosecutors threatened to go after his son.

Editors mentioned in this article include NorthBySouthBaranof (T-C-L), BullRangifer (T-C-L) (now Valjean), Snooganssnoogans (T-C-L), and MrX (T-C-L).

[Poetlister]

Even supposing that this is true, so what? Either there is evidence that will stand up in court or there isn't. There is no rule that says that courts can only consider evidence given on Wilipedia.

[OhKayeSierra]

No shortage of scare quotes in this “article”. Typical TDA agitprop.

[Mason]

Has he officially come out as a Q-tip yet?

[Poetlister]

Indeed, for example, note "the Washington Post and NPR, both considered “reliable” on Wikipedia". Does Breitbart consider any source other than itself to be reliable?

[Ming]

It occurs to Ming that Ming has perhaps been a bit unfair to the Daily Mail, since Ming doesn't automatically assume that anything the DM publishes is untrue.

[iii]

Has he officially come out as a Q-tip yet?

TDA doesn't "officially" come out as anything. He plays the fool. Or the concern troll. Or the sealion. Or whatever else you like to call it.

[Midsize Jake]

Has he officially come out as a Q-tip yet?

Now, let's try to show him at least a modicum of respect. Mr. Advocate is no fool, nor does he appear to be showing the signs of approaching dementia like a certain WP co-founder we're all familiar with. Certainly the mere fact that he's defending Flynn, who apparently has become a QAnon wack-job, doesn't mean Mr. Advocate himself has become a QAnon wack-job.

I mean, sure, it doesn't look good, but let's not go overboard here.

[Mason]

Has he officially come out as a Q-tip yet?

TDA doesn't "officially" come out as anything. He plays the fool. Or the concern troll. Or the sealion. Or whatever else you like to call it.

Good point. You never do see “I support Odious Entity X” from him, but rather “Look at how crooked and biased the liberals are being about Entity X Of Which I Have No Particular Opinion.”

[tarantino]

Larry retweeted Michael Flynn's brother, who tweeted the breitbart story.

From Gen. Flynn’s brother.

Sorry, I’ve been trying to fix it. :-/

SILICON VALLEY COMMIES ARE ANTI AMERICAN PUKES WHO HATE THE TRUTH. Wikipedia Editors Censor Evidence Exonerating Michael Flynn

[Vigilant]

Larry retweeted Michael Flynn's brother, who tweeted the breitbart story.

From Gen. Flynn’s brother.

Sorry, I’ve been trying to fix it. :-/

SILICON VALLEY COMMIES ARE ANTI AMERICAN PUKES WHO HATE THE TRUTH. Wikipedia Editors Censor Evidence Exonerating Michael Flynn

Flynn's team and the DoJ both got spanked in the en banc hearing this morning.

[Poetlister]

It occurs to Ming that Ming has perhaps been a bit unfair to the Daily Mail, since Ming doesn't automatically assume that anything the DM publishes is untrue.

I'd say that the great majority of what it publishes is true, albeit with a right-wing and populist POV. I'd certainly distrust it less than Breitbart or indeed than some loony left sites.

[Moral Hazard]

What acuity in your judgments!

What harmony!

[Bezdomni]

Some observations and a question from my little sashi-trolls periscope:

1) Everbody in this thread so far has criticized TDA.
2) TDA has an annoying habit of identifying neoliberals as "The Left".
3) Linking to archive.is makes it much harder to dig into the primary material linked to in the article.
4) House POV-warriors are granted large latitude for sarcasm/scorn/satire, because sealions.
5) Mr. Adler should probably acknowledge that The Manchester Guardian is far from being the #3 source at en.wp. It is well behind youtube.com and google for example.
6) Who are the trolls?

caveat lector: The above represents refractorings from a b& kaleidoscope and does not necessarily correctly refract the views of management.

[Mason]

2) TDA has an annoying habit of identifying neoliberals as "The Left".

Check your browser settings. You might have accidentally clicked Tucker Carlson instead of Tulsi in the “language” section.

[Vigilant]

2) TDA has an annoying habit of identifying neoliberals as "The Left".

Check your browser settings. You might have accidentally clicked Tucker Carlson instead of Tulsi in the “language” section.

Dialects of the same underlying language.

[Bezdomni]

2) TDA has an annoying habit of identifying neoliberals as "The Left".

Check your browser settings. You might have accidentally clicked Tucker Carlson instead of Tulsi in the “language” section.

Dialects of the same underlying language.

surely Russian.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Some observations and a question from my little sashi-trolls periscope:

1) Everbody in this thread so far has criticized TDA.

I didn't. I presented the article without any comment on TDA.

3) Linking to archive.is makes it much harder to dig into the primary material linked to in the article.

Sorry about that, but you can always get to the original url from the archived copy.

[Poetlister]

Some observations and a question from my little sashi-trolls periscope:

1) Everbody in this thread so far has criticized TDA.
2) TDA has an annoying habit of identifying neoliberals as "The Left".
3) Linking to archive.is makes it much harder to dig into the primary material linked to in the article.
4) House POV-warriors are granted large latitude for sarcasm/scorn/satire, because sealions.
5) Mr. Adler should probably acknowledge that The Manchester Guardian is far from being the #3 source at en.wp. It is well behind youtube.com and google for example.
6) Who are the trolls?

caveat lector: The above represents refractorings from a b& kaleidoscope and does not necessarily correctly refract the views of management.

I hven't criticised him in particular, just Breitbart in general. And it hasn't been called The Manchester Guardian since 1959.

[ArmasRebane]

I don't think many edit warriors would miss the opportunity to get paid to take swings at your wiki-opponents after you've been banned, so I can't knock the hustle.

[Zoloft]

What acuity in your judgments!

What harmony!

Much needed picture added.

[Bezdomni]

I haven't criticised him in particular, just Breitbart in general. And it hasn't been called The Manchester Guardian since 1959.

Curious how they republish this op-ed from 24 March 1841 without an author's name. I would also tell Ming Ming that I saw Ming didn't mangle anyone either. My apologies for using the word "everybody" so loosely in a fit of approximation.

[eagle]

On Sept. 23, The Devil's Advocate posted a Breitbart article entitled "Six Cases of Wikipedia Editors Smearing President Trump". TDA fails to mention that during this period the Chair of the WMF Board was secretly married to Laura Hale who was active in the Democrats Abroad organization, the official branch of the Democratic National Committee for organizing US citizens living outside the United States.

[AndyTheGrump]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be 'Biased Breitbart coverage of biased Trump coverage'?

As an exercise in objective reporting, I've seen better from the Beano.

[Midsize Jake]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be 'Biased Breitbart coverage of biased Trump coverage'?

Probably. There are quite a few factual errors too that an unbiased editor would have caught, like "disproving collusion" (should be changed to "failing to prove") and "failed impeachment" (the impeachment was quite successful, it was the conviction that failed). Among many others.

We can shrug this off and say "oh well, that's Breitbart for you" or even "that's TDA for you," but this is what's known as "setting a marker," and I would expect right-wing attacks on Wikipedia to increase over the next several weeks. A lot of people are going to check WP for election results during the week after Election Day, unless the Republicans succeed in their plan to prevent the votes from being counted. If they don't, they're going to want to discredit any media outlet that might carry content that suggests Trump is losing.

I suspect they're also going to want to counter negative coverage of their plan to revoke Section 230 by saying that Wikipedia will be "no big loss" when it's forced to either stop carrying any material critical of Donald Trump (among other Republicans) or cease operations altogether.

[eagle]

Why discuss these six instances of bias? Isn't the fact that WMF is spending years in court suing the NSA sufficient evidence of its bias? Wikipedia cannot claim to be apolitical when it expands its scope to include NSA lawsuits or SOPA-PIPA site shutdowns.

[Midsize Jake]

Why discuss these six instances of bias? Isn't the fact that WMF is spending years in court suing the NSA sufficient evidence of its bias? Wikipedia cannot claim to be apolitical when it expands its scope to include NSA lawsuits or SOPA-PIPA site shutdowns.

That's kind of what I was getting at though, in a sort of roundabout way. Most Breitbart readers probably think suing the NSA is a good thing, to be cheered and celebrated. And in any event, our right-wing friends are not so interested right now in discrediting the WMF, they're interested in discrediting the actual content of the politics-related articles on the English WP, specifically, and that means going after the editors and especially the admins.

From our perspective that probably looks like shooting fish in a barrel, but I would imagine that even a few Breitbart readers who are feeling a little queasy at the moment about what Trump and the GOP lawyers are apparently planning to do with the vote counts. So it's probably all hands on deck to make sure those folks don't fold when the chips are down, as we say in popular cliché-land.

[Bezdomni]

Goodness, what's all this about a peaceO.ceanicFeeling... ? (§)

TDA @ Breitbart.

Aside: People I've talked to in France lately are so COVID-weary they don't even bother watching the news anymore, so nobody's asked me about Daunte Wright yet.

[Poetlister]

The horror: "including attacks on former President Donald Trump" (presumably something about how he stirred up and encouraged far-right people who are often anti-Semitic). Oddly, there is no mention of how the ADL is supported by dangerous left-wingers like David Kustoff (T-H-L) and Lee Zeldin (T-H-L).

[Giraffe Stapler]

Goodness, what's all this about a peaceO.ceanicFeeling... ?

Eagles original lineup, featuring Glenn Frey's original nose.