British leftists on the warpath against Wikipedia

[Hersch]

They're tweeting about the arbcom case now:

https://twitter.com/leftworks1/status/1 ... 3524722694

Is KalHolmann (T-C-L) somebody from Wikipediocracy? I like the cut of his or her jib.

[Midsize Jake]

Is KalHolmann (T-C-L) somebody from Wikipediocracy? I like the cut of his or her jib.

This is the first time anyone here has mentioned him. The account is just under a year old, so that's not especially surprising. Based on a cursory review of his contribs, he seems to make a point of trying to appear "aggressively non-POV" while editing articles about political figures on both sides... but if he were some sort of plant, he'd be more careful about badmouthing the system (the WP system, that is), which he seems to have occasionally done on Talk pages. And now JzG (T-C-L) doesn't like him, and neither does NeilN (T-C-L), so I guess he won't be going for an RfA any time soon...

I dunno, I guess he could be one of the WikipediaSucks guys - there seems to be a certain attitudinal similarity at least. Meanwhile, he likes Glenn Greenwald (among others who oppose the US intelligence establishment), and since he also had a bunch of (now-deleted) posts on Medium.com, my first guess would have been that he's one of you lot. But if that were the case then you wouldn't have brought him to our attention, right...? I mean, that's just over the top.

[Hersch]

And speaking of Mr. Holmann, I believe I've seen this movie before:

https://twitter.com/leftworks1/status/1 ... 9153619968

[Kumioko]

I would note that on his Wikipedia userpage they seem to be making what many would argue are personal attacks towards Philip Cross. I wonder how long until someone confronts them on that or offers to open an RFA for him so he can get immunity. I hope they find their way over here though, seems like they are making some arguments.

[Kingsindian]

I see this Philip Cross "time card" being linked all over the place. (Originally from here.) This is usually accompanied by the statement that editing Wikipedia for Cross is a full-time job. See here, and here, for instance. That's wrong.

The time card has no (direct) information about the number of hours Cross spends on Wikipedia each day. It shows the distribution of edits, not their duration.

Cross's actual edits are just as well consistent with a (somewhat obsessive) person who likes to edit Wikipedia in their spare time. They might well be a spook or paid editor, but this time card doesn't say whatever it is claimed to be saying.

[Kingsindian]

There's a page about Philip Cross on Everipedia (reads like a hit piece, btw). Larry Sanger tweeted about it.

[Hersch]

"Philip Cross" may have crossed the threshold of Notability®:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csws6q

[Kingsindian]

Pretty good show. Some highlights:

(a) Galloway claims that the 1000 pound reward has already been claimed, and he knows who Cross is. He didn't reveal too much info (perhaps some legal issues), but says that it's not just one person, or that the person behind the account is vulnerable/being exploited by a "cabal". Make of it what you will.
(b) WMF, WMUK and Jimbo declined to appear. Jimbo didn't even respond to the BBC. I'm guessing for legal reasons -- the WMF statement was bland corporatese disclaiming any responsibility and saying that it's all done by the volunteers.
(c) The BBC tracked down and talked to Cross on the phone (first through an intermediary, and then directly). He declined to answer any questions.

Btw, Galloway said on Twitter that he would like to see "his" BLP page removed.

[Dysklyver]

"Philip Cross" may have crossed the threshold of Notability®:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csws6q

If using Russian news was an option he would definitely be notable.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wik ... ns-author/

Also

https://twitter.com/leftworks1/status/1 ... 0847740934

They make it sound so dire:

9:47pm TMOATS @georgegalloway describes Philip Cross as a real and vulnerable person ruthlessly exploited by a powerful "controller", and strongly suggests that the relationship between them may be examined in legal proceedings.

[Bezdomni]

There's a page about Philip Cross on Everipedia (reads like a hit piece, btw). Larry Sanger tweeted about it.

Graaf is right about Hotel California Syndrome. Since I contributed the factoid about BLP edits, I felt guilty about how that alone could be misconstrued as a sign of "guilt". BrillLyle has (much) higher percentages, but I've never seen her tearing people down when she writes. As a result, I went through and toned down some of the hit that had been added since, and also tried to add a bit of context. I'm tempted to mention Cross' fellow top-500 editor "Neutrality", who should really have an Everipedia page. ^^

[Poetlister]

If using Russian news was an option he would definitely be notable.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wik ... ns-author/

It seems that the article had no references other than links to Wikipedia, which of course are not reliable sources. it is obviously correct to delete an unsourced BLP.

[AndyTheGrump]

If using Russian news was an option he would definitely be notable.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wik ... ns-author/

It seems that the article had no references other than links to Wikipedia, which of course are not reliable sources. it is obviously correct to delete an unsourced BLP.

Given that the new biography was created by replacing the content of an article on another Philip Cross (T-H-L) entirely, it would have been very strange if it hadn't been 'taken down'.

[Dysklyver]

If using Russian news was an option he would definitely be notable.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wik ... ns-author/

It seems that the article had no references other than links to Wikipedia, which of course are not reliable sources. it is obviously correct to delete an unsourced BLP.

Given that the new biography was created by replacing the content of an article on another Philip Cross (T-H-L) entirely, it would have been very strange if it hadn't been 'taken down'.

Yes, well we can't expect the news media to actually know anything when making their reports.

[Bezdomni]

Yes, I was disappointed with the BBC stating that Cross had done 20% of the "edits" on G. Galloway without mentioning that the account had provided 60% of the content.

I've listened to the BBC piece on Cross twice and neither time did I hear where they said they had actually conversed with Cross (KI: could you give me the time marker for that?) Also, KI, the essay you just pushed up on the "harassment" survey made it into Cross' BLP at Everipedia. ^^ In retrospect, I think you may have to admit that you were in error, no? After all only 6 months later Craig Newmark's foundation gave them half a million for conduct issues.

Which of course they've spent figuring out how to better block critics. ^^ (Did you notice that in K. Maher's recent piece in Wired, the only time the word "critics" was used was to talk about critics in 2000? Since then, I guess there hasn't been any criticism!)

Finally, I landed here because of that power pie guy, who is accusing KalHolmann of being in contempt of WP:!COURT for complaining when a !clerk deleted all the !evidence he put together for the aforementioned !court.

We have nice cells out here in the gulag, Kal, !worry.

[Kingsindian]

Yes, I was disappointed with the BBC stating that Cross had done 20% of the "edits" on G. Galloway without mentioning that the account had provided 60% of the content.

I've listened to the BBC piece on Cross twice and neither time did I hear where they said they had actually conversed with Cross (KI: could you give me the time marker for that?) Also, KI, the essay you just pushed up on the "harassment" survey made it into Cross' BLP at Everipedia. ^^ In retrospect, I think you may have to admit that you were in error, no? After all only 6 months later Craig Newmark's foundation gave them half a million for conduct issues.

Which of course they've spent figuring out how to better block critics. ^^ (Did you notice that in K. Maher's recent piece in Wired, the only time the word "critics" was used was to talk about critics in 2000? Since then, I guess there hasn't been any criticism!)

Finally, I landed here because of that power pie guy, who is accusing KalHolmann of being in contempt of WP:!COURT for complaining when a !clerk deleted all the !evidence he put together for the aforementioned !court.

We have nice cells out here in the gulag, Kal, !worry.

I listened to the broadcast again. I was mistaken in stating that the BBC directly spoke with Cross: they just communicated through an intermediary.

I don't know what part of the blog post is in error. If you mean that the WMF survey wasn't a waste of time because they used the survey to get half a million dollars from Newmark, then you're probably right. But it might have happened regardless: harassment is a hot topic everywhere on the internet, and the clamor for online platforms to do something about it has only gotten louder.

[Carcharoth]

Another BBC article here (from the 'Trending' team; explained as 'Going in-depth on social media' which is completely appropriate here):

Galloway's war of words with a mystery Wikipedia editor

[Poetlister]

You get the impression from this that "mystery" editors are quite rare on Wikipedia. Of course, the great majority are anonymous.

[Poetlister]

And another article about Philip Cross: Metro. He's unquestionably notable.

[Dysklyver]

A little WP:BLP1E (T-H-L) however, even with the extensive coverage.

[Hersch]

You get the impression from this that "mystery" editors are quite rare on Wikipedia. Of course, the great majority are anonymous.

And the number of editors whose primary motivation is to use the site as a Revenge Platform or Defamation Engine is not insubstantial. It is a central feature of Wikipedia:MMORPG (T-H-L).

[Bezdomni]

A little WP:BLP1E (T-H-L) however, even with the extensive coverage.

Still, I'm going to go with an unwritten EP:BPP (everipedia, biography of a pseudonymous person) in conjunction with 130,000 event-edits {{or however many it actually was}}.

Interesting to see Piers Robinson on the Listening Post this weekend (not talking about Philip Cross, or Wikipedia, or even Syria, but about Yemen). (§) Meanwhile, in another sequence, a fair bit was said about bellingcat, the White Helmets and Qatar / USAid's role supporting the latter. The Listening Post's conclusion on the question? ... that smoke & mirrors are everywhere... that truth during a war always seems to be on a stretcher...

[Poetlister]

You get the impression from this that "mystery" editors are quite rare on Wikipedia. Of course, the great majority are anonymous.

And the number of editors whose primary motivation is to use the site as a Revenge Platform or Defamation Engine is not insubstantial. It is a central feature of Wikipedia:MMORPG (T-H-L).

Of course, if you agree with the POV of such an editor, he or she is just removing bias and adding relevant information. Conversely, if you don't like an editor who is just removing bias and adding relevant information, lo and behold you have a defamation specialist.

[Bezdomni]

and for those who still doubt there are shape-shifting lizards on WP, I think back on Queen Bishzilla demanding the bestowal of a captioning prize to the literary diamond jytdog, with later ribbons being pinned to the boing of clubs' lapel... §

Does anyone know exactly who Icke is citing when he mentions Wikipediocracy at 27:15 (after reading a good bit from Craig Murray)? Is that Vagrant's writing? Did Vagrant get hit with a SLAPP suit?

SlimVirgin (T-C-L) is the main author of Icke's entry in the cyclops. Backendgaming (T-C-L) is, in turn, the main author of the Carlos Slim (T-H-L) entry.

Also, perhaps Icke is unaware that Wales has stepped down from the Guardian advisory board. I think that in the big picture (GAFAwmF) that's just a minor detail.

Meanwhile, lots of new evidence privately mailed to The Mobcar by a testifyin' IP, based on what I read on the Workshop page... (diff to good ol' Doug engaging in spelling reform)

[Kingsindian]

He's quoting this blog post.

[Bezdomni]

I knew I'd read that before. ^^

[Midsize Jake]

Well, just because David Icke mentions us in a vLog post doesn't mean we're not enthusiastically looking forward to the imminent incursion of lizard men from Alpha Draconis through the Vile Vortices to make war on the Pleiadean energy-beings. After all, healing crystals are almost certain to cost less in the shops after that, so if you were thinking of buying one now to help with your carpal tunnel or hemmorhoids or whatever then you could save a bundle by just waiting a few more weeks for the ley lines to finally activate.

[Dysklyver]

Well, just because David Icke mentions us in a vLog post doesn't mean we're not enthusiastically looking forward to the imminent incursion of lizard men from Alpha Draconis through the Vile Vortices to make war on the Pleiadean energy-beings. After all, healing crystals are almost certain to cost less in the shops after that, so if you were thinking of buying one now to help with your carpal tunnel or hemmorhoids or whatever then you could save a bundle by just waiting a few more weeks for the ley lines to finally activate.

wut...

[Poetlister]

wut...

Alpha Draconis is a star in the constellation Draco (the Dragon). You may know it by the name Thuban (Arabic for the Snake). David Icke seems to believe that due to its name, the snake, it must be the home of the reptilians.

[Dysklyver]

wut...

Alpha Draconis is a star in the constellation Draco (the Dragon). You may know it by the name Thuban (Arabic for the Snake). David Icke seems to believe that due to its name, the snake, it must be the home of the reptilians.

Oh right, totally makes sense that an area of space named for being snake shaped would be home of the reptilians.

[Johnny Au]

wut...

Alpha Draconis is a star in the constellation Draco (the Dragon). You may know it by the name Thuban (Arabic for the Snake). David Icke seems to believe that due to its name, the snake, it must be the home of the reptilians.

Oh right, totally makes sense that an area of space named for being snake shaped would be home of the reptilians.

Draco cold easily be Mother Camels (T-H-L) as well for the same reason why the Moon can have rabbits.

[iii]

wut...

Alpha Draconis is a star in the constellation Draco (the Dragon). You may know it by the name Thuban (Arabic for the Snake). David Icke seems to believe that due to its name, the snake, it must be the home of the reptilians.

You see, this is EXACTLY how the kind of libel happens that infects poor Icke's BLP. Icke doesn't think that the reptilians are from Thuban because of its name. He thinks that the name is Thuban BECAUSE the reptilians are from there! Stop serving your corporate masters you shill!

[Bezdomni]

ok... ok ... have we had our fun?

Just for the record, thanks Poetlister for teaching me who it was who had created this lizardry-meme, because before seeing your post about Icke last month, I'd never known more about it than what I saw watching weird-Al videos (Tinfoil). (Not all of us live in England, or even English-speaking countries, remember.)

I'll take a moment to say thank you, not only to Poetlister, but to iii, to GK, to the late TDK & Rogol, to the insiders like Wbm or some author/template number-crunching wizards who shall remain nameless, to our resident Norwegian & to passersby of various stripes for helping to contribute to my off-wiki eye-opening. (for me HTD is a synonym for eye-opening)...

But yes, as a hardy Lefty, I was glad to see Hersch reappear with a story about the anti-war Left, but much gladder to see off-wiki workers who have done work for literally decades (§)... several of the "plumes" (cf. the Wikipedia Book thread Kato started here: in French forumese, "a plume " is a writerly writer... here I'm thinking obviously of Andreas & Peter Damian) seem to have abandoned their efforts (for whatever, eminently sensible, reasons). Will the fearless Wikipedia sucks writers bring a book-length open-wiki to fruition? Does anyone want to help?

All this talk of serpents does lead us off-topic. Icke was talking both about Wikipediocracy & about British anti-war folks being pissed at en.wp (nobody has talked too much here about NeilN's role in all this, have they?)

[Hersch]

British anti-war folks being pissed at en.wp

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/#Kamm

[Poetlister]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/#Kamm

What point is being made? Philip Cross has a clear POV; we knew that already. His POV differs strongly from Hersch's; we knew that already.

[Hersch]

Some say that the ArbCom is about to do something, or not:

https://twitter.com/leftworks1/status/1 ... 3689603074

[Midsize Jake]

Indeed, they just posted their proposed decision, which nobody has voted on yet (as of the moment I'm posting this).

The operative section would have Mr. Cross "indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed." And he can appeal after six months... Something tells me the UK anti-war left folks won't think this is quite enough, but given how light a "sanction" this is, I'll go out on a limb here and say there's a "good" (i.e., at least 50-50) chance it will pass.

[Poetlister]

As so often, there are dozens of items to be voted on. An interesting one, because it sets a precedent that will undoubtedly be wheeled out many times in future, is

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and promotion of political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them or placed under sanctions, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

For some reason, other motions include

* The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia.

* It is within the scope of the Arbitration Committee to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons.

[Bezdomni]

Drafted by BU Rob13, around whose anonymity many tales have been constructed. Kumioko, being of the gulag, has suggested that the BU in their pseudonym stands for Banned User; Tarantino, being of the wire, has suggested that the BU refers to a specific university in a specific place, with a specific Wiki-history (perhaps); & I, being of the Frankensphere, just assumed it stood for Bibliothèque Universitaire, as it usually does.

Unsurprisingly, this anonymous arbitrator has drafted:

Contributor X is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors.

This would seem to suggest that Contributor Y is not so restricted. Contributor X requested that they be removed from the case before submitting anything to the evidence page. Note this diff showing process at ArbCom... though an ArbCom clerk (L235) added the contributor as an involved party, the person was not allowed to make a statement. Their edits were likewise partially purged from the evidence page. Arbcom seems to have wanted to ensure that everything was sent by top-sekret courrier pigeon to the malfunctioning listserve. (link)

Isn't the biggest precedent the creation of post-Thatcher British politics as a topic area? The British should feel lucky they dodged the 1932 cut-off date for AP. (How a topic ban from that subject would have prevented Philip Cross' edits to Piers Robinson or Tim Hayward can only be imagined through the special tilt-shift "blurrily construed" lens I guess.)

[Dysklyver]

Drafted by BU Rob13, around whose anonymity many tales have been constructed. Kumioko, being of the gulag, has suggested that the BU in their pseudonym stands for Banned User; Tarantino, being of the wire, has suggested that the BU refers to a specific university in a specific place, with a specific Wiki-history (perhaps); & I, being of the Frankensphere, just assumed it stood for Bibliothèque Universitaire, as it usually does.

Unsurprisingly, this anonymous arbitrator has drafted:

Contributor X is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors.

This would seem to suggest that Contributor Y is not so restricted. Contributor X requested that they be removed from the case before submitting anything to the evidence page. Note this diff showing process at ArbCom... though an ArbCom clerk (L235) added the contributor as an involved party, the person was not allowed to make a statement. Their edits were likewise partially purged from the evidence page. Arbcom seems to have wanted to ensure that everything was sent by top-sekret courrier pigeon to the malfunctioning listserve. (link)

Isn't the biggest precedent the creation of post-Thatcher British politics as a topic area? The British should feel lucky they dodged the 1932 cut-off date for AP. (How a topic ban from that subject would have prevented Philip Cross' edits to Piers Robinson or Tim Hayward can only be imagined through the special tilt-shift "blurrily construed" lens I guess.)

Yes the precedent being set is important. It will for example allow discretionary sanctions to be applied to reduce disruption related to Brexit. Broadly construed this could affect numerous EU topics as well as all current UK politics and everyone who is a British politician. The upside is that Tony Blair would be covered. It would of course also cover the important flashpoint of the Scottish independence movement (and the equally important Cornish one). In short they can cover a massive range of articles with one fell swoop that no one has noticed.

[Bezdomni]

Ah... I see... they just wanted to see what the Arbs thought about power~enwiki's proposal of creating such a DS zone (which includes Thatcher obviously, I shouldn't have written post-Thatcher...)

For a case supposedly related to BLP issues on British politics pages, and specifically so narrowly focused in the end on George Galloway, it's worth noting that the Snoog was never hassled for their distorted additions alleging Galloway "favored" Trump over Clinton in 2016, when in fact he favored neither (according to the source). (If you read the source article, you'll see how the information has been cleverly distorted; it's a gotcha quote being farmed out of its context in a multi-tweet message. (Galloway was suggesting that Sanders should run an independent campaign back when he'd been offered a place on the Green ticket.)

Spinners gotta' spin. Even when there's an ArbCom case on.

[Kingsindian]

The topic-ban proposal seems to have a good chance of going through. 3-0 in favor so far.

******************

In the evidence phase, this comment from TParis (T-C-L) is interesting (I ignored the silly application of the "Safe Space" policy).

Regarding Jytdog's comments, I have follow on concerns that Arbcom should consider.

1) If it's true that no one that has made a critical comment of a public person should be editing their article, then we all have a lot to own up to. Who hasn't made a critical comment of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton on social media? Between those two people, I could probably expect about 99% of American Wikipedian's to stop editing American politics. I was at the WikiConference in San Diego during the 2016 Presidential Debates and 95% of the room was shouting obscenities during the debate (a debate that the hosts had put on the screens despite my objections) and resulted in several Wikipedians feeling attacked and that they were in the middle of a hostile group despite Wikipedia's "Safe Space" policy. Long story short, that entire room was very open with their hostility toward Donald Trump. Others continue to edit that topic area.

2) Do supportive comments of public figures similarly fall under this precedent?

3) If Philip Cross is admonished for public tweets regarding Galloway, that is going to open a can of worms of opposition research. If Wikipedians in disputes can learn the real life identities of their opposition, they can effectively get rid of them by digging through their social media accounts for off the cuff remarks that could be seen as "bias".

Let's continue to operate the way we've always done it: which is the most fair and justifiable way. Focus on the edits, not the editor.--v/r - TP 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Several people recognized that it's a valid point, and tried to finesse the issue by saying that Cross had gone beyond the matter by fighting with Galloway directly and calling him a "goon". That is fine, but only up to a point. How many people on Wikipedia haven't called Trump or Clinton names off-wiki? I certainly have. Of course, Trump and Clinton are too busy to care about what I (or anyone on Wikipedia) thinks. But the point remains valid. Should I be allowed to edit Trump or Clinton's pages? How about the admins who admin in political areas or at AE?

********************

How to square this circle?

Well, one could just take the approach that an article on an "encyclopedia" written by pseudonymous volunteers should simply be taken with a boulder of salt. This seems to be the best solution. Unfortunately, everyone seems to think Wikipedia is very important.

Another way to handle this is to say: plenty of reputable news organizations have reporters who are very critical of political figure X, Y, Z. I see plenty of abuse against Trump or Boris Johnson on Twitter. The reporters' work should be treated as the product of a journalist, and nobody is above "bias". The final product should be judged on how it comes out, using normal standards of editorial discretion and so on. Some people say on the Arb page that the NYT has a special policy about reporters mouthing off on Twitter. This is more apparent than real. Did anyone have any doubt that Krugman favored Clinton over Trump? It's just a convenient fiction to say that Krugman wasn't formally allowed to endorse Clinton; it's there to keep up appearances.

[Poetlister]

The broader ones such as the function of Wikipedia have already passed.

[Bezdomni]

There is a fair bit of pushback on the proposed decision talk page (not sure if it is more or less than usual). The criticism is basically that one user is being singled out for "criticism" (which in wikitalk is pronounced "harassment") of Cross' contributions. None of the involved administrators have had their actions reviewed (particularly JzG (of course) and NeilN, who turned a blind eye to Philip Cross' 8RR edit-warring at Tim Hayward).

It appears that now Cross has decided to focus his efforts on US Politics and Beatrix Potter. ^^

Snoogans also appears to be particularly interested in the pages Cross edits... here he is adding the details of every press conference she gives to Sarah Huckabee Sanders' BLP. §.

[Dysklyver]

The broader ones such as the function of Wikipedia have already passed.

I often consider that part to be superfluous. Arbcom is perhaps slightly too bureaucratic at times.

[Kingsindian]

Something interesting I found, which is related to this.

If you Google "Flag of Syria", you'll find that it shows this flag (with green top stripe and with three red stars), rather than this flag (with red top stripe and two green stars), and links to the Wikipedia article. Maram Susli (T-H-L) was complaining about this here. Strangely, at least on my computer, the sidebar (presumably drawn from the Knowledge Graph) shows the flag with two stars.

[As background, the flag with two stars is the official govt. flag. The flag with three stars is the one adopted by the Syrian opposition in 2012.]

Anyone know what is causing this? Would make for a nice short blog post as well, btw.

[Dysklyver]

Something interesting I found, which is related to this.

If you Google "Flag of Syria", you'll find that it shows this flag (with green top stripe and with three red stars), rather than this flag (with red top stripe and two green stars), and links to the Wikipedia article. Maram Susli (T-H-L) was complaining about this here. Strangely, at least on my computer, the sidebar (presumably drawn from the Knowledge Graph) shows the flag with two stars.

[As background, the flag with two stars is the official govt. flag. The flag with three stars is the one adopted by the Syrian opposition in 2012.]

Anyone know what is causing this? Would make for a nice short blog post as well, btw.

https://image.ibb.co/dwKZTd/Screenshot_ ... 144202.png
Image copyright of Google. fair use applies.

The box at the top of the screen in the main results column is a direct result from Wikipedia, showing Wikipedia's current version (which is wrong of course, the country's legal flag is the other one). The sidebar however is showing the official flag because that's the one Google decided was correct, based on the fact that Google draws it's flag data from more official sources (or maybe flagpedia, I can't quite decide).

[Kingsindian]

No, there is no flag in the lead of the WP article. As a matter of fact, the text returned the Google search is referring to the (official) flag with two stars -- that is the one which was adopted in 1980 -- and there is an infobox right adjacent to the text with the image of the flag with two stars. But the flag actually shown in the Google result is the one further down in the article (with three stars).

[Kingsindian]

Also relevant: this poorly-attended RfC about the flag.

[Dysklyver]

No, there is no flag in the lead of the WP article. As a matter of fact, the text returned the Google search is referring to the (official) flag with two stars -- that is the one which was adopted in 1980 -- and there is an infobox right adjacent to the text with the image of the flag with two stars. But the flag actually shown in the Google result is the one further down in the article (with three stars).

I seem to have missed something. By rights Google should be taking the first image in the article for it's featured snippet. I assumed it was, but it isn't.

It's clearly not taking the flag from Wikidata.

There no commons page to take it from.

This is now bugging me...

[Bezdomni]

Weird, there's two infoboxes. I suppose the algorithm could somehow be greedily grepping (or overwrites the first address with the second) and ends up translating the image from the second infobox into a data-uri. No idea.

Are there often multiple infoboxes on the same page?