British leftists on the warpath against Wikipedia

[Icewhiz]

Contrary to what many people here allege, the admins aren't one homogeneous body. Some admins are quite nice really.

Yes, that is true. However of the active admins, only a select few are willing to wade into contentious areas.

While they're not homogeneous, they share a common thread of cowardice around keeping their bits.

Just how often do you see an admin go up against a powerful opponent because it's the right thing to do, regardless of the likely fallout?

Rare. And in those cases it happens, it is probably proof of a hidden agenda and/or an admin-sock.

The one notable exception in my mind is Sandstein - he's simply tough, in a fair manner, towards everyone who is brought up to AE. However, he decided to walk back from AE after TRM (In Dec or Nov).

There is very little incentive to do the right thing as an admin on Wikipedia. Even less incentive as an arb.

[Eric Corbett]

For once I agree with Vigilant when he says about admins that "While they're not homogeneous, they share a common thread of cowardice around keeping their bits."

As for Sandstein ...

[Poetlister]

As for Sandstein ...

Sandstein is a lawyer who does litigation. He has to be tough.

[Eric Corbett]

As for Sandstein ...

Sandstein is a lawyer who does litigation. He has to be tough.

Lawyers are parasitic mercenaries, and Sandstein is a poor excuse for a human being.

[Hersch]

Max Blumenthal, one of a handful of journalists whom I can truly respect:

[Hersch]

The hunt continues.

[Poetlister]

Of course, there is no shortage of propagandists in all sorts of directions on Wikipedia. Indeed, I'd say the place is crawling with them and some are members here. But the Wikipedian answer is that the wisdom of the crowds will guarantee that in the long run, everything will end up NPOV.

[Death To Wikipedia]

But the Wikipedian answer is that the wisdom of the crowds will guarantee that in the long run, everything will end up NPOV.

Nope, that was the claimed theory some years ago. The propaganda has changed markedly since then, presumably because they realized Wikipedia isn't written by crowds and is far too toxic and Kafkaesque for concerned neutrals to put any time in, and crucially, these faults are so obvious even Joe I'm A Fuckwit Public and his media buddies were picking up on it. So as you would expect from any organization led by a PR monkey, they turned a negative, the fact only partisans edit their controversial articles, into a positive. Now, they genuinely claim that their model is to benefit from the fact there is only one article, and so the partisans have to come to a compromise version, via discussion. We all know this is only half true, given there is not much genuine discussion, and the outcome is usually not neutral text. But it fools enough of the people enough of the time, people who would never put the time in to research a topic to the level of detail to figure out what the perfect NPOV version would be, that it's their new goto explanation of why Wikipedia supposedly works. There's some half-assed research out there that supposedly proves it too, and Wikipedia of course jumps over any tiny piece of half-assed research that paints them in a good light, even though their usual complaint about researchers is they don't properly understand Wikipedia, which those people clearly don't. There's a lesson here for the people who hate Cross though, namely to engage him in battle, settling for the best outcome they think is possible, and if they still don't think it's neutral, suck it up, because the price for complaining is a ban. Be a proper Wikipedian. Just watch out for the known side-effects, like alcoholism and self-harming.

[Midsize Jake]

Now, they genuinely claim that their model is to benefit from the fact there is only one article, and so the partisans have to come to a compromise version, via discussion.

When you say "they," are you referring to WMF PR people, Jimbo, "functionaries," rank-and-file Wikipedians, or what? I could easily have missed it, especially if this is a very recent development... but I don't think I've ever seen anyone formally associated with WP take this approach with the media, or even on Twitter/Facebook.

Assuming you have, could you direct us to an example? IMO this would be a major divergence from their usual PR line, which has always been to give the impression that the Big Difference is that Wikipedia is a non-commercial/non-profit "charity" and is therefore managed like one. (Also false, of course).

[Poetlister]

Now, they genuinely claim that their model is to benefit from the fact there is only one article, and so the partisans have to come to a compromise version, via discussion.

That isn't so wildly different from the "wisdom of crowds" aproach. It still assumes that a variety of inputs can somehow average out to produce a NPOV result. As I have said before, at best what happens is statements along the line of "many have claimed that X is the best thing since sliced bread[1][2][3][4][5], while others have called him the Devil incarnate[6][7][8][9]" with little attempt to discuss the reasons for these views.

[Death To Wikipedia]

It's radically different. The original model presumed that for any given controversy, the crowd would be overwhelmingly neutral, or at least capable of recognizing their own bias and correcting for it, like any professional writer would, their amateur efforts being guided by the policies that tell them how to do this (e.g. weighting).

Anyone who displayed overt bias in their edits or manner of debate, would be blocked, or at least kept away from the topics where they obviously lacked the ability to prevent their bias influencing their edits or manner of debate. Indeed they used to even go so far as to advocate being proactively unbiased as a means to prevent bias, remember "write for the enemy"? Don't hear much of that these days.

Wikipedia always recognised everyone involved would have their biases and in short order had all the sensible measures it would need to ensure neutral content could be produced (although it clearly dropped the ball in not appreciating how systemic bias would influence their model). It was never built on the frankly utterly perverse idea that for articles like Israel-Palestine or The Troubles it would be so ridiculously easy to identify what side the principle editors are on, or indeed that there would be so few principle editors. A mere handful of people editing articles on such things? Insane.

But this is Wikipedia. If there's one thing they do well, it's using the press and the general public's ignorance, to successfully rebrand insanity as the new normal.

[Death To Wikipedia]

For a stark illustration of the transition, early Wikipedia featured people like the now infamous Fred Bauder. He wrote stuff like this......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=10425150

.....which makes it clear that reaching a compromise between warring parties is not what the editorial process was meant to be about, because there's no guarantee genuine neutrality is the result. You've actually got to be reasonably smart to understand this sort of stuff, smart enough to perhaps get paid for writing an encyclopedia, but for whatever reason, have no need or desire for remuneration - the perfect Wikipedia editor, one of hopefully millions of like-minded people working toward the common goal of writing an encyclopedia.

Fast forward to today, where the former editors of Brittanicca would laugh at the very idea that even the supposedly most gifted of the barely a thousand highly active Wikipedia editors could ever hope to get paid for their efforts twenty years ago, and where at the very highest levels, Wikipedia is governed by people who openly decried Bauder as insane and gleefully stripped him of his last remaining ability to directly alter the behavior of Wikipedia editors.

What seems rather obvious today, is that if Arb Com was comprised of fifteen Fred Bauders, people like Philip Cross would never have even gained a foothold in Wikipedia, nor would any of the other people we can all quickly and easily name as the principal pro or anti editors in any given hot topic.

What is most obvious today, is that most Wikipedia editors have probably never even seen that essay, and reference to it plays no part in their everyday experience of dispute resolution, much less a central role in any neutrality based Arb Com case. Perhaps I have altered the experimental conditions now by mentioning it, but even so, I can virtually guarantee the Medical Case won't contain anything like it in their Principles, just as the FOURTH Case regarding Israeli-Palestinian disputes didn't.

Faced with this widespread stupidity in their nominal shop-floor, what choice did the Foundation have? Correct it, or embrace it for their own ends. Easy choice.

[Poetlister]

where at the very highest levels, Wikipedia is governed by people who openly decried Bauder as insane and gleefully stripped him of his last remaining ability to directly alter the behavior of Wikipedia editors.

Do you kniw why Bauder was desysopped? He thoroughly deserved it. (And if you say that other admins also deserve it, I won't disagree!) And what attempts had he made in say the year before his desysop "to directly alter the behavior of Wikipedia editors" in the way you suggest?

[Death To Wikipedia]

where at the very highest levels, Wikipedia is governed by people who openly decried Bauder as insane and gleefully stripped him of his last remaining ability to directly alter the behavior of Wikipedia editors.

Do you kniw why Bauder was desysopped? He thoroughly deserved it. (And if you say that other admins also deserve it, I won't disagree!) And what attempts had he made in say the year before his desysop "to directly alter the behavior of Wikipedia editors" in the way you suggest?

He removed an inappropriate election question, which itself seems to fit the definition, no?

[Midsize Jake]

But this is Wikipedia. If there's one thing they do well, it's using the press and the general public's ignorance, to successfully rebrand insanity as the new normal.

I've always agreed with this bit, and in fact I vaguely recall pointing it out myself as early as 2006-7, though at that time they were more concerned with software problems than they were with gaslighting people in general about their "movement." So you'll get no argument from me on this point, but...

What is most obvious today, is that most Wikipedia editors have probably never even seen that essay, and reference to it plays no part in their everyday experience of dispute resolution, much less a central role in any neutrality based Arb Com case...

Faced with this widespread stupidity in their nominal shop-floor, what choice did the Foundation have? Correct it, or embrace it for their own ends. Easy choice.

...I'd still like to see something definitive (or even semi-definitive) that would indicate they're changing their PR messaging so as to claim that their system "works" because one-article-per-topic forces everyone to "work nicely together" and somehow replaces the need for meaningful, positive, and constructive negotiation and cooperation. Or, barring that, some limited form of professionalism. (Unless that's not what you meant, of course.)

And we're allowed to quote what Fred actually wrote, so (emphasis mine):

The cooperative process

Viewed inappropriately as game theory, negotiation is about winning or losing. Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Now, I agree that Fred et al might have genuinely believed this stuff, specifically the parts I've bolded, in early 2005. The massive Google-driven influx of new users was only just beginning at that point, and (for example) the three-revert rule was only 6 months old.

But even Fred was hedging his bets at that point — remember he wanted to use the phrase "Edit in good faith" instead of "Assume good faith," because even he wasn't that delusional. And one year later, in 2006, they've got WP:FRINGE and WP:HOAX, they're starting to realize that the model doesn't work "at scale" without a shit-ton of rules and standards (not to mention lots of obnoxious admins), and they're off to the races.

[Death To Wikipedia]

I'll point you to an example if I see it, but I'm just going on my recollections of recent output. As always, the difficulty here is that Wikipedia articles are all you get if you search for something relating to Wikipedia and don't recall a specific key phrase.

Dunno what you mean by hedging his bets, but adding more rules to compensate for an influx of new people was entirely consistent with the original model. It presumed community knowledge of key concepts like that espoused in this essay would remain and indeed proliferate, when in reality as they approached their peak, the increasingly dumb and/or partisan editor base could barely grunt the initials NPOV, and all hope was lost once even Administrators began to display a shocking level of ignorance of these concepts.

[Poetlister]

where at the very highest levels, Wikipedia is governed by people who openly decried Bauder as insane and gleefully stripped him of his last remaining ability to directly alter the behavior of Wikipedia editors.

Do you kniw why Bauder was desysopped? He thoroughly deserved it. (And if you say that other admins also deserve it, I won't disagree!) And what attempts had he made in say the year before his desysop "to directly alter the behavior of Wikipedia editors" in the way you suggest?

He removed an inappropriate election question, which itself seems to fit the definition, no?

No, we were talking about POV in articles. Was the editor who posed that question a notable POV editor?

[Hersch]

And now, a significant U.S.-based news organization is getting into it with Wikipedia:

link

[AndyTheGrump]

significant

Citation needed.

[Midsize Jake]

And now, a significant U.S.-based news organization is getting into it with Wikipedia:

link

We're already covering that in another thread — I guess we could have just stuck with this one, but Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton aren't British, though I guess they might still qualify as "leftists."

[Zoloft]

This the zombiest of all topics.

[Poetlister]

And now, a significant U.S.-based news organization is getting into it with Wikipedia:

link

We're already covering that in another thread — I guess we could have just stuck with this one, but Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton aren't British, though I guess they might still qualify as "leftists."

If they're not leftists, especially Ben Norton, I'd be fascinated to know who is.

[Bezdomni]

Looks like The Nation is next in line for the spam-list. ( § )
I remember this Borosage article being deleted too.

[Bezdomni]

This the zombiest of all topics.

Indeed Cambial Yellowing v. Philip Cross seems to have established that Cross, despite his BLP British politics topic-ban, can still write about the Queen pulling documentaries from the BBC, because the Queen is not a political zombie animal of any note.

Just below that is a case on sourcing for articles on Poland, starring Marek the Volunteer, which seems to revolve around Marek having added or restored wrong-headed references.

[Poetlister]

This the zombiest of all topics.

Indeed Cambial Yellowing v. Philip Cross seems to have established that Cross, despite his BLP British politics topic-ban, can still write about the Queen pulling documentaries from the BBC, because the Queen is not a political zombie animal of any note.

Just below that is a case on sourcing for articles on Poland, starring Marek the Volunteer, which seems to revolve around Marek having added or restored wrong-headed references.

The ban was on "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". Of course, "politics, broadly construed" means whatever the people considering the case choose to want it to mean. Just about anything could be twisted into something political if you try hard enough.

[C&B]

Were any of The Commentor Arbs actually from That Country of know Anything of its Politics? I think, all American Or Swede, no?

If the Royal family not political, how Come they receive MI5 fuckng briefings?!

Donuts.

[Bezdomni]

The ban was on "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". Of course, "politics, broadly construed" means whatever the people considering the case choose to want it to mean. Just about anything could be twisted into something political if you try hard enough.

This reminds me of the people who were chasing after Gizzy Cat Bella whenever she would edge-test. Of course "middle way" folks generally receive minimal topic bans... they don't get blocked from writing about 88 years worth of US history. I see they've recognized that the post-1932 US politics bans for writing about events in 2015 or later were nonsense, but they've left the extra 60 years in place for anyone lucky enough to have received one. (tacit recognition that they were punitive not preventive)

I actually think PC should have probably just been warned not to push the edge cases, but given the admins responding and PC's migration over to US Left politics, that was not going to happen.

[Smiley]

PC's migration over to US Left politics...

"You're a confirmed nonce and you're forbidden from going within 100 yards of a school."
"Whatabout scout groups?"
"No worries, have at it."

[Bezdomni]

And, as of today, it appears Philip Cross (T-C-L) is indefinitely blocked.