Wikipediocracy

Neil Clark recently wrote about his attempt to speak with Philip Cross. He didn't, but did interview his father. A pretty sad picture of Philip is painted.

tarantino wrote:Neil Clark recently wrote about his attempt to speak with Philip Cross. He didn't, but did interview his father. A pretty sad picture of Philip is painted.

The author of that shabby, cruel little article (the ultimate purpose of which is apology for Syrian war crimes) complaining about Cross being destructively obsessive is quite rich. That it's in Sputnik of all freaking places is just sauce for the goose.

I mean, really. The headline should be: "Obsessive shut-in may have violated Wikipedia topic ban" and the subhead should be "Our author wonders if he's being controlled by GCHQ."

Yes, this is a thoroughly revolting article. But it shows that Philip Cross is a real person, disproving quite a few conspiracy theories albeit leaving plenty of room for others.

At the time of writing the Philip Cross account had made a staggering 159,607 Wikipedia edits in a fifteen-year period.

Is that staggering, given that most of them are pretty minor?

tarantino wrote:Neil Clark recently wrote about his attempt to speak with Philip Cross. He didn't, but did interview his father. A pretty sad picture of Philip is painted.

The article hints that Cross' obsessiveness is due to his Aspergers.

Mr Cross also said his son - 56 years old in 2019 - was in poor physical health. "He's grossly overweight and he can't walk". Mr Cross was worried his son might have a stroke.

This seems like a case study of a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors. I would be interested in a serious study of the psychological role that Wikipedia plays in the lives of some editors. While the WMF probably doesn't want to reduce the number of editors or contributions, don't they have an ethical duty to prevent people from getting "addicted"? One day someone will get blocked and kill themselves (or someone else) as a result.

Giraffe Stapler wrote:

tarantino wrote:Neil Clark recently wrote about his attempt to speak with Philip Cross. He didn't, but did interview his father. A pretty sad picture of Philip is painted.

The article hints that Cross' obsessiveness is due to his Aspergers.

Mr Cross also said his son - 56 years old in 2019 - was in poor physical health. "He's grossly overweight and he can't walk". Mr Cross was worried his son might have a stroke.

This seems like a case study of a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors. I would be interested in a serious study of the psychological role that Wikipedia plays in the lives of some editors. While the WMF probably doesn't want to reduce the number of editors or contributions, don't they have an ethical duty to prevent people from getting "addicted"? One day someone will get blocked and kill themselves (or someone else) as a result.

What would you consider to be a "significant percentage"?

Giraffe Stapler wrote:

tarantino wrote:Neil Clark recently wrote about his attempt to speak with Philip Cross. He didn't, but did interview his father. A pretty sad picture of Philip is painted.

The article hints that Cross' obsessiveness is due to his Aspergers.

Mr Cross also said his son - 56 years old in 2019 - was in poor physical health. "He's grossly overweight and he can't walk". Mr Cross was worried his son might have a stroke.

This seems like a case study of a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors. I would be interested in a serious study of the psychological role that Wikipedia plays in the lives of some editors. While the WMF probably doesn't want to reduce the number of editors or contributions, don't they have an ethical duty to prevent people from getting "addicted"? One day someone will get blocked and kill themselves (or someone else) as a result.

It's dangerous to do amateur psychiatry based just on someone's Internet contributions, but cerainly people with Asperger's are often obsessive in the way that many Wikipedia editors seem to be.

I'm not sure how strong a link can be made between the WMF and ethical, and anyway they'd argue that it's a matter for the "community" on WP since they have very little direct influence on the way Wikipedia is run. Maybe some banned editors have killed themselves. How would we ever know?

Giraffe Stapler wrote:

tarantino wrote:Neil Clark recently wrote about his attempt to speak with Philip Cross. He didn't, but did interview his father. A pretty sad picture of Philip is painted.

The article hints that Cross' obsessiveness is due to his Aspergers.

Mr Cross also said his son - 56 years old in 2019 - was in poor physical health. "He's grossly overweight and he can't walk". Mr Cross was worried his son might have a stroke.

This seems like a case study of a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors.

Or maybe just the cases we know of, like Selina at WR, loom large in our memories.

DanMurphy wrote:

tarantino wrote:Neil Clark recently wrote about his attempt to speak with Philip Cross. He didn't, but did interview his father. A pretty sad picture of Philip is painted.

The author of that shabby, cruel little article (the ultimate purpose of which is apology for Syrian war crimes) complaining about Cross being destructively obsessive is quite rich. That it's in Sputnik of all freaking places is just sauce for the goose.

This is such stereotypically disingenuous upwardly-mobile Western journalist pandering-to-neocons stuff.

I haven't been a journalist for something going on four years. I'm an apprentice winemaker now, you goon.

Hersch wrote:

Giraffe Stapler wrote:

tarantino wrote:Neil Clark recently wrote about his attempt to speak with Philip Cross. He didn't, but did interview his father. A pretty sad picture of Philip is painted.

The article hints that Cross' obsessiveness is due to his Aspergers.

Mr Cross also said his son - 56 years old in 2019 - was in poor physical health. "He's grossly overweight and he can't walk". Mr Cross was worried his son might have a stroke.

This seems like a case study of a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors.

Or maybe just the cases we know of, like Selina at WR, loom large in our memories.

Selina was unquestionably not what she claimed to be, and might have had Asperger's, but I am unaware of any evidence that she was in poor health or grossly overweight, let alone unable to walk.

DanMurphy wrote:I haven't been a journalist for something going on four years. I'm an apprentice winemaker now, you goon.

Best wishes for you in that career!

And Mr. PC keeps coming back, ArbCom or no Arbcom. He must lead a charmed life.

Hersch wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am

And Mr. PC keeps coming back, ArbCom or no Arbcom. He must lead a charmed life.

I'm not clear what Hersh is saying here. This article is an attempt to smear and defame a British hero, James Le Mesurier (T-H-L), who has just been found dead in Turkey in mysterious circumstances. I can't see that Philip Cross has done anything untoward on this article.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:22 am

Hersch wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:35 am

And Mr. PC keeps coming back, ArbCom or no Arbcom. He must lead a charmed life.

I'm not clear what Hersh is saying here. This article is an attempt to smear and defame a British hero, James Le Mesurier (T-H-L), who has just been found dead in Turkey in mysterious circumstances. I can't see that Philip Cross has done anything untoward on this article.

Philip Cross, if that account is just one person, monomanically pushes a neocon POV that you happen to share. So naturally you are puzzled by all the fuss about him/her/it.

Hersch wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:56 am

Philip Cross, if that account is just one person, monomanically pushes a neocon POV that you happen to share. So naturally you are puzzled by all the fuss about him/her/it.

Good old Hersh! Anyone who imagines I'm within a thousand miles of being a neocon is best described as having an unusual POV.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:35 pm

Hersch wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:56 am

Philip Cross, if that account is just one person, monomanically pushes a neocon POV that you happen to share. So naturally you are puzzled by all the fuss about him/her/it.

Good old Hersh! Anyone who imagines I'm within a thousand miles of being a neocon is best described as having an unusual POV.

It's not so complicated.

If neocons are the modern expression of British Imperial ideology, why are all the neocons in the USA? Oh of course, they are all the puppets of Lord Rees-Mogg, who is still controlling them years after his death. And if I'm a neocon, why have I been accused of allowing anti-Chip Berlet comments on his Wikiquote page?

It looks like more and more observers out there are learning the technique of analyzing who is doing what to whom on Wikipedia. Incidentally, one of Wikipediocracy's resident neocons gets an honorable mention in this thread:

https://twitter.com/leftworks1/status/1 ... 0940101633

Hersch wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:40 pm

It looks like more and more observers out there are learning the technique of analyzing who is doing what to whom on Wikipedia. Incidentally, one of Wikipediocracy's resident neocons gets an honorable mention in this thread:

Have you clocked Volunteer Marek and his Stickee and Stickyy pseudonyms on Wikipedia.

Everyone knows about them.

That's why all the Eastern European articles are so Russophobic.

You can win any edit war if you have 3 Wikipedia accounts.

More if you're warring with Marek.

Another good quote from the thread:

I"m sure it's just a fantasy of mine, but it looks like Oliver Kamm is a Security Service plant with The Times journalism as cover; or even Mossad in his wilder moments??

Hersch wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:40 pm

It looks like more and more observers out there are learning the technique of analyzing who is doing what to whom on Wikipedia. Incidentally, one of Wikipediocracy's resident neocons gets an honorable mention in this thread:

Much of the Twitter thread I linked has been deleted, perhaps temporarily, because Wikipedia has opened a sock investigation:

Hersch wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:40 pm

Incidentally, one of Wikipediocracy's resident neocons gets an honorable mention...

Sheez Louise — Marek isn't a "neocon." Where did you get that idea? Oh, right, I forgot — he isn't in love with Putin. What do you have to do to not get called a "neocon" by the LaRouche Movement now anyway, put up a lifesize Fathead wall decal of ol' Vlad and masturbate in front of it on a live Youtube feed?

FFS.

Someone ought to complain to ABRCOM about the off-wiki harassment of Philip Cross by NSH001 (leftworks (@leftworks1) on twitter)

Have you clocked Volunteer Marek and his Stickee and Stickyy pseudonyms on Wikipedia.

Everyone knows about them.

That's why all the Eastern European articles are so Russophobic.

You can win any edit war if you have 3 Wikipedia accounts.

More if you're warring with Marek.

Volunteer Marek doesn't sock directly usually. He does have meat puppets and allies (in EE - Piotrus, My Very Best Wishes, MyMoloboaccount). MyMoloboaccount is a meatpuppet that only edits after they email him to show up to clean up "anti-Polish" editing.

Volunteer Marek does sock during holidays when he's away from home - I have several recorded instances. However, since he doesn't edit from his main account, and the throwaway socks remain contained on the vacation locale's computers... It's impossible to CU nail him, and usually these accounts doesn't do enough for a behavioral nailing (and he's got friends, so it needs to be bullet clad).

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:36 pm

Hersch wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:40 pm

Incidentally, one of Wikipediocracy's resident neocons gets an honorable mention...

Sheez Louise — Marek isn't a "neocon." Where did you get that idea? Oh, right, I forgot — he isn't in love with Putin. What do you have to do to not get called a "neocon" by the LaRouche Movement now anyway, put up a lifesize Fathead wall decal of ol' Vlad and masturbate in front of it on a live Youtube feed?

FFS.

I think condemning Dame Margaret Hodge and Luciana Berger as enemies of the people might do it.

Icewhiz wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 pm

Volunteer Marek does sock during holidays when he's away from home - I have several recorded instances. However, since he doesn't edit from his main account, and the throwaway socks remain contained on the vacation locale's computers... It's impossible to CU nail him, and usually these accounts doesn't do enough for a behavioral nailing (and he's got friends, so it needs to be bullet clad).

So he's like, what, roughly 100 percent of established Wikipedians in that regard?

Glass houses, big guy.

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:17 pm

Icewhiz wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 pm

Volunteer Marek does sock during holidays when he's away from home - I have several recorded instances. However, since he doesn't edit from his main account, and the throwaway socks remain contained on the vacation locale's computers... It's impossible to CU nail him, and usually these accounts doesn't do enough for a behavioral nailing (and he's got friends, so it needs to be bullet clad).

So he's like, what, roughly 100 percent of established Wikipedians in that regard?

Glass houses, big guy.

Give me credit, Jake, I said he doesn't habitually sock by himself (meat puppets excluded). I prefer mud huts myself.

Icewhiz wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 pm

(...) I have several recorded instances.(...)

No you don't.

Neil Clark and his wife are terrific journalists and appear to have been the target of a vicious campaign of libel, harassment, and persecution as seen with Philip Cross' downright evil conduct. Wikipedia as a whole, by failing to take action against this conduct, is surely complicit and must be held accountable.

The fact that this much trouble can be caused by Philip Cross acting on his begs the question for me, what are the professional secret police doing?

This seems like a case study of a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors. I would be interested in a serious study of the psychological role that Wikipedia plays in the lives of some editors. While the WMF probably doesn't want to reduce the number of editors or contributions, don't they have an ethical duty to prevent people from getting "addicted"? One day someone will get blocked and kill themselves (or someone else) as a result.

In images of every single Wikipedia editor I've seen, they all look extremely physically unattractive with poor hygiene and overweight. Their sense of style consists of unironic dad jeans and white New Balance sneakers. Their communication habits appear ugly e.g. timidity, unassertive. And obviously their behavior is extremely douchey: tendentious, pedantic, humorless, extremely literal thinking. What's puzzling about nerds is despite seemingly being rational in some areas, they pursue suicidal diets of pizza & burgers, while the diet of airhead "IG model" types who've never read a book consists of scrambled eggs and avocado.

ConsciousBook wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:23 am

In images of every single Wikipedia editor I've seen, they all look extremely physically unattractive with poor hygiene and overweight.

To be fair, there are a few exceptions, such as Lourdes (T-C-L) "Russian Red" Hernandez.

ConsciousBook wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:23 am

In images of every single Wikipedia editor I've seen, they all look extremely physically unattractive with poor hygiene and overweight.

I'm unaware that Jimbo has poor hygiene.

Icewhiz wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:04 pm

Someone ought to complain to ABRCOM about the off-wiki harassment of Philip Cross by NSH001 (leftworks (@leftworks1) on twitter)

Icewhiz would be well advised to cease making inane assertions which he or she would be wholly unable to substantiate with evidence.

I neither know nor care who NSH001 is. I no longer edit or write on Wikipedia, and no-one has ever done so at my request or on my behalf. When Philip Cross disrespects his ArbCom warning and/or his ArbCom ban, I point this out on Twitter and advise Wikipedia editors to complain about the matter. That is all.

Leftworks. I guess that we can look forward to some vigorous contributions from you.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:30 am

Leftworks. I guess that we can look forward to some vigorous contributions from you.

Well, I only came to point out that I was being misrepresented. But thank you for the welcome.

Perhaps I will contribute if people wish to hear what I have to say, but I am hardly a knowledgeable expert.

In my admittedly limited opinion, the recent sockpuppet investigation into 'Philip Cross' and 'NomdeA' has so far reached a most extraordinary result. My understanding is that a sockpuppet investigation looks for both technical (sockpuppet) and behavioural (meatpuppet / proxy) aspects to comparing two or more users. In the case of a proxy, Checkuser is mostly useless, so Wikipedia itself states. (It also states that Checkuser is hardly foolproof.) Therefore, there should have been a study of whether 'Philip Cross' and 'NomdeA' display similar or even linked behaviours. I would invite all contributors here to examine NSH001's statements on the behavioural links and also my own tweets on the matter.

Also needed is a line by line examination of the genesis of the 'NomdeA' account and its edits, with indications of where and why these are behaviourally exceedingly similar to the 'Philip Cross' account. (For example, apparently we are expected to believe that the 'NomdeA' account reverses entries on the Oliver Kamm page, which is precisely what 'Philip Cross' did all the time before he got banned from doing it, and then 'Philip Cross' goes on to the talk page of the entering user half an hour later to give him or her a friendly warning, which 'NomdeA' hasn't bothered to do in the interim, and that nonetheless, 'Philip Cross' and 'NomdeA' are wholly independent of each other. Is that a likely scenario?)

That work is not yet done. But it will be.

Best, Leftworks

ConsciousBook wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:23 am

Neil Clark and his wife are terrific journalists

Neil Clark found an old man with a common surname in a large town. He also believed this 'Philip Cross' was actually a Times journalist, and was backed by an academic and website concerned with media bias.

I'm not saying he is wrong to be concerned by the attention Cross has lavished on him, but these investigations are an embarrassment.

dotdash wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:38 pm

ConsciousBook wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:23 am

Neil Clark and his wife are terrific journalists

Neil Clark found an old man with a common surname in a large town. He also believed this 'Philip Cross' was actually a Times journalist, and was backed by an academic and website concerned with media bias.

I'm not saying he is wrong to be concerned by the attention Cross has lavished on him, but these investigations are an embarrassment.

From earlier in this thread, Neil Clark spoke with Phillip Cross's father. The article is probably accurate, but the consensus was it's unnecessarily cruel.

tarantino wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:04 pm

The article is probably accurate

'probably' is a stretch. 'possibly' accurate, and unethical.

Leftworks wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:26 pm

In my admittedly limited opinion, the recent sockpuppet investigation into 'Philip Cross' and 'NomdeA' has so far reached a most extraordinary result. My understanding is that a sockpuppet investigation looks for both technical (sockpuppet) and behavioural (meatpuppet / proxy) aspects to comparing two or more users. In the case of a proxy, Checkuser is mostly useless, so Wikipedia itself states. (It also states that Checkuser is hardly foolproof.) Therefore, there should have been a study of whether 'Philip Cross' and 'NomdeA' display similar or even linked behaviours. I would invite all contributors here to examine NSH001's statements on the behavioural links and also my own tweets on the matter.

60 out of 63 edits by NomdeA are tagged as a mobile edit. That could be a sign of a sock. The other three though must be from an ISP (or possibly someone's wifi), unless the software missed tagging them. Cross has never edited from a mobile device. Both accounts use non-RS in edit summaries. There are no other similarities in edit summaries that I can see looking back through the last thousand edits by Cross. So inconclusive here.

These analyses from "similar or even linked behaviours" are subjective and unreliable. Undoubtedly, many people have been wrongly blocked because of them.

Tarantino wrote:60 out of 63 edits by NomdeA are tagged as a mobile edit. That could be a sign of a sock. The other three though must be from an ISP (or possibly someone's wifi), unless the software missed tagging them. Cross has never edited from a mobile device. Both accounts use non-RS in edit summaries. There are no other similarities in edit summaries that I can see looking back through the last thousand edits by Cross. So inconclusive here.

Thank you very much for your hard work! A most helpful comment.

Now the Germans are getting in on the act:

https://youtu.be/VMM82_iOyeA?t=344

Hersch wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:04 am

Now the Germans are getting in on the act:

https://youtu.be/VMM82_iOyeA?t=344

Dirk Pohlmann and Markus Fiedler of Wikihausen.de talk with me about the dark side of Wikipedia, our modern (and, we have extensively confirmed, international) Ministry of Truth. how better to convince a population to trust your propaganda organ than to make them believe people just like them have written it? with trust in media and government at rock-bottom levels, propaganda can only survive by donning the sheep's-clothing of "crowd-sourced wisdom." too bad it's neither crowd-sourced, nor wise.
3:37 how i fell into the wiki-vortex
5:30 wiki-naïveté
7:07 the rise & fall of Daniele Ganser
11:47 wikipropaganda is international
13:20 the English-language wiki-cult
13:53 Philip Cross
16:03 Linda Mack
19:08 the Steve Pruitt myth
23:30 how to get banned from English Wikipedia
24:36 third rails
27:06 Wikipedia loves Israel
34:33 more third rails
37:01 media-shaming
39:33 mainstream media drops the ball on Wikipedia
40:40 ...but works hand in hand with Wikipedia to push Russiagate
43:03 Wikipedia's only problem, according to Wikipedia
44:40 what is a reliable source?
48:00 Jimmy Wales' powerful pals

Dirk & Markus probe the dark side of Wikipedia at http://wikihausen.de
my Wikipedia investigations can be found at
. http://helenofdestroy.com/index.php/4...
. http://helenofdestroy.com/index.php/5...
. http://helenofdestroy.com/index.php/5... & a few more floating around on the internet...
thought better of donating to Wikipedia & looking for a worthy cause? https://paypal.me/velocirapture i'll take that cash off your hands

hm. I've heard about these two. I'm glad to hear their film is available in French. They should check out wikibuster.wordpress.com, I see Cheep, among others, is in the news there of late.

Helen is always so enthusiastic.

I haven't checked to see if any of those threads at WS on the SC FakeNews story have been restored (there were a lot of blanked posts on WS when I looked a few days back), but it was good to hear that someone was keeping that story active. (GGHQ on 8-chan, where some of her research originally came from, is gone too, I think... or maybe I just don't know where it's moved...)

It is still amazing to me that no paper or magazine with New York in its title has ever looked into the clear Clinton Foundation-WMF links "hiding" in plain daylight in order to debunk their meaningfulness. I mean Jove Oliver & Minassian say they have offices right there in Manhattan, it shouldn't be too hard for, say, the Intelligencer, to find their glass offices and cook up some transparent communications about the importance of MoveCom, of being earnest, of Mr. Grigas, or even of the CageSandor events. The New Yorker might be better than New York Mag... if not, surely Bloomberg could clue right on in?

I noticed yesterday that only fr.wp had a developed page on Benoît Batraville, which is really curious, given that he took over for Charlemagne Péralte (T-H-L) and was apparently buried in a US Marine uniform after leading the Cacos against Wilson's little foray into occupying Haiti (1915-1934). I've read that ti-Benwa was not, himself, a houngan...

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Wed May 09, 2018 12:55 am

Hersch wrote:I mentioned one of these links on an old thread that had gone stale. A number of notable anti-war activists/progressives in the UK have discovered that Wikpedia has been, to use the latest corny buzzword, weaponized against them, and are tweeting up a storm about it:

https://twitter.com/Tim_Hayward_/status ... 8474823682

https://twitter.com/NeilClark66/status/ ... 1438138368

https://twitter.com/medialens/status/991231719977181184

https://twitter.com/TylerDurdenHere/sta ... 7282330625

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/stat ... 3609723904

Leftists?!?!?!???!

RfB

Liberal Fundamentalists? https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2011/0 ... amentalizm

And the beat goes on. Clearly, when the Arbcom topic banned Philip Cross from "post-1978 British politics", they either misunderstood the nature of the ideology which he is so frenetically soapboxing, or else they intentionally left a huge opening for him to continue to push it:

I'm pretty sure Jimbo has always been an elitist. Sure, until about 16 years ago the elites didn't know who he was, but that was before all the "please donate" banner ads.

Jimbo, who proclaims his adoration for Ayn Rand, is an elitist wannabe.

Meanwhile...

Hersch wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:01 am

Meanwhile...

At the risk of making the admins out to be the good guys again, it looks like someone is paying attention — User:Doug Weller (T-C-L) has protected the article.

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:24 pm

Hersch wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:01 am

Meanwhile...

At the risk of making the admins out to be the good guys again, it looks like someone is paying attention — User:Doug Weller (T-C-L) has protected the article.

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

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:15 pm

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.

Icewhiz wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:40 am

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:15 pm

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?