Breitbin

[Zoloft]

Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos (T-H-L) (on a "Dangerous Faggot" tour) occasionally makes good points, although he is mostly a provocative entertainer (like Cornel West). I have trouble thinking of any that are not made better by Douglas Murray (author) (T-H-L).

He is useful for exposing campus authoritarians, for example, at DePaul University and Boston University. I've read a few articles of his being shouted down and intimidated at campuses on Breitbart. ***

The point about Milo being an entertainer (i.e. a right wing political entertainer) is very astute. He sort of swims in the same school of fish as Ann Coulter, for example.

He's going to be one of the chief public intellectual opponents of the left sometime in the future. He is young and he is very slick and he is smart and he is a true believer. Watching him in videos is compellingly icky, in a sort of "watching William F. Buckley" way...


RfB

ADDENDUM

Or maybe Milo has already assumed a leading role? Breitbart is a huge website for the bad guys, who is to say?

If I could find a pair of William F. Buckley's Timberland moccasins, Milo would not be fit to lick their soles.

[Ming]

For a Wikipedia criticism site you all are going WAY out of your way to explain and justify why Wikipedia criticism is bad.

It's their insinuating tone of "WP is controlled by Liberals". In fact what happened is that the WP:ISNEWS group jumped on it, and the fight reflected the real-world uncertainty over motivations. Now that the media are all pointing in roughly the same direction the dispute is over.

The tone of the BB article, however, is all "well of course every sensible person knows it was a terrorist attack." WP's problem, as we all know, is that nobody can write a definitive version of an event that just happened; all the fussing about controlling the content of the article is beside the point. That's not what BB wants people to think; for that matter, Ming feels you are in the same boat for different reasons.

[Jim]

For a Wikipedia criticism site you all are going WAY out of your way to explain and justify why Wikipedia criticism is bad.

It's their insinuating tone of "WP is controlled by Liberals". In fact what happened is that the WP:ISNEWS group jumped on it, and the fight reflected the real-world uncertainty over motivations. Now that the media are all pointing in roughly the same direction the dispute is over.

The tone of the BB article, however, is all "well of course every sensible person knows it was a terrorist attack." WP's problem, as we all know, is that nobody can write a definitive version of an event that just happened; all the fussing about controlling the content of the article is beside the point. That's not what BB wants people to think; for that matter, Ming feels you are in the same boat for different reasons.

Ming has an opinion.

[Midsize Jake]

Breitbart isn't actually criticizing Wikipedia in any of these articles, though, at least not in a substantive sense. They don't care about WP's fundamental problems like their authority structure, the article creation and review "process" (what there is of it), their inability to effectively resolve disputes, etc., etc. Their sole interest here is to focus on content that fits in with the Republican/Teabagger/Trump agenda and put pressure on WP users who have been identified to them as antithetical to that agenda. They don't include the opposing sides' positions on the disputes they cover, they don't even give any substantive background on those disputes. They completely lack subtlety, and what they try to pass off as analysis really just amounts to polemics.

I'm not saying we're not occasionally guilty of this sort of thing ourselves, but we're a lot less guilty of it than they are, and unlike us, they're supposed to be "professionals."

[Vigilant]

Breitbart isn't actually criticizing Wikipedia in any of these articles, though, at least not in a substantive sense. They don't care about WP's fundamental problems like their authority structure, the article creation and review "process" (what there is of it), their inability to effectively resolve disputes, etc., etc. Their sole interest here is to focus on content that fits in with the Republican/Teabagger/Trump agenda and put pressure on WP users who have been identified to them as antithetical to that agenda. They don't include the opposing sides' positions on the disputes they cover, they don't even give any substantive background on those disputes. They completely lack subtlety, and what they try to pass off as analysis really just amounts to polemics.

I'm not saying we're not occasionally guilty of this sort of thing ourselves, but we're a lot less guilty of it than they are, and unlike us, they're supposed to be "professionals."

Breitbart is the unholy spawn of a rape of FoxNews by 4chan.

[Moral Hazard]

The Freddy Kruger of political media.

[Kingsindian]

Twitter banned Milo again, this time allegedly permanently. He was trolling Ghostbusters (2016) and its actress Leslie Jones. He wrote a review which was crude and nasty. His Tweets seem to be garden variety Twitter fare though, which is to say: crude and juvenile trolling.

Banning one of Trump's highest profile supporters on Twitter, who has maybe 300k followers, right in the middle of the RNC: this might raise some hackles. Breitbart is screaming itself hoarse.

[lilburne]

Good job none of us here went running off to try and suck up to him then ... Oh!

[thekohser]

Good job none of us here went running off to try and suck up to him then ... Oh!

Are you referring to one particular e-mail to Milo on November 11, 2014, issuing a link to a blog post, due to its mention of Milo's opinion of One Young World? An e-mail that garnered a one-word reply from Milo? Is that the sucking up you're referring to, or was there some other sucking up?

[lilburne]

The enemy of one's enemy is rarely on's friend. Or to re-purpose the quote from my WP user page:

It pays to find out what kind of claptrap informs the ideas of the person you are seeking common cause with.

[tarantino]

This is a most excellent article by Laurie Penny, about Milo. She knows much him better than his legions.

I’m With The Banned
What my evening with Milo told me about Twitter’s biggest troll, the death of reason, and the crucible of A-list con-men that is the Republican National Convention.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a charming devil and one of the worst people I know. I have seen the death of political discourse reflected in his designer sunglasses. It chills me.

...

The more famous he gets off the back of extravagantly abusing women and minorities, the more I tell him I hate him and everything he stands for, the more he laughs and asks when we’re drinking. I’m a radical queer feminist leftist writer burdened with actual principles. He thinks that’s funny and invites me to his parties.

...

So here we are at the Convention, where howling psychopath Donald Trump has just been confirmed as the presidential nominee, to the horror of half of the party and every remaining moderate conservative in America as well as the 15,000 members of the international press who flocked to see the circus in realtime. Milo is loving every second of it. He lost no time climbing on the back of the clown car of the billionaire demagogue who, with ghoulishly oedipal glee, he calls ‘Daddy.’

[Vigilant]

She writes well, reminding me of William Gibson.

[Kingsindian]

I read the piece a couple of days ago. She does write well, but the piece is not a good one, in my opinion. The punchline of the article is wrong. She says:

It’s all an act. A choreographed performance by a career sociopath who will claim any cause to further his legend.
[...]
I have come to believe, in the course of our bizarro unfriendship, that Milo believes in almost nothing concrete—not even in free speech.
[...]
This culture war is being run in bad faith by bad actors who are running way off-script, and it’s barely begun, and there are going to be a lot of refugees.

Milo is of course a troll and provocateur, but it is not true that all he says and does is an act. It is fairly easy to decipher his views (on a wide range of issues) from his performances where he mixes trolling and sincere statements. He may of course be right or wrong about those views. As for people like Ann Coulter, Pamela Geller, Richard Spencer, Roosh V (who Penny herself says is sincere) and Geert Wilders: they are not trolls, but to a large extent, sincere (and nasty) people. Indeed, she acknowledges that Roosh V is sincere herself. So the article is internally contradictory.

The piece is one long "I don't like all these people" (which shows that Penny is normal and sane). There's nothing of substance there, except personal impressions: which is fine if you're looking for that sort of thing.

Here are a few better articles, though by no means perfect or even mostly right:

Here is a much better profile of Milo.
Here is a Vox piece on Milo's rally.
Here is a much better article about redpillers, 4channers, Milo and so on.
Here is Milo (and Allum Bokhari)'s take on the alt-right.
Here is a piece responding to the one above on the alt-right.

[Kingsindian]

Breitbart has a non-article on Wikipedia about somebody in UK parliament editing Milo's page. Unfortunately, either through incompetence or sloppiness (they are not mutually exclusive of course), they attribute the edit to both an IP and Only in death (T-C-L). The latter actually reverted the IP edit. The article is basically a link to an Independent "indy100" story here, which they manage to mangle (the original story was correct).

I am not sure about this "indy100" stuff; it looks like some sort of clickbait.

[Anroth]

I'm going with ignorance of how to properly read an edit history. It's not intuitive.

Ah well, no good deed etc.

[Kingsindian]

On Breitbart.

The headline is clickbait-y, but not completely inaccurate.

There is some connection with the Wiki Ed foundation, which has been discussed elsewhere on WO. I haven't had a chance to look at that aspect, though I was aware of this ANI case.

[Kingsindian]

There's a thread on the WR proboards forum (by The Devil's Advocate) which discusses some aspects of it in more detail.

From what I can see from the ANI report, it seems to have concluded that the Wiki Ed foundation tried to counsel the guy to not engage in advocacy, but even after repeated warnings he kept at it; and was finally banned. The course description calls Trump "racist, sexist and anti-environment", the guy runs a company consulting about reducing carbon footprint, and he is apparently connected to the Clinton Global Initiative. So, yeah, it was totally unexpected that he would engage in advocacy.

[Disgruntled haddock]

You know it won't end well when they sign up with a username like EJustice (T-C-L)...

As I recall, most editors who chimed in at the AN/I and AN discussions were fairly strongly opposed to EJustice's conduct, except for two editors, Seraphim System (T-C-L) and David Tornheim (T-C-L), who felt that Wikipedians had treated both EJustice and the students poorly. Might be interesting to look at their thoughts in greater depth.

[Kingsindian]

From what I understand, their point was that "Environmental Justice" is actually a real field of study in law, so the articles are not necessarily completely promotional or advocacy. I don't know fields of study in law from a hole in the ground, so I have no idea whether it's true or not.

[Poetlister]

From what I understand, their point was that "Environmental Justice" is actually a real field of study in law, so the articles are not necessarily completely promotional or advocacy. I don't know fields of study in law from a hole in the ground, so I have no idea whether it's true or not.

It's real enough and unquestionably notable. Here's a reliable source. And here's a list of papers on Google Scholar.

[Kingsindian]

TDA has written an article for Breitbart on the Google memo stuff.

[Randy from Boise]

TDA has written an article for Breitbart on the Google memo stuff.

"T.D. Adler" — clever.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

This is a most excellent article by Laurie Penny, about Milo. She knows much him better than his legions.

I’m With The Banned
What my evening with Milo told me about Twitter’s biggest troll, the death of reason, and the crucible of A-list con-men that is the Republican National Convention.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a charming devil and one of the worst people I know. I have seen the death of political discourse reflected in his designer sunglasses. It chills me.

...

The more famous he gets off the back of extravagantly abusing women and minorities, the more I tell him I hate him and everything he stands for, the more he laughs and asks when we’re drinking. I’m a radical queer feminist leftist writer burdened with actual principles. He thinks that’s funny and invites me to his parties.

...

So here we are at the Convention, where howling psychopath Donald Trump has just been confirmed as the presidential nominee, to the horror of half of the party and every remaining moderate conservative in America as well as the 15,000 members of the international press who flocked to see the circus in realtime. Milo is loving every second of it. He lost no time climbing on the back of the clown car of the billionaire demagogue who, with ghoulishly oedipal glee, he calls ‘Daddy.’

Milo is a very interesting foe. A big part of him is performance artist/performer/troll... His "Dangerous Faggot" routine had to send the religious right into convulsions and accentuates fissures on the right — advancing the gay rights/live and let live position while at the same time splitting the enemy. And he's a clever devil — a craftsman of trollery tweaking the anti-libertarian identity politicians of the left. Fun to watch, frankly. He's not half of a loaf for Our Team, but at least has socially redeeming value here and there...

RfB

[Kingsindian]

Milo is a very interesting foe. A big part of him is performance artist/performer/troll... His "Dangerous Faggot" routine had to send the religious right into convulsions and accentuates fissures on the right — advancing the gay rights/live and let live position while at the same time splitting the enemy. And he's a clever devil — a craftsman of trollery tweaking the anti-libertarian identity politicians of the left. Fun to watch, frankly. He's not half of a loaf for Our Team, but at least has socially redeeming value here and there...

RfB

I think the only thing one can say with certainty is that he's a troll.

He likes to use his sexuality for political purposes, but he's written some awful stuff on gay rights. See this, titled: "Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet". Obviously the headline is trolling, but the article itself is scarcely better. His main argument is that gays have higher IQ, on average, so they should get married to a member of the opposite sex and have more kids, so that the average IQ of the population will be raised.

It's hard to guess how much of this idiocy he believes, because he can always laugh it off by saying that "I was just trolling".

[Kingsindian]

TDA has written an article for Breitbart on the Google memo stuff.

"T.D. Adler" — clever.

RfB

The article itself is probably in the 90th percentile of articles on Wikipedia in the press, since the author actually knows how Wikipedia operates. However, the argument there is rather weak. Half of the article has nothing to do with left or right. For instance, the section on Jytdog is very weak: there's no evidence that their edits are serving some nefarious left-wing agenda. The actual criticism which could have some merit is that Jytdog and the "MEDRS cabal" are OWNing the article. The section on Volunteer Marek and Aquillon is pretty good, though I have some criticisms there as well.

I'll probably write a more detailed criticism on the WR site where TDA has a thread on the topic.

[DHeyward]

TDA has written an article for Breitbart on the Google memo stuff.

"T.D. Adler" — clever.

RfB

Now the question is why Mr. and Mrs. Adler named him "The Devil."

[DHeyward]

Milo is a very interesting foe. A big part of him is performance artist/performer/troll... His "Dangerous Faggot" routine had to send the religious right into convulsions and accentuates fissures on the right — advancing the gay rights/live and let live position while at the same time splitting the enemy. And he's a clever devil — a craftsman of trollery tweaking the anti-libertarian identity politicians of the left. Fun to watch, frankly. He's not half of a loaf for Our Team, but at least has socially redeeming value here and there...

RfB

I think the only thing one can say with certainty is that he's a troll.

He likes to use his sexuality for political purposes, but he's written some awful stuff on gay rights. See this, titled: "Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet". Obviously the headline is trolling, but the article itself is scarcely better. His main argument is that gays have higher IQ, on average, so they should get married to a member of the opposite sex and have more kids, so that the average IQ of the population will be raised.

It's hard to guess how much of this idiocy he believes, because he can always laugh it off by saying that "I was just trolling".

I think it's a bit deeper. His criticism often extends to the expansions of causes that don't have a natural connection or intersection. He's critical of the transgender community for example as it's not about sexual orientation and it is fundamentally different than LGB interests. Merging transgender issues into feminism and gay rights is a goal of the left but Milo argues it doesn't improve those causes and they are related only tangentially. Another thing about Milo is that he takes away the two biggest ad hominem attacks: "homophobe" and "racist." That is why he survived o long on the tour.

[Kingsindian]

I don't want to get into the topic of Milo too much. Since he's no longer with Breitbart, it's offtopic anyway.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't want to get into the topic of Milo too much. Since he's no longer with Breitbart, it's offtopic anyway.

You did open the door, of course.

t

[LynnWysong]

TDA has written an article for Breitbart on the Google memo stuff.

It's come to the attention of ANI

[thekohser]

TDA has written an article for Breitbart on the Google memo stuff.

It's come to the attention of ANI

A more durable link, for posterity.

My favorite part -- when TDA mentions "previous witch-hunts", Beyond My Ken's first instinct is to go on a witch-hunt.

[LynnWysong]

My favorite part -- when TDA mentions "previous witch-hunts", Beyond My Ken's first instinct is to go on a witch-hunt.

That guy (I assume it's a guy) is always itching to vote for a block or ban. He needs to be banned from ANI.

[Cla68]

If TDA wants to embarrass those WP editors, he needs to set them up a little better, such as making an edit that adds some mildly positive spin to Lamore's side (the Google engineer who was fired) and let them quickly revert it, then, under a different account, add some extremely pejorative info that is poorly sourced, or sourced to an article that doesn't actually support the edit, and watch as they don't revert it. Then, he should, with the first account, revert the pejorative info. If he's lucky, North-by-South or Volunteer Marek will then revert that edit, thereby trapping them as an obviously biased editor. Got to learn the game and play it, then publicize it in Breitbart or another sympathetic media outlet.

[thekohser]

If TDA wants to embarrass those WP editors, he needs to set them up a little better, such as making an edit that adds some mildly positive spin to Lamore's side (the Google engineer who was fired) and let them quickly revert it, then, under a different account, add some extremely pejorative info that is poorly sourced, or sourced to an article that doesn't actually support the edit, and watch as they don't revert it. Then, he should, with the first account, revert the pejorative info. If he's lucky, North-by-South or Volunteer Marek will then revert that edit, thereby trapping them as an obviously biased editor. Got to learn the game and play it, then publicize it in Breitbart or another sympathetic media outlet.

Most readers wouldn't have the patience to comprehend the implications of all that.

[LynnWysong]

My favorite part -- when TDA mentions "previous witch-hunts", Beyond My Ken's first instinct is to go on a witch-hunt.

That guy (I assume it's a guy) is always itching to vote for a block or ban. He needs to be banned from ANI.

Now he's on a mission to get TDA's user page deleted.

[Cla68]

This episode brings up another interesting aspect of the current culture war in the West which was inflamed by the recent presidential election, and that's how science (Science!) is interpreted. This is especially evident in Wikipedia because for 10 years a loose cabal of editors engaged in a concerted effort to re-orient WP's policies and guidelines to favor academic journals over mainstream media (MSM) sources. In my experience, this was mainly to help them control the content of certain topic areas, like global warming, but also in articles in which there was a conflict between religion and science, such as Islamic Science and Intelligent Design, and alternative medicine.

WP's guidelines and policies, arguably, previously stated that the Wikipedia was supposed to represent the mainstream consensus on a subject, subject to how it's reflected in "reliable sources," i.e. usually MSM sources and books. This created a problem for some content warriors because the MSM and the predominant academic advocacy on a certain topics did not always exactly align. For example, some news sources, notably the Wall Street Journal and Fox News were openly skeptical of the theory of human-caused global warming. Also, other news sources would feature guest columns by global warming skeptics, and those columns were considered reliable sources.

The problem for those editing blocs, of course, is that not all scientists go along with their chosen political narrative. For example, a peer-reviewed academic journal once published an article favorable of Intelligent Design. The ensuring meltdown and logical flip-flops by WP's atheist cabal was hilarious. Another dichotomy was when someone tried to use articles from Indian academic journals in the homeopathy article. Suddenly, those particular academic journals weren't reliable sources.

I experienced one myself when I added a source to the Dark Triad article that indicated that men with dark triad traits were much more successful in their mating strategies with women. I run across studies like that at times because of my interest in evolutionary psychology. Obviously, a certain editing bloc in WP would not agree with that study because it indicates that men and women's courtship and mating strategies are primarily guided by biology, not socialized influences, which is problematic for a great number of political philosophies.

The recent Google controversy is another example. From what I've seen, and from what Damore himself has noted in his interviews with the media (including his interview with CNBC), the science supports his position. The science, however, is contrary to the social justice party line. So, you've now got editors in WP trying to spin the science. I'm sure many of these same editors would insist that they're "pro-science" and support the change of WP over to giving priority on academic sources, because academic sources support their POV, except when they don't.

[Midsize Jake]

WP's guidelines and policies, arguably, previously stated that the Wikipedia was supposed to represent the mainstream consensus on a subject, subject to how it's reflected in "reliable sources," i.e. usually MSM sources and books.

So if a thousand reliably-sourced articles state one position, and, say, five such articles state the opposing position, that means the five articles have to be given the same weight as the thousand, right? I mean, it just stands to reason.

That may seem like an overstatement of the situation, but that's what the numbers are actually like as far as climate science are concerned.

The recent Google controversy is another example. From what I've seen, and from what Damore himself has noted in his interviews with the media (including his interview with CNBC), the science supports his position.

I think both you and Mr. Damore should probably just go out and "see" more. I'm not saying you're both wrong in this case, because it's true that there are a few behavioral scientists who support the idea that women are less interested in (or have less aptitude for) high-tech vocations for mostly-biological reasons. (And yes, their numbers within the discipline are higher, percentage-wise, than they are in climate science, but they're still a definite minority.) There are considerably more out there who don't support that idea at all, and the mere fact that they agree with the "social justice party line" doesn't mean they haven't done their scientific research and due diligence.

That said, right-wingers seem determined to convince us that Damore didn't deserve to be fired because he was "telling it like it is," when in fact he was fired for publicly embarrassing and pissing off his employers with a highly-dubious "memo" that he had no business even writing, much less disseminating, based on his lack of credentials if nothing else - in other words, he was being an idiot. Female Google employees don't seem to do that anywhere near as much, so who are the smarter employees, really?

I do agree with you about the whole "dark triad" thing making guys more attractive to women, though. I was thinking of trying it myself, next time I go to a seedy bar in the poor part of town - though my big concern is whether or not I'll still have health insurance at that point in case some guy beats me up for trying to order his sister or girlfriend to kneel and cower in fear before me while I ply her with a stream of invective liberally sprinkled with words like "bitch" and "whore." Still, it might be worth it, if it works!

[Poetlister]

If TDA wants to embarrass those WP editors, he needs to set them up a little better, such as making an edit that adds some mildly positive spin to Lamore's side (the Google engineer who was fired) and let them quickly revert it, then, under a different account, add some extremely pejorative info that is poorly sourced, or sourced to an article that doesn't actually support the edit, and watch as they don't revert it. Then, he should, with the first account, revert the pejorative info. If he's lucky, North-by-South or Volunteer Marek will then revert that edit, thereby trapping them as an obviously biased editor. Got to learn the game and play it, then publicize it in Breitbart or another sympathetic media outlet.

Most readers wouldn't have the patience to comprehend the implications of all that.

It's extremely clever, and I'm sure that it can be explained simply.

[Kingsindian]

The recent Google controversy is another example. From what I've seen, and from what Damore himself has noted in his interviews with the media (including his interview with CNBC), the science supports his position. The science, however, is contrary to the social justice party line. So, you've now got editors in WP trying to spin the science. I'm sure many of these same editors would insist that they're "pro-science" and support the change of WP over to giving priority on academic sources, because academic sources support their POV, except when they don't.

I do not know about the climate stuff, but this stuff is wrong. I criticized TDA for suggesting the same thing in this Breitbart article.

Damore actually linked to the Wikipedia page on Neuroticism in his memo. The section on sex differences correctly summarized the science (though the source was a bit old). After this stuff broke, the page was updated with better sources, which say the same thing. For a very short duration, a primary source was deleted (but the secondary review remained). Absolutely nothing of any import was changed or disappeared.

[Poetlister]

If the science is fairly unequivocal, and the article is actively monitored, then the science will win because it would be hard to slant the evidence enough without being reverted. But if you're using scientific journals, most of the stuff will be primary. You may have to search hard for good review articles or textbooks.

[Poetlister]

After President Trump condemned violence by both sides in Charlottesville, a recently-created Wikipedia article about antifa highlighting the group’s violence and far-left ideology saw a spree of edits downplaying both aspects of the group.

The U.S. antifa article on Wikipedia was first created by E. M. Gregory, a few days before the Unite the Right rally. Within hours another editor, Grayfell, sought to remove mentions of the group’s violence that were backed by The Atlantic and New York Times. Following the violence in Charlottesville, disputes over the article intensified until the only occurrence of “violence” in one version was in the headlines of the article’s sources.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/3 ... -movement/

[Vigilant]

This could be funny.

[Poetlister]

This could be funny.

How does this compare with similar disputes on this site?

[Vigilant]

This could be funny.

How does this compare with similar disputes on this site?

Go read the the_Donald subreddit or the breitbart comments and come back...

Edit:
https://qz.com/1058097/the-alt-right-ne ... is-google/

[Kingsindian]

Same problem as the other TDA article. If there is no measure of what is the "correct" amount of anything, any reduction can be termed as "downplaying" the violence. By the same token, any addition can be termed as "overstating" the violence, but TDA doesn't do that. Obviously when articles are started, things are added, removed and rephrased. What is that supposed to prove?

The U.S. antifa article on Wikipedia was first created by E. M. Gregory, a few days before the Unite the Right rally. Within hours another editor, Grayfell, sought to remove mentions of the group’s violence that were backed by The Atlantic and New York Times.

The article was just a stub then. The version before Grayfell's diff had two mentions of violence. The version after the diff had one mention of violence. Minimization!

Following the violence in Charlottesville, disputes over the article intensified until the only occurrence of “violence” in one version was in the headlines of the article’s sources.

The "one version" lasted less than 10 minutes. I don't recognize the editor who made the change, but they had less than 200 edits at the time.

TDA says that Doug Weller changed the characterization from "far-left" to "left-wing", but in the edit summary Doug Weller says that the source is saying: "far-left to left-wing", so saying "left-wing" is safer because it's a superset. It's funny because the identical battle played out over the Breitbart article: whether to call it "far-right" or "right-wing to far-right". There's nothing special here.

The rest of the article continues in this vein.

[Vigilant]

If Breitbart, whom I loathe and would love to see expunged from the face of the planet, is able to mobilize the Pepe/Centipede/t_d people to go and fight on en.wp, it will make GamerGate seem like a picnic.

[Kingsindian]

This thread should perhaps be merged with the Breitbart thread. {OK, done. ~J}

I don't know if would be anything close to Gamergate. The antifa have come for plenty of criticism from mainstream outlets, so people can find plenty of "reliable sources" to say anything they want. Relatedly, there is no faction which is "owning" the article exclusively. So I don't think there would be as much friction.

[Vigilant]

This thread should perhaps be merged with the Breitbart thread. {OK, done. ~J}

I don't know if would be anything close to Gamergate. The antifa have come for plenty of criticism from mainstream outlets, so people can find plenty of "reliable sources" to say anything they want. Relatedly, there is no faction which is "owning" the article exclusively. So I don't think there would be as much friction.

[Midsize Jake]

I don't know if would be anything close to Gamergate. The antifa have come for plenty of criticism from mainstream outlets, so people can find plenty of "reliable sources" to say anything they want. Relatedly, there is no faction which is "owning" the article exclusively. So I don't think there would be as much friction.

Hmm... I suspect Mr. Vigilant meant mobilizing the Breitbart contingent in general, across a wide range of articles that the right-wing folks would presumably like to see rewritten to reflect their own ideological perspective - not just Antifa (United States) (T-H-L).

That article is currently "semi-protected," and the WP folks seem to be good at semi-protecting articles as long as they're not biographies of living persons. Meanwhile, Breitbart obviously has a lot of readers, but on the whole (or on average?) I doubt they'd manage to get such an effort off the ground. Gamergate was actually a very unusual viral creation based on some very unusual (and also viral) conditions, almost a "lightning in a bottle" situation - I suspect more people are going to realize that as time wears on, especially when they try to replicate those kinds of conditions. It'll be much easier to just continue to pay people directly to "troll" others, to be frank, and Robert Mercer still has tons of money after all.

[Vigilant]

I don't know if would be anything close to Gamergate. The antifa have come for plenty of criticism from mainstream outlets, so people can find plenty of "reliable sources" to say anything they want. Relatedly, there is no faction which is "owning" the article exclusively. So I don't think there would be as much friction.

Hmm... I suspect Mr. Vigilant meant mobilizing the Breitbart contingent in general, across a wide range of articles that the right-wing folks would presumably like to see rewritten to reflect their own ideological perspective - not just Antifa (United States) (T-H-L).

That article is currently "semi-protected," and the WP folks seem to be good at semi-protecting articles as long as they're not biographies of living persons. Meanwhile, Breitbart obviously has a lot of readers, but on the whole (or on average?) I doubt they'd manage to get such an effort off the ground. Gamergate was actually a very unusual viral creation based on some very unusual (and also viral) conditions, almost a "lightning in a bottle" situation - I suspect more people are going to realize that as time wears on, especially when they try to replicate those kinds of conditions. It'll be much easier to just continue to pay people directly to "troll" others, to be frank, and Robert Mercer still has tons of money after all.

That's a fair point.

I wonder when the first wikipedia borne virus will be spawned.
A purpose built, corrupted jpg that allows arbitrary code execution on client machines.
Usurped wikipedia credentials, change of password, remote controlled to spam SYNC messages at the server arrays...