The Grayzone "deprecated" as a Wikipedia source: Why?

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia has become a bulletin board for corporate and imperial interests under the watch of its Randian founder, Jimmy Wales, and the veteran US regime-change operative who heads the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher.

thegrayzone.com

This is part 2 in a series of investigative reports on the systemic problems with Wikipedia. Read part 1 here: “Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone as regime-change advocates monopolize editing“

thegrayzone.com

[Midsize Jake]

The Grayzone is Max Blumenthal's site, and these articles were written mostly by Ben Norton, who is probably well to the left of Max Blumenthal. Most of what they're saying about Jimbo and Katherine Maher is at least based in fact, not to mention exhaustively detailed — but like most of this type of journalism it relies heavily on loose personal, business, and educational associations among various people to assert the existence of vast webs of intrigue and suspicious dealings which in turn seem to imply that they (Jimbo & Maher, in this case) are significantly more politically influential and well-positioned than they most-likely are.

Still, this notion of Katherine Maher as a "veteran regime-change operative" would definitely help explain the manner in which she's been dealing with the English Wikipedia admin corps over the past couple of years.

Anyway, they've written up an exhaustive case regarding the effort made by (putative) right-wing Venezuelan exiles to discredit their site. Personally, I'd say it falls short of being "convincing," but there's definitely some shenanigans going on with the users in question. Personally I wouldn't "deprecate" The Gray Zone as a source, maybe just call it "marginally reliable" — though with these two new pieces they've pretty much guaranteed that their current situation won't change any time soon, if ever. And I'd also feel a lot better about that opinion if the site and its operators weren't so cozy with the Russians.

[Poetlister]

Basically, it's an attack on Wikipedia for allowing views different from the author's. Its fundamental premise, though, is clearly wrong - that Jimbo and Ms Maher are responsible for the content of Wikipedia, at least in this case. I'd feel confident in suggesting that Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with articles about Venezuela.

[Bezdomni]

Wow. Both of those articles are very well researched. They've got a good handle on Neutrality & the Snoogs; that's for sure.

I'd feel confident in suggesting that Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with articles about Venezuela.

Of course nowhere do these articles say he does... the word "Venezuela" isn't even used once in the Maher/Wales article.

Basically, it's an attack on Wikipedia for disallowing views different from the author's views.

They should do a follow-up article on Poetlister's influence (along with that of a few others who pop in here from time to time).

[Bezdomni]

Politicized editing technically violates the second of Wikipedia’s five pillars, which requires editors to uphold a “neutral point of view.”
[...]
Wikipedia has similarly adopted a guideline against advocacy[.]
[...]
Wikipedia claims to take issue with what is calls “single-purpose accounts,”
[...]
But in reality, the guidelines are hollow ideals that are scarcely, if ever, enforced – particularly when leftist and anti-imperialist media figures are under attack. Indeed, Wikipedia is dominated by editors that show a clear bias, and that use edits to push their ideology and political interests.

The platform has no mechanisms to hold these editors accountable and prevent this from happening. These users are responsible for the majority of edits on entire topics, especially controversial political issues. And Wikipedia has no teeth to reinforce the guidelines.

source: The Gray Zone

I'm glad I voted against that other-deprecating request for comment.

(For some reason this article was buried in Jimbotalk.)

[Bezdomni]

From the video in the article:

My business is best done in secret.

source: (15:50)

He then talks about Snowden, and how the three branches of gvt. (what he calls the Madisonian trifecta) checked off on what they were doing. He then says that the public did not perceive the consent of the governors as being the same thing as the consent of the governed.

The recording ends with:

I think that for us transparency is a bedrock upon which we build everything else and trust... you cannot breed trust without that form of integrity and accountability back to the public... and I would say that's not just for Wikipedia but for any institution that's looking to serve the public in this day and age.

So to echo that famous question about John Galt from Atlas Shrugged back to Mme Maher...

• Who is Neutrality?
• Who is Snooganssnoogans?
• Who is El C? and why does Wikipedia encourage him to work 27-hour shifts (11:10 12 Jun - 14:00 13 Jun) without taking a single half-hour break?*

Now, of course, the same thing can be asked about the folks that SS, respecting the No Personal Attack rules, calls the "who's who of Fringe POV pushers." (§: to bring this rant back towards the Gray Zone)

And no... this is not a call to doxx any of the above... rather I'm writing about all these anony-bodies to point out that transparency is decidedly not a bedrock of Wikipedia practices. (that said, all the tools used in this post were paid for and/or hosted by the WMF)

---

* disclosure: I discovered this because El Cid recently blocked me at fellow-2017-revenant drama-llama Slatersteven's request (for a 2RR violation), then full protected the article making the page block entirely punitive. Rules? In't any rulez, fool... we da powa' !

[Midsize Jake]

Moderator's note: The two topics about this have been merged, and the resulting one (i.e., this one) given a more "neutral-sounding" title.

It's true that in a lot of these situations, we've come to overlook the fact that to most (and perhaps nearly all non-Wikipedian) people, presumably including Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Norton, personal anonymity is practically the antithesis of transparency, and you really can't have both at the same time. So, thanks for reminding us of that.

At the same time, IMO, we also have to remember that to a committed extremist, a moderate is just someone on the opposite extreme who's claiming to be "reasonable." These guys aren't likely to give us much help in figuring out which of the anti-Maduro users on WP are genuine pro-regime-change right-wing fanatics, and which are just regular people trying (in many cases unsuccessfully) to do the right thing — I suspect their assumption will be the former in practically all cases.

[Poetlister]

I'd feel confident in suggesting that Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with articles about Venezuela.

Of course nowhere do these articles say he does... the word "Venezuela" isn't even used once in the Maher/Wales article.

True, but that's the primary place where a left-winger would accuse US people of wanting regime change.

[Ming]

I'd feel confident in suggesting that Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with articles about Venezuela.

Of course nowhere do these articles say he does... the word "Venezuela" isn't even used once in the Maher/Wales article.

On the website's front page, however, these are the "above the lead" articles:

• How Joe Biden’s privatization plans helped doom Latin America and fuel the migration crisis
• ‘We are the vaccine against unilateralism’: Non-Aligned Movement gathers in Venezuela to resist dictatorship of dollar
• ‘Canada Adopts America First Foreign Policy,’ US State Dept boasted in 2017, with appointment of FM Chrystia Freeland
• From Exxon to ‘ambassador’: How Carlos Vecchio became Venezuela’s top coup lobbyist

The Canada one is actually about Venezuela too: "Under Freeland’s leadership, Canada took the lead in the plot to destabilize Venezuela this January."

[Pudeo]

Who is El C? and why does Wikipedia encourage him to work 27-hour shifts (11:10 12 Jun - 14:00 13 Jun) without taking a single half-hour break?*

WP:SHAREDACCOUNT (T-H-L) - or imsomnia.

[Randy from Boise]

Basically, it's an attack on Wikipedia for allowing views different from the author's. Its fundamental premise, though, is clearly wrong - that Jimbo and Ms Maher are responsible for the content of Wikipedia, at least in this case. I'd feel confident in suggesting that Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with articles about Venezuela.

Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with respect to just about anything.

t

[Eric Corbett]

Basically, it's an attack on Wikipedia for allowing views different from the author's. Its fundamental premise, though, is clearly wrong - that Jimbo and Ms Maher are responsible for the content of Wikipedia, at least in this case. I'd feel confident in suggesting that Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with articles about Venezuela.

Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with respect to just about anything.

t

I think that's been very clear for a long time now.

[Poetlister]

Basically, it's an attack on Wikipedia for allowing views different from the author's. Its fundamental premise, though, is clearly wrong - that Jimbo and Ms Maher are responsible for the content of Wikipedia, at least in this case. I'd feel confident in suggesting that Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with articles about Venezuela.

Jimbo has not the slightest idea about what is going on with respect to just about anything.

t

According to some people, he's an expert on articles about 20-something brunettes.

[Hersch]

The Grayzone is Max Blumenthal's site, and these articles were written mostly by Ben Norton, who is probably well to the left of Max Blumenthal. Most of what they're saying about Jimbo and Katherine Maher is at least based in fact, not to mention exhaustively detailed — but like most of this type of journalism it relies heavily on loose personal, business, and educational associations among various people to assert the existence of vast webs of intrigue and suspicious dealings which in turn seem to imply that they (Jimbo & Maher, in this case) are significantly more politically influential and well-positioned than they most-likely are

....Personally I wouldn't "deprecate" The Gray Zone as a source, maybe just call it "marginally reliable" — though with these two new pieces they've pretty much guaranteed that their current situation won't change any time soon, if ever. And I'd also feel a lot better about that opinion if the site and its operators weren't so cozy with the Russians.

Certainly one of the most grotesquely hypocritical policies at Wikipedia is the "reliable sources" policy, because sources are not evaluated on the basis of a track record for factual accuracy; they are evaluated on the basis of ideological purity. I presume that you refer to the Grayzone when you speak of "this type of journalism" that " relies heavily on loose personal, business, and educational associations among various people to assert the existence of vast webs of intrigue and suspicious dealings which in turn seem to imply that they (Jimbo & Maher, in this case) are significantly more politically influential and well-positioned than they most-likely are." I found this hilarious because it so aptly describes the RussiaGate story that was endlessly flogged by every one of Wikipedia's most venerable Reliable Sources, and none of them have apologized to this day, despite such devastating revelations as the recently declassified testimony to the House Intelligence Committee by the head of Crowdstrike, in which he admits that there was never any evidence that the Russians "exfiltrated" anything from the DNC servers. And a news service like GrayZone, which did what any responsible news outlet would do -- ask to see the evidence -- gets "deprecated" and people slyly suggest that they must be "cozy with the Russians."

[Poetlister]

Certainly one of the most grotesquely hypocritical policies at Wikipedia is the "reliable sources" policy, because sources are not evaluated on the basis of a track record for factual accuracy; they are evaluated on the basis of ideological purity.

Whereas of course Hersh evaluates sources on the basis of ...

[Midsize Jake]

I found this hilarious because it so aptly describes the RussiaGate story that was endlessly flogged by every one of Wikipedia's most venerable Reliable Sources, and none of them have apologized to this day, despite such devastating revelations as...

Well Jeez, don't get all upset — I'm on your side this time!

Tellyawhut, as soon as Trump apologizes for everything he's done, including trying to blame his own treasonous corruption on the Ukrainians just like Putin presumably asked him to, then I'll get on board with this idea that all those media outlets should apologize for doing their jobs.

[Zoloft]

I will apologize to Trump after he's convicted of 20-to-life. I'll even send him a subscription to Mother Jones to read while he's in stir.

[Hersch]

Whether you like or dislike Trump is off-topic, unless you want to talk about how Trump's loathsomeness has been cleverly used to somehow legitimize the kind of hysterical conspiracy theories that we used mock back in the '60s when the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby were raving about communist plots and Russian subversion. They were rightfully regarded as the lunatic fringe back then, but what they were saying is indistinguishable from what now passes for mainstream opinion in the New York Times, the Atlantic, or on CNN.

To me, the salient points are these:

1. Trump's truly evil policies, such as the starvation sanctions against Venezuela and Iran, get a free pass in the corporate press. Instead, they accuse him of being somehow a pawn of Putin, which is ridiculous conspiracy-spinning. He has been every bit as senselessly belligerent toward Russia and China as his predecessor was.

2. But because the corporate press are regarded as partisan allies against Trump, it is considered to be the height of bad manners to point out that the Russia! Russia! theories were always devoid of actual evidence, and that we are now in possession of enough evidence to demonstrate that the purveyors of such theories were shameless liars. That doesn't make Trump good, but it makes the so-called "Reliable Sources" very bad, either being complicit, or simply guilty of an appalling lapse of journalistic standards.

[Midsize Jake]

To me, the salient points are these:

I'm afraid you're inaccurate on both counts, though. The very word "belligerent" is incorrect in itself; there hasn't been a US President who's been genuinely "belligerent" towards Russia since Reagan. (Good thing too, since they have nuclear weapons.) Hell, even the Ramones were more belligerent. But Trump hasn't just been less belligerent, he's been much more sympathetic and supportive of their needs than any of those guys, including the Ramones, by a wide margin. If Congress hadn't intervened he would have dropped all the sanctions that were imposed on them after they annexed the Crimea, probably would've recognized the annexation too, and that's just for starters. Moreover, Trump has been far more belligerent towards China than any US President since the Korean War ended, and needlessly so. (Which is bad, because they also have nuclear weapons.) Why are you even mentioning China in the same sentence, in this context?

And as for the corporate press, they're the ones who put Trump in office. Maybe not the major-daily newspapers, but the TV news outlets and the online media, definitely. They gave him billions of dollars' worth of TV time and other forms of free advertising, for nothing, all because they thought he'd bring in good ratings and clicks. So I've got no great love for them, but as for this idea that people who later reported that 2+2 might equal 4 were "shameless liars," well, that's just a matter of perspective. Maybe they were wrong, but my own calculations keep adding up to 4 for some reason.

I do agree about the sanctions against Venezuela and Iran though, and how those countries (and those sanctions) are treated in the US media. It's shameful and quite frankly homicidal, but again, the right-wing media is driving about 90% of this, and the reality-based media is either not covering it at all or is, on occasion, actually questioning it. Simply questioning it may not be enough, but we still shouldn't just conveniently leave that part out.

[Hersch]

And as for the corporate press, they're the ones who put Trump in office.

True.

Maybe not the major-daily newspapers, but the TV news outlets and the online media, definitely. They gave him billions of dollars' worth of TV time and other forms of free advertising, for nothing, all because they thought he'd bring in good ratings and clicks.

And perhaps more importantly, because Hillary asked them to do so.

So I've got no great love for them, but as for this idea that people who later reported that 2+2 might equal 4...

"2+2 might equal 4?" Really?

...were "shameless liars," well, that's just a matter of perspective. Maybe they were wrong, but my own calculations keep adding up to 4 for some reason.

The reason is simply that you didn't have "your own calculations."

But Trump hasn't just been less belligerent, he's been much more sympathetic and supportive of their needs than any of those guys, including the Ramones, by a wide margin.

Ahem, that's bullshit. You are simply regurgitating propaganda from "reliable sources" which may possibly include CNN. Here's a succinct but comprehensive rebuttal: link

...If Congress hadn't intervened he would have dropped all the sanctions that were imposed on them after they annexed the Crimea, probably would've recognized the annexation too, and that's just for starters.

The two truly monumental foreign policy debacles that the neocons have bestowed upon us are the Iraq war, which killed a million people for no reason, and the coup in Ukraine, which revived the Cold War which most people sincerely hoped was dead and buried. Victoria Nuland and her henchmen bragged about having spent $5 billion to install a puppet government that was rife with unreconstructed Nazis, who then embarked on a campaign to ethnically cleanse a very large number of ethnic Russians, including those who happened to be the majority population in Crimea -- which may explain why they voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. "But plebiscites are bad!" you may reply. OK, then, give Texas back to Mexico. But don't meddle in the neighborhood of the nation you almost extinguished during the 1990s, a nation which, as you point out, is nuclear armed.

[Poetlister]

I do agree about the sanctions against Venezuela and Iran though, and how those countries (and those sanctions) are treated in the US media. It's shameful and quite frankly homicidal, but again, the right-wing media is driving about 90% of this, and the reality-based media is either not covering it at all or is, on occasion, actually questioning it. Simply questioning it may not be enough, but we still shouldn't just conveniently leave that part out.

The measures may be brutal, but then so are the regimes in those countries, especially Iran. Things are almost never black and white in geopolitics.

[dotdash]

Isn't the answer simply because it isn't reliable? It hasn't existed that long, has little record of factual reporting, like checking sources, or correcting inaccuracies?

[Poetlister]

I had assumed it was a left-wing site, but apparently it has been severely criticised by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I assume is not alt-Right.

louisproyect.org

nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com

[Ming]

You can read the original SPLC article here. They later walked the article back. Personally, Ming finds the Grayzone articles a bit, um, febrile, and they definitely fail the "if this were the only place reporting this, would I believe it?" test.

[Hersch]

You can read the original SPLC article here. They later walked the article back. Personally, Ming finds the Grayzone articles a bit, um, febrile, and they definitely fail the "if this were the only place reporting this, would I believe it?" test.

They later walked the article back, and apologized. Alexander Reid Ross is one stupid-ass conspiracy theorist who would richly deserve to be "deprecated." And again, my personal criterion for source reliability is, do they have a track record for accuracy? How many times have they had to "walk something back"?

[Poetlister]

And again, my personal criterion for source reliability is, do they have a track record for accuracy? How many times have they had to "walk something back"?

Does that mean that if a site never retracts anything, it's reliable?

[Hersch]

Here is a very timely commentary on the present state of our cherished "Reliable Sources," by one of the most consistently level-headed journalists I know.

[rhindle]

Here is a very timely commentary on the present state of our cherished "Reliable Sources," by one of the most consistently level-headed journalists I know.

I do think the MSM aka Corporate Media does have issues that need to be addressed but the problem is many grifters like Alex Jones can exploit the confirmation bias of many, which social media is great at amplifying. Conservatives believe the MSM is liberal biased so let's make a conservative outlet that "tells the truth" even when spewing utter bullshit. Perhaps Grayzone is being mistreated here or maybe the few who determined it's deprecating are on point. One person referred to it as a "leftist Breitbart" so that's interesting. I personally haven't decided on the Grayzone's reliability so I think it's premature to deprecate it, maybe not using the source should be "cautioned," a middle-ground.

[Poetlister]

It's not covered by allsides.com or mediabiasfactcheck.com, so it's a bit below the radar as yet. Fair.org, itself pretty left wing, views it favourably.

[Hersch]

Max Blumenthal rocks.

[Zoloft]

Max Blumenthal rocks.

That retweet saga was hilarious.

[Hersch]

Max Blumenthal rocks.

That retweet saga was hilarious.

It was. I wonder if Trump noticed?

[Midsize Jake]

I take it that "hysterical cold war propaganda" is a convenient shorthand for "anything that suggests that Russia isn't totally innocent of everything it's ever been accused of"...?

[Hersch]

[Bezdomni]

too dangerous not to ban it, right?

Sadly, the audio/video connection to Haïti didn't work very well back on 12 July, but Jeb Sprague is quite interesting... from 29:38.
His books are now in Wikidata & at a library near you. (§ you have to press play)

The DN! spat referred to at one point is about Jimmy "Barbecue" Cherizier. (§)

Um, Jake? Why is this in Jimboland?

Well, since it is... one more question... why did the Master Strategist bot start a page on the 2018 Haitian Protests (§), Jovenel Moïse (§) and on Jimmy "Barbecue" Cherizier (§) at fandom three days before Moïse was assassinated? Such prescience in the couple hours between uploading the image for Operation Swordbreaker and writing its page (§) is just weird.

[Midsize Jake]

Um, Jake? Why is this in Jimboland?

It's because the original article in The Grayzone tried to discredit Wikipedia by going into excruciating detail about Jimbo's past, isn't it? It's what most people in the "anti-war left" or the "peace coalition" (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) still seem to do... I guess because apparently they never got the memo that nobody really gives a hoot about Jimbo anymore, except for the few remaining WP users who still use his talk page as some sort of masturbatory aid.

[Bezdomni]

Yeah, you swept the part I thread into the part II thread, actually.

Now that the content & title are primarily about the GZ !banning, perhaps it could be moved back to News and Media?

As for the creators, I think they're both too old to say they were reincarnated in the very year (1969) Pharaoh Sanders' Karma was released. ("The Creator Has a Master Plan")

As an aside about the Tèt Kale party and master strategizin', didn't Bob Marley say that "Jah would never give the power to a baldhead"?