
Someone had set up a Wikipedia page about me - apsec112
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4307480/Writers-reveal-Wikipedia-s-insidious-Kafkaesque-control.html
======
oli5679
To give some context: Daily Mail is a right-leaning UK newspaper that sits
somewhere in between a tabloid (celebrity gossip and other entertainment) and
a broadsheet (news and political commentary).

It has been criticized for publishing incorrect/misleading information [1][2],
and was banned as a source by Wikipedia[3].

[1]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/02/21/wi...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/02/21/will-
drinking-diet-soda-increase-your-risk-for-a-heart-attack/#3f57228b6e56)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/16/ben-
go...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/16/ben-goldacre-bad-
science-daily-mail-cancer)

[3]
[https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technolog...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-
bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)

------
i336_
> _Wikipedia, as it is currently run, is simply and literally out of control,
> and a potential menace to all kinds of institutions and individuals._

> _This is an organisation that — quite scandalously — polices itself, judges
> itself, and legitimises itself. It is always right because it decides what
> is right. You are always wrong because it decides what is wrong. You can
> choose to bow to its authority and become a loyal subject, or be condemned
> as an unbeliever._

You can s/Wikipedia/The Daily Mail/g quite easily here, with no loss of
informational accuracy.

> _[I] heard [Wikipedia] was full of errors and shot through with personal
> prejudices and score-settling._

Curious you should say that!!

Also, I would have liked to see the unedited IRC (I assume IRC) logs from the
conversations that happened so I could draw my own conclusions from the events
that took place.

It seems to me like the Mail sniffed around some contacts, somehow got in
touch with this guy, and then "an editor worked with him" (note quotes) to
produce this puff piece. (Literally, it looks like they're pouting and trying
to puff their chests out.)

~~~
bjourne
You can read all the conversations yourself as they took place on various
Wikipedia pages:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_McCann/Archive_1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_McCann/Archive_1) * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_McCann_\(2nd_nomination\)) * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.23.93.50](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.23.93.50)

I've probably missed some.

~~~
i336_
Oh, thanks!

...Wow, the conversations are almost as bad as the article itself...

~~~
bigbugbag
Once you've seen the inner working of wikipedia you know that this daily mail
piece if factually accurate, I'd even say that it only brushes the tip of the
iceberg.

The wikipedia cabal has been raised as an issue since at least 2003 when the
current article on meta was created:
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabal&direction...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabal&direction=prev&oldid=4949)

------
grabcocque
Importantly Wikipedia doesn't strive to be "true" or "accurate", rather it
strives to be well-sourced and verifiable. That would understandably be a
difficult concept to grasp for an outlet that simply fabricates what it wishes
the truth to be.

~~~
cperciva
To be fair, Wikipedia is often _sourced_ , but not necessarily _well sourced_.
A while back when I needed to provide a "source" for a fact I simply tweeted
it and then cited the tweet.

~~~
avar
It depends on the context. Was this a citation on the Tarsnap article? If so
you just saying something publicly is a good a source as any, it doesn't
matter that the publishing platform is Twitter or the New York Times.

Actually Twitter can be a much better source than an accredited newspaper,
because in this case it would be coming directly from you, and you wouldn't
need to worry that perhaps the source was being paraphrased, or the context
wasn't what they intended.

~~~
r0muald
That's not​ how Wikipedia works. You are not a reliable source about yourself,
be it social media, blogs, company websites.

~~~
pwdisswordfish
Policy says otherwise, and this particular one doesn't seem to be ignored.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-
published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves)

The general bias seems to be in favour of treating sources as acceptable,
unless there are reasons not to; though that may be just a matter of
enforcement.

------
ClassyJacket
There's a reason Wikipedia has banned this site as a source, and that's
because their articles make The Onion look accurate and fact-checked.

~~~
barry-cotter
You can disapprove of the Daily Mail's accuracy and politics without saying
things that are actually lies. That what you wrote is hyperbole is clear to me
but it certainly isn't clear to everybody. The author's point about Wikipedia
still taking Chinese, Russian and Persian state media as trustworthy sources
should be tackled by anyone who actually wants to take part in this cesspit of
a debate about a cesspit of a paper.

While on the topic of journalistic integrity have the Guardian retracted their
piece on the "backdoor" in WhatsApp yet? No, and they're not going to. No
matter how ideologically congenial any particular newspaper may be for any
particular person journalists generally have minimal time for fact checking,
will twist a story to make it more entertaining, and know very little about
what they're writing about.

~~~
nl
The Guardian article[1] isn't inaccurate. It identified a way in which
WhatsApp messages could be read, and the author wouldn't know what had
happened. The HN discussion of the WhatsApp response[2] shows that this is a
pretty serious problem.

It's not a hole in the WhatsApp protocol - more a UI problem. That doesn't
make it any less serious, and it is unclear to me what you think they need to
withdraw. The third paragraph in the article itself makes it clear this is a
trade-off:

 _Some security experts say that the vulnerability is a known and acceptable
“trade-off” that makes sense for the majority of WhatsApp’s users, since it
makes the app easier to use on a day to day basis. They describe the risk to
most users as “remote” since the vulnerability only allows the targeting of
individuals or groups of individuals at specific times, rather than widespread
mass surveillance of WhatsApp users, and urge users not to switch to less
secure platforms._

I think this is pretty good reporting of a complex issue in trading off ease-
of-use vs security. I think it is worth noting that most think WhatsApp's
mistake was to go too far to the "ease-of-use" side.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-
backdoor-allows-snooping-on-encrypted-messages)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13394900](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13394900)

------
pwdisswordfish
Yes! Finally, people are starting to notice the problems with Wikipe—

> The Daily Mail

...Right.

Seriously, why is it that every time someone criticises Wikipedia, it has to
be in this sensationalist, tabloid-esque manner, and often for the stupidest
reasons possible?

> ‘Who are you?’ he inquired testily. ‘Graham McCann,’ I replied. ‘I very much
> doubt you are who you say you are,’ he declared.

But _of course_ they would doubt it. Anyone can go on the Internet and claim
they are Graham McCann without providing any proof. They know just as much
about his identity as he knows about theirs. This is a striking lack of self-
awareness on his part. Or Internet literacy.

Not that I think this is much of an excuse for them; it's still wrong that
Wikipedia doesn't provide any avenue for subject of articles to provide
feedback/corrections in a more reliable manner. The only way to get them to
correct anything is to go to a tabloid journalist and provide them fodder for
a 'Wikipedia is stupid and mean!!!11' article.

~~~
paublyrne
_Anyone can go on the Internet and claim they are Graham McCann without
providing any proof_

I read through a lot of the conversation between Mr McCann and one of the Wiki
editors. I have a lot of empathy for the former. It is the case that the
editor doubted the identity of the man he was conversing with, but Wikipedia
should have simple, clear protocols for people to prove their identity for
such cases. It's not Mr McCann's fault that they don't. Instead the editor
sneered, and was generally rude and unpleasant to him.

If I phoned up my bank to discuss my account and couldn't prove I was who I
said I was, I would nevertheless expect courtesy, politeness, and
professionalism. Wiki is a non profit, and the editors are not professionals,
but it is one of the most visited websites on the internet.

I actually suspect that the basic premise of a universal encyclopaedia staffed
by volunteers and run on a non profit basis may be fundamentally flawed.

~~~
pwdisswordfish
I've never worked in a call centre, but from what I heard about that job, it
can be some very emotionally draining work where you have to deal with all
sorts of inane and entitled people, and you can easily lose your temper and/or
faith in humanity. (Teachers have it worse: they also have to deal with their
children.) And Wikipedia can be _even_ worse, with all its perverse incentives
and selective enforcement. I'm not surprised that Wikipedians don't bother
with politeness. Especially in situations like this, where trolls abound.

> I actually suspect that the basic premise of a universal encyclopaedia
> staffed by volunteers and run on a non profit basis may be fundamentally
> flawed.

I agree, but I doubt a change is going to happen. It's just too convenient an
arrangement for the WMF and Jimbo Wales: they sit on loads of money they get
for basically little more than keeping the servers powered, and he can just
present himself as a Philantropist™ by going to conferences and cashing
speaking fees, without taking any actual responsibility for the project he
ostensibly runs.

------
stagbeetle
> _An investigation by this paper has revealed how Wikipedia banned the Daily
> Mail as a source after just 53 out of its 30 million editors voted to do so.
> Their spurious argument was that the Mail could not be trusted to be
> accurate. But — as the internet’s inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee says online
> ‘fake news’ must be tackled — what about the accuracy of information on
> Wikipedia? Here, two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they
> found their entries were littered with mistakes . . ._

From reading the first paragraph all I can think of is _" am I going to learn
anything from reading this article, because it looks like a basic retaliation
tantrum."_

Just by skimming:

> _" Kafkaesque experiences," "tantamount to making a Faustian pact with
> Fame," " obscure ancillary page called ‘revision history statistics,'"
> "being plunged into a disturbing world similar to the one conjured up by
> Kafka in his novels about the oppression of the human spirit by sinister,
> powerful forces."_

Emotional hyperbole, conceit, and superfluity. This reads like an opinion
piece, and if it's any bit a representation of the larger DailyMail
publication, I can understand why it was banned from being a source.

~~~
justaguyonline
"Wait it's not an Opinion piece? But it has a huge picture of the author on
the front?"

I had to go back and check again after my initial skim and yep, they seems to
calling this "investigative journalism." British journalism is weird.

~~~
Smaug123
It's not British journalism per se; the Daily Mail is famous for this kind of
thing. Check out the [Daily Mail Oncology Ontology]([http://kill-or-
cure.herokuapp.com](http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com)).

------
cooper12
Wait, I'm already in the first paragraph and I had to bail out. How on earth
did they arrive at a figure of "30 million editors"? The number of active
English Wikipedia editors is more in the ballpark of 30K according to
[http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors](http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors).
The Daily Mail is only confirming why they were discouraged from being used as
a source. Some really basic fact checking should have raised suspicion at such
a ridiculous number.

~~~
bigbugbag
This comes from wikipedia page about wikipedians:

    
    
      Number of editors:
    
      The English Wikipedia currently has 30,486,002 users who have registered a username(...)
    

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Number_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Number_of_editors)

~~~
cooper12
Ah I see. Still disingenuous to call them editors since the page I linked to
actually counts anyone who has made a minimum of 5 edits recently. Those non-
editors with accounts wouldn't participate in the discussion anyway and are
probably inactive accounts.

------
lutusp
Arranging the deletion of a Wikipedia page isn't that difficult. A Wikipedia
biography about me was vandalized so often and so annoyingly that I voted for
its removal, and two more votes did the trick.

It turns out that this is a relativaly common occurrence. People who take
controversial positions are often the subject of this kind of harassment and
adopt the same strategy I did -- example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#False...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#False_biographical_information)

~~~
paublyrne
Looking at the conversation on McCann's Wiki article, he was told very clearly
that the article could not be deleted because he was 'notable', and that he
needed to accept that.

~~~
lutusp
Wikipedia's editors objected on the same grounds and refused to allow me to
delete my article on my own. For that, I needed to collect some votes. The
details are here:
[http://arachnoid.com/programmable_calculators/#Digression](http://arachnoid.com/programmable_calculators/#Digression)

------
ifelsehow
> Ringleader of this fierce and foul-mouthed circus — one of them called me ‘a
> k * * b’ —

I'm American. What does k * * b refer to?

~~~
lucraft
"Knob"

My proudest moment on HN

------
mcv
On the one hand, this is hardly the first time I've seen someone complain
about the arcane ways Wikipedia sometimes seems to be policed by an army of
smart teenagers on a power trip. Many years ago, there were some stories about
highly qualified academics writing articles, only to see them ruined by well-
established wikipedians. And for an outsider it can be hard to figure out how
to correct this.

At the same time, there does need to be some degree of policing, or anyone
could make any article say anything at all. Of course it's frustrating for a
qualified author or academic to not immediately be recognized as such, but to
Wikipedia, it's hard to tell the difference between a qualified author and a
clever con man. All they can really check is the sources.

So it's a complex issue.

And considering their ban, it's not surprising that the Daily Mail likes to
discredit Wikipedia as much as possible. In this case, they do kinda have a
point (although from the discussion pages, it seems these people were far more
arrogant than the Wikipedians they accuse), but the writing of the article
takes it ridiculously over the top in a painfully transparent way.

For example: "‘Axl’ then informed me it was most unlikely that what he called
‘The Community’ of Wikipedia would permit my entry to be deleted. ‘The
Community’ sounded like something from George Orwell’s 1984 novel and the
faceless men in Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth."

Does the author really think his readers won't know what a community is in
this context?

------
k__
Reminds me of a DJ I knew.

He thought he was well know and deserved a wikipedia page. So he created one
by himself.

First it got deleted a few times, because of out famous german wikipedia
"lösch Nazis" who dont consider anything relevant.

Then, after long discussion they said okay, seems like a few thousand people
know this guy, let him have his page, but... We say what's the truth!!

In the end they wrote he mad trance music with hiphop lyrics. Which was
technically correct, but he hated both music genres and considered himself
more of a Gothic an Aggrotec DJ. Also he had no fans in the mentioned genres.

So he wanted that Article deleted, which took another few months. Don't know
how he managed it.

------
Grue3
It's too bad this article is criticised because of the place where it's
published (typical logical fallacy), because Wikipedia accuracy has been going
down the drain for a while. And I say that as an (inactive) Wikipedia admin.

~~~
vacri
When a source builds a reputation for being untrustworthy, it's unreasonable
to demand that each of its articles be considered as a separable item from the
rest.

Indeed, cooper12 below points out a ridiculously gross error in the _first
sentence_ of the article. Not to mention that even if it were the right
number, the _idea itself_ is false: that a quorum of _all active editors_ is
needed to mark a source as poor quality.

~~~
bigbugbag
Well this 'gross error' is actually a citation from wikipedia itself. And the
daily mail has been among those marked as unreliable sources since 2015, so
this fails short of explaining this very targeted ban.

    
    
      In general, any tabloid newspaper, such as The Sun, Daily
      Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television show, or a site 
      like The Register, should not be used when a more 
      respected, mainstream source exists, or in place of such a 
      source.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Potenti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources&oldid=642377260#News_media)

------
quanticle
The main objection Mr. McAnn seems to have to Wikipedia is that most people on
it don't go by their real name, but rather use pseudonyms. The implied
criticism is that if people had to go by their real legal name, they wouldn't
resort to writing untrue things on Wikipedia. Of course, as we've seen with
both YouTube and Facebook's real-name-only strategies, it doesn't work.
Forcing real names doesn't make mean people on the internet less mean. All it
does is make it easier for those mean people to bully their targets.

------
WikipediasBad
It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit.
That way there is an easy consensus on what the top citations are and what the
most dubious ones are. There can also be software/bots written to react to low
vote citations in certain manners. It would change a lot. The only other wiki
site I know that lets you do this is Everipedia and Infogalactic, but they
have nowhere near the amount of traffic as Wikipedia.

~~~
geezerjay
>It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit.

I have to disagree. Facts don't depend on popularity nor are they subjected to
a democratic vote. Either something is true or it isn't. Once you subject the
presentation of corroborated facts to votes, you are establishing a system to
manipulate what facts are presented based on how many votes you can mobilise
(or fabricate) then your only accomplishment is the establishment of a system
to censor away inconvenient facts that is rigged in favour of those who are
able to pay the right PR company to shut down inconvenient facts.

~~~
ProxCoques
"Once you subject the presentation of corroborated facts to votes, you are
establishing a system to manipulate"

You appear to be unaware that Wikipedia's Articles For Deletion process is
essentially based on a voting system. What you say about the nature of voting
and censoring is basically at the heart of the criticisms of Wikipedia's
editorial process.

~~~
geezerjay
> You appear to be unaware that Wikipedia's Articles For Deletion process is
> essentially based on a voting system.

Your comment is disingenuous at best. The voting process only applies to
articles which were nominated for deletion and fail to meet Wikipedia's
guidelines for notoriety. That means that you can only vote in favour of
deleting any article if it already fails to meet the requirements for hosting
the article to begin with.

In case you didn't understood the process, voting only applies either to false
positives or false negatives. The process is set to make it possible to delete
only articles which fail to be shown to be relevant. For example, you can't
even nominate well established articles such as the article on Jesus Christ by
any means, including nominating it to the AfD

Do read up on the process instead of making up stuff about it.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy)

~~~
ProxCoques
"The voting process only applies to articles which were nominated for deletion
and fail to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety."

Citation please.

Look, I'll ignore your remark about disingenuousness because you're clearly
confused. As per
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process)

"Normally, a deletion discussion must be held to form a consensus to delete a
page."

The convention in such discussions is essentially a vote. Yes, it's a
discussion vote, but that's the process of Consensus:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus)

------
abrkn
Site is banned in Thailand. Just shows up with government warning.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
I have no knowledge of this situation, but guessing blindly I'm gonna assume
that this is because Wikipedia has content that could be interpreted as mildly
critical of the King of Thailand?

~~~
romanticreptile
daily mail is banned in .th, not wiki.

~~~
abrkn
Correct

------
jimjimjim
Daily Mail hit-piece.

Retaliation for wikipedia justifiably preventing the mail being used as a
cite.

