
Update: The agenda-driven edits of Philip Cross and Wikipedia's response - k1m
https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html
======
nneonneo
It's worth pointing out that one of the people mentioned in this article,
@leftworks1, was banned from Wikipedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leftworks1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leftworks1))
for abusively using a _pile_ of sockpuppet accounts (both anonymous IPs and
actual accounts) to evade protection filters on the Oliver Kamm article
([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&actio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&action=history)).
His sockpuppets attempted to add information to the article that was clearly
poorly sourced and designed specifically to attack a living person, in
violation of the BLP policy. However, fivefilters paints this guy as a hero
and uncritically reports on his views on things.

Furthermore, this article barely touches on the fact that WP is mulling a
topic ban for Philip Cross
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Propose_topic_ban))
or is starting ArbCom proceedings
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#George_Galloway)),
WP's equivalent of the Supreme Court. Both of these are standard dispute
resolution steps, and they demonstrate that Wikipedia is in fact taking it
seriously (in contravention of this article's conclusion).

These kinds of articles are not helping. If fivefilters/Media Lens/Galloway/et
al. have problems with Philip Cross, they should stay out of "off-wiki"
opinion-influencing and let Wikipedia's process run its course.

~~~
k1m
We're highlighting these primarily for the benefit of those unfamiliar with
what's been going on. There's also plenty of diffs and context that will
hopefully help any Wikipedia resolution. I'm not sure why you think everything
concerning Wikipedia ought to be done on Wikipedia itself.

Also, we do not edit Wikipedia ourselves. We have not edited these pages or
engaged in any sockpuppet activity.

We don't paint @leftworks1, or anyone else, as a hero. We are not affiliated
with them other than following them on Twitter. They have, along with a few
other Twitter accounts, done quite a lot of work to uncover problematic edits
by Cross. We're not going to dismiss all that because of a conflict with
Wikipedia.

As for our criticism of Wikipedia, ignoring the broader problem of this kind
of agenda editing going on, it is that there appears to be one admin who is
trying to shift the focus on to a conflict of interest with one individual
(George Galloway) rather than look at Cross' edits more broadly.

~~~
nneonneo
What @leftworks1 did is not a "conflict with Wikipedia". It is disruption, a
deliberate attempt to insert poorly sourced material into contentious
articles. It is _exactly_ what you are calling Philip Cross out for. You are
applying a double standard here - if you think Philip Cross is a bad editor,
@leftworks1 is bad too (and worse - they rather openly broke the rules again
and again).

~~~
k1m
I'm not going to speak for @leftworks1. But looking at the links you provided
it seems they were trying to add information relating to a court case at the
high court, with a public claim number. You might want to see Neil Clark's
tweet about the information Philip Cross is trying to hide from Kamm's
Wikipedia page:
[https://twitter.com/neilclark66/status/991310986643730433](https://twitter.com/neilclark66/status/991310986643730433)

So we have an attempt to add information on to a Wikipedia page (to my mind
information that should be on the page) by someone who is quickly banned
indefinitely and their changes removed (thanks to Philip Cross monitoring the
page in question). You are comparing this to a years-long campaign by a
prominent Wikipedia editor to discredit, very unfairly (as I'm sure the edits
show) a number of prominent anti-war voices. His changes are not reverted, he
is not banned. I'm not sure how they're comparable at all.

~~~
bhouston
Unfortunately Wikipedia is based on self selection and thus you tend to only
get partisans from both sides involved on charged subjects. And if you appeal
to an opposing partisan, one who may even pretend to be impartial or simple
authoritive, you will lose.

------
abalone
I highly recommend reading Chomsky or Herman’s work directly and drawing your
own conclusions. It is extensively footnoted with primary sources.[1]

I grew up in a conservative environment. One day I came across some of
Chomsky’s speeches on the early web with claims I found somewhat shocking
(e.g. “the US is the world’s leading terrorist state”). But there was
something compelling about it, so I took the extra step to check myself into
my university library and read some of his books. And _actually follow up on
the citations._ (Which actually documented terrorist activity on the part of
the US government, among other things.) This was pre-Wikipedia. It was truly
mind-expanding and equipped me with faith that careful study of the facts can
change beliefs.

I fear that far too many of us rely on the summations of others. Wikipedia is
truly a wonderful resource, but there is no substitute for checking sources
yourself.

[1] An extensive online archive of Chomsky’s work can be found at
[http://chomsky.info](http://chomsky.info)

------
Shank
At least as far as the "George Galloway" article is concerned, this is
definitely _not_ resolved and this article is plainly disputing that. The
linked-to thread on WP:ANB shows that Guy referred this specific issue to the
arbitration committee, which, as of May 26th, is still in the process of
getting statements and proceeding forward.

See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#George_Galloway)

& the aforementioned noticeboard:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=843016996#Philip_Cross)

Edit: I should add I only say this because the article concludes by saying
that the issue is resolved and it isn't. ArbCom is supposed to be a process
whereby outside intervention is requested, and unless that process does
nothing, then it's not worth declaring this finished.

~~~
posterboy
the issue of the article is resolved insofar attention was a concern.

------
coliveira
This just goes to show that wikipedia is not a trustworthy source for polemic
topics. The very nature of the platform makes it too easy to manipulate by one
or more individuals with an ideological position.

~~~
whatshisface
I'm fortunate to have been around long enough to observe the "swinging bias"
of Wikipedia. In 2008 the conservatives complianed that it was too liberal,
but over time I've seen articles wander pretty far in _every_ direction. I
still think this is an advantage, though: if your entire reality is a specific
classical news source it will seem unbiased and universal because your
universe will be exactly it. Whereas if you mostly read Wikipedia then you
will see the bias because the center of mass of an article today might not be
its center of mass tomorrow.

~~~
TimTheTinker
From my vantage point (I identify best with the Constitution Party’s
platform), Wikipedia has always been very liberal.

------
nipponese
Either you "believe" in decentralized governance systems or you don't. If you
do, then this means _your_ participation is required for improvement (edit
articles, run a bitcoin full node, etc) which in practice is more expensive in
resources and effort. If you don't, then just sit back and relax, but also
accept you're just going to have to trust those centralizing influence a
variety of incentives.

~~~
k1m
You make it sound like it's the perfect system just lacking enough
participation. What makes you think everyone has the time to devote to it. Or
that there aren't people with more money and resources who can influence it?
It's seen by many as a neutral source. We're trying to highlight how easy it
is to manipulate.

~~~
bhouston
I believe it is very manipulated. Much more than is commonky acknowledged.

------
psergeant
There’s some weird Russian connection here isn’t there?

~~~
nneonneo
I don't disagree - George Galloway and several of the subjects mentioned have
connections to RT, Sputnik, etc. Philip Cross has had to remove a fairly
sizable amount of content that was only sourced to RT and Sputnik (which are
not considered reliable, neutral sources). There's a nonzero probability of a
Russian connection.

~~~
coliveira
In matters of war, RT is as reliable as NYTimes. Both are reliably biased, RT
to Russia and NYT to American interests. For me at least it is useful to see
what each country's narrative is.

~~~
psergeant
Have you ever seen an RT article deeply critical of Putin’s regime?

~~~
abalone
American media has vigorous criticism within a certain range (roughly the
Democrat-Republican spectrum), but it is supportive of common elite interests.
For example you will find the NYT rarely criticized on moral grounds the wars
that the US waged. Speaking of Herman and Chomsky, _Manufacturing Consent_ is
a good analysis of this phenomenon (propaganda in democratic societies), with
supporting evidence.

------
Kim_Bruning
The selective quoting of JzG's arbcom election page from 12 years ago is
basically doing exactly what Philip Cross is being accused of.

Is this how fivefilters normally conduct themselves?

~~~
k1m
We didn't claim to be quoting the entirety of the page. And I don't understand
the Cross comparison. What did we get wrong?

JzG initially tried to shut down discussion of this issue when it was brought
to his attention (he decided there was "Zero evidence of COI [conflict of
interest]" within 2 minutes - other Wikipedia admins clearly now disagree and
have implemented a topic ban).

He then went on to frame the whole debate around a dispute between two
individuals, when in fact it's much more than that, as has been clear from the
beginning.

When that didn't work, he went after the Wikipedia editor who had brought this
whole thing to their attention.

You don't find his conduct abnormal?

You might be interested in this statement from another Wikipedia editor, made
today, about JzG's conduct:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=843302044#Earlier_complaint)

------
Spearchucker
I have no dog in this race. Pretty much because I encounter inaccuracies on
Wikipedia more often than I'd expect (most recent being the current status of
Lancia). Just signing up to edit is just not worth my time. I wonder how many
more inaccuracies there are, and how many others couldn't be bothered to try
fix it.

~~~
slater
For most articles, you don't have to sign in to edit.

And what's the Lancia status inaccuracy?

~~~
Spearchucker
It wanted me to sign up when I tried. Haven't in ages.

Wikipedia incorrectly states that Lancia only sells in Italy (see for example
[http://www.lancia.fr/mopar](http://www.lancia.fr/mopar) or
[http://www.lancia.de/mopar](http://www.lancia.de/mopar)). Also makes no
mention of the modern Flavia (re-badged Chrysler 200, but sold as a Lancia
nonetheless in Europe). It's a bit like not mentioning the Mercedes-Benz
X-Class because it's based on the Nissan Navara.

------
MikkoFinell
I wonder what the odds are we would be seeing articles like this if Philip's
apparent bias ran in the other direction.

~~~
andybak
Highly likely?

~~~
MikkoFinell
I hope you're right.

------
Leftworks
I suggest, perhaps, that the current focus should be on the evidence that I,
and others, are now uncovering and presenting, rather than on my alleged
improper behaviour in the past.

A month ago I had very little interest in Wikipedia except as an end user. I
joined Wikipedia as an editor because I read that some information that I
regarded as common knowledge, and a matter of public record, and as in the
public interest to be disclosed as widely as possible, was being edited off
the Oliver Kamm page by someone again commonly believed to be a partisan
gatekeeper acting as the judge of what should and should not be disclosed on
many Wikipedia articles.

I knew nothing of Wikipedia procedures, and made many mistakes, and stuck to
my guns, and battled more experienced people in edit wars, and as a result I
am banned from Wikipedia. Shrug. I am resigned to that as an entirely
understandable result. My heart is not broken that I will never edit Wikipedia
again. I accept my fate.

While I was edit warring, I looked into other pages edited by this alleged
gatekeeper, and what I found astounded and outraged me. I suggest that people
go and look at the circumstances under which the pages "Tim Hayward
(academic)", "Piers Robinson", and "Tara McCormack" were set up. In
particular, go and look at the Hayward article just after it had first been
finished with by Philip Cross, but the Robinson article has also been
described by a Wikipedia editor, certainly not myself, as an "attack page".
The timing is important. These three pages were set up on, or the day after,
an extremely hostile report on these three academics by the British "Sunday
Times". It is as clear as daylight that the purpose of setting up these pages
was to attack and discredit them. There does not seem to be any evidence that
they were added as new work to be set up in any normal way. One editor,
"Philafrenzy", was perhaps privately requested to set them up by Philip Cross,
who then stepped in to edit them all a day or two later.

These three academics were also tweeted about by a well-known journalist. The
hostile accounts were set up the same day. Twitter users are currently
documenting what appears to be a very peculiar symbiosis between this
journalist and Philip Cross. On the face of it, there seems a most unhealthy
conflict of interest issue here.

If the Hayward account in particular is examined closely, it is clear that the
original articles referred to in the Wikipedia page contain a good deal more
balanced material than was originally included on the page. The selection of
material appeared to me to be thoroughly partisan. This is also the opinion of
Professor Hayward himself. Professor Robinson has expressed similar opinions.
Doctor McCormack had no idea that her page had even been set up, and was most
unhappy about the matter when I informed her of it.

Rightly, or wrongly, that is how the Hayward-Robinson-McCormack situation
presented itself to me. There were other aspects to the matter. For example,
the McCormack page cited opinions of hers, which were accurately cited,
certainly, and were also very controversial. It appeared to me that the reason
these opinions, and these alone, were cited, were to make her look like a
radical lunatic. It was particularly notable that "Spiked", a publication
which I had no doubt would have in any other circumstances have been booted
from Wikipedia by this gatekeeper as an unreliable source, was retained and
cited as a footnote. The obvious reason was that it contained opinions by
McCormack that seemed ridiculous and outrageous. There appeared to me to be a
very unpleasant agenda behind these pages.

Since then, of course, the number of people looking at this matter has
substantially broadened and more evidence has come to light, and more is
forthcoming all the time. I welcome that. I am not in the least interested in
publicity. All I am interested in is getting this evidence out there and shown
to people so that they can judge for themselves. I make no claim to be any
sort of hero. Five Filters did not consult me before they quoted me, and the
only reason they seem to have quoted me is that I have presented evidence
which they believe is worth bringing to light. I concur with that.

There is an enormous amount more to say - I have presented only one example,
which barely scratches the surface - but I have probably said enough for
people to understand that, however wrong-headed I have been, I am not simply
some random vandal, and I have not acted out of some personal animosity, or
even thought-out agenda. I have simply wanted some information out into the
public domain. That has led me to the discovery of other matters, which I also
think properly belong in the public domain.

Never mind me. Please focus on the evidence that is being brought forth, on
Twitter and elsewhere, and use your own judgement as to whether or not it is
reasonable.

Best wishes,

Leftworks.

