
Dark Side of Wikipedia - randomname2
http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia
======
gus_massa
The article presents a biased history.

Form the article:

> _And anonymous Wikipedia editors maintain a stranglehold on selected topics.
> Kohs demonstrates with the case of Morgellons. The Mayo Clinic calls it "an
> unexplained skin disorder characterized by sores." But the Wikipedia page
> dismisses Morgellons as a "delusional belief."_

From Mayo Clinic: [http://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-
disease/art-20044996?pg...](http://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-
disease/art-20044996?pg=1)

> _Morgellons disease is an uncommon, unexplained skin disorder characterized
> by sores, crawling sensations on and under the skin, and fiber-like
> filaments emerging from the sores._ [...]

> _Researchers with the Centers for Disease Control note that the signs and
> symptoms of Morgellons disease are very similar to those of a mental illness
> involving false beliefs about infestation by parasites (delusional
> parasitosis)._

From the CDC:
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029908)

> _Results: We identified 115 case-patients._ [...] _Solar elastosis was the
> most common histopathologic abnormality (51% of biopsies); skin lesions were
> most consistent with arthropod bites or chronic excoriations. No parasites
> or mycobacteria were detected. Most materials collected from participants '
> skin were composed of cellulose, likely of cotton origin._

> _Conclusions: This unexplained dermopathy was rare among this population of
> Northern California residents, but associated with significantly reduced
> health-related quality of life. No common underlying medical condition or
> infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized
> conditions such as delusional infestation._

I think the most relevant paragraph from the article is:

> _Kohs sees himself as an equalizer. His business helps clients, including
> supposed victims of unfair edits, navigate Wikipedia 's unbridled landscape.
> Wikipedia banned him for violating the policy against paid editing and when
> Kohs criticized the policy and continued under a borrowed account, Wikipedia
> editors targeted him._

~~~
tantalor
_Kohs: I see that our edit to Morgellons was reverted after about 38 minutes
or so._

Here is the revert:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morgellons&diff=n...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morgellons&diff=next&oldid=686070271)

 _Kohs: They can just go to this link and you get the abstract of the study
right there._

Okay, here it is: _Morgellons disease (MD) is a complex skin disorder
characterized by ulcerating lesions that have protruding or embedded
filaments. Many clinicians refer to this condition as delusional parasitosis
or delusional infestation and consider the filaments to be introduced textile
fibers._

[http://bmcdermatol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12895...](http://bmcdermatol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12895-015-0023-0)

The subject of this article appears to not understand the basic principle of
Synthesis or "No Original Research"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material)

------
adwn
> _Kohs: Wikipedia is often edited by people who have an agenda._

Oh, the irony... Greg Kohs offered Wikipedia editing services for paying
customers, that's why he has been blocked. Not because he's a selfless freedom
fighter who's being pushed down by _the man_.

Makes you wonder what Full Measure News' agenda is.

~~~
flormmm
I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) its OK for a company to have an employee
maintain their Wikipedia page (i.e. the employee is being paid).

What about a contractor? In other words, I'm wondering where the line is on
paid editing being a bad thing.

~~~
mikeash
It's not banned, but it's "strongly discouraged" and any such affiliation must
be disclosed:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing_strongly_discouraged)

------
DenisAyumu
This guy sounds like the kind of person who shouldn't be writing for
Wikipedia.

------
moomin
The joke is, there's a lot of problematic things on wikipedia e.g. the editor
who keeps a stranglehold on the page of his guru. This article doesn't really
address them, though, and make wikipedia look pretty reasonable.

~~~
danielweber
Same here. I have many problems with Wikipedia, but this article made me like
Wikipedia more, because they have to deal with individuals like this.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Yes, people edit Wikipedia with an agenda. It's an encyclopædia which attempts
to be objective, any edit is political.

~~~
Kristine1975
_> It's an encyclopædia which attempts to be objective_

Actually that goal flew out the window years ago. Now it's an encyclopedia
which attempts to be verifiable. And by "verifiable" I mean "verifiable by
what some editors/higher-ups deem to be reliable sources."

~~~
KON_Air
I love how "reliability" of a source changes from article to article even in
similar topics.

~~~
cooper12
Such as?

------
cooper12
Jesus, what a baby pretending to be the victim. Admins only step in when
you've been breaking rules such as by edit warring—which means refusing to
discuss changes and just redoing edits to get your way—or by constantly using
personal attacks, which surprise: the message he quotes accuses him of. This
guy has a lot of trouble understanding that when you enter someone's house,
you have to follow their rules. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't
mean "the encyclopedia anyone can add indiscriminately to", it's still an
encyclopedia. It's really funny how he accuses others of having an agenda when
he's literally being _paid_ to edit on the behalf of others.

As for the case with them tracking editors, it does sound pretty malicious on
the surface. However, any edits made without an account are tied to IP
addresses, which would easily explain that and is prominently noted when you
try editing while logged out. About the Casino employee, the only reason they
would be emailing his workplace would be because his edits are against policy.
(also only editing access is revoked, never reading) The locations of logged
in users can only accessed be accessed by admins when it is strongly suspected
you are using multiple accounts, so, again, kid crying when he's the
perpetrator. Of course the information about trusting Wikipedia bears
repeating as with all user-editable sources. [0]

I get that its cool to hate Wikipedia these days, which is why this is on the
front page, but please remember that this is a resource that all of you use
daily and yet you all get by fine with it. Yes many of its articles suck; yes
it has problems with systematic bias, paid editing, and other issues; but most
of the "controversies" you'll hear about are from disgruntled people who never
took the time to understand the community and then just run to the media to
play the victim. (And I daresay: their "fixing" of bias is actually an attempt
to introduce it) The only way Wikipedia can be made better is by the efforts
of its volunteers–that's you—so if you see something wrong, be bold [1] and
bring it up and I promise most users will take it in good faith. [2]

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith)

~~~
Kristine1975
_> The encyclopedia anyone can edit_

That's not even true in general, since Wikipedia blocks Tor and anonymizers.

 _> so if you see something wrong, be bold and bring it up and I promise most
users will take it in good faith._

Not true in my experience. Just reading the discussion pages reveals that
there are quite a few editors that consider any correction to the article as a
personal insult or an attempt at introducing lies (even when not).

Which incidentally makes the discussion pages great entertainment :-)

Edit: If you know German and have your popcorn ready, here's what happened
when "vulva" was made the German Wikipedia's Featured Article:
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Hauptseit...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Hauptseite/Vulva)
Includes a rare visit by Jimbo Wales himself!

~~~
cooper12
It blocks Tor users because of vandalism. You can however request exemption if
your account if in good standing or have an account created for you. [0]

Also this "personal attack" business you see is because Wikipedia _really_
cares about neutrality [1], doubly so for biographies of living people. [2]
You can make an edit in good faith but it doesn't mean the edit won't be
challenged; it's merely a comment on the intention of the edit. Of course
getting reverted ignites passions which leads to those "entertaining pages".

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_users_usin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_users_using_Tor)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)

