
A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign - yasp
https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/
======
4bpp
> ‘Philip Cross’ has edited @georgegalloway ‘s wikipedia page over 1800 times.

This, and many other political arguments I have seen on it before, really
makes me think that Wikipedia would benefit from a policy where a sufficient
number of individual complaints against a user who has passed some threshold
of number of edits to a single article (say 100) would be automatic grounds to
block the user from further edits to the article, regardless of fault. I
understand that this sort of obsessiveness is also an important asset to
Wikipedia (and so they are understandably reluctant to set up obstructions to
what it considers its "10x editors"), but in my eyes this pattern of personal
crusading and article ownership causes damage to its utility as a source on
any contentious topic far in excess of the damage it would suffer even in the
worst case of every single editor that has put more than 1000 edits into any
single article quitting.

~~~
unreal37
1800 edits on a single page in only a few years is essentially a sickness. I'm
not a doctor, but that should be classified as obsession.

~~~
philwelch
So, here's the Wikipedia page in question:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway)

The revision history is interesting to look through as well:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=&limit=500&action=history)

Many of Cross's revisions seem to revolve around removing unreliable sources
(such as RT and Sputnik), integrating edits such that the verbiage flows
better, and so forth. I can't find any edits that he's performed that were out
of line.

It's also not especially interesting to have a high number of edits. For
example, of Cross's most recent 50 edits, the vast majority are to a single
article (which is not the George Galloway biography):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Philip_C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Philip_Cross)

The more I look into this, the more convinced I am that the bad actor isn't
this guy, it's the Russian propaganda network who are mad that he's getting in
the way of them using Wikipedia as an outlet.

~~~
jakobegger
That’s a very generous interpretation. Usually, when you find something that
is not sufficiently well sourced, you add “citation needed” or mention it on
the talk page or something. You don’t just delete entire sections that aren’t
obvious vandalism.

~~~
philwelch
In my opinion, it's only fair to respond to hit pieces with generous
interpretations. The internet outrage machine needs more coolant, not less.

~~~
jakobegger
That is a good point.

------
JoshMnem
The Wikipedia editing process is broken. Wiki-lawyering is used to shut down
the collaborative editing process, even when not on political topics often by
people who don't know much about the topic that they are editing.

I don't trust Wikipedia content and tend to examine the Talk pages (sometimes
even the Talk page histories) on controversial articles.

~~~
noobermin
Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict
over. It is _not_ a good source for diving into a top-level controversial
topic as those articles are long and have many places for people to stump and
push for their ideas. The more specific a topic (think, a specific author
associated with an ideology vs. the page for the ideology) the better. I think
I've just adopted these mental heuristics automatically due to this.

~~~
Jasper_
> Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict
> over.

Even this isn't true. As a former contributor to the Linux desktop community,
false information about projects and codebases I had runs rampant on
Wikipedia. One Wikipedia editor with more time on his hands than any of us [0]
devotes his time to maintaining those articles, despite self-admittedly having
little topical knowledge [1]. Trying to correct these things quickly caused me
to spiral down into edit wars I wasn't that interested in winning, and tomes
of naming policy after policy.

To get something incorrect on Wikipedia, you just have to be persistent and
cast your WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:DEMOCRACY, etc. spells at the right time.
Anybody interested in correcting the record will eventually tire out and have
to go back to doing the work...

[0]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW)
[1] [https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-
devel/2013-No...](https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-
devel/2013-November/013970.html)

~~~
tptacek
If it's "rampant" on Wikipedia, you should have no trouble pointing out
examples. So, respectfully, I'd ask that to support your argument with
evidence, you do that.

I had trouble editing technical topics I was familiar with, too, and found it
incredibly aggravating. I'd write demonstrably true, helpful, factual content
about something only to have it struck for lack of sourcing.

It took awhile to get through my head the model of the project, which included
as a basic premise that I, as an editor, am not a valid source. I came to the
project knowing that, of course, but didn't realize viscerally how much of the
technical writing I do implicitly relied on my own experience and
understanding as a sort of "source".

On articles that WP'ians pay attention to, you won't get away with doing that.
You'll have to tie claims to a _secondary source_ (you usually can't just
point to source code, because then you're doing interpretation, which is a
form of original research) both for the claim itself and, sometimes, for the
noteworthiness of the claim.

The best way to metabolize this is to realize that Wikipedia isn't the
Hitchhiker's Guide; it's an encyclopedia, which means the project has
explicitly opted-in to some limitations as a tradeoff to accomplish other
things.

(Some articles also just have possessive editors; there is dysfunction
everywhere, and WP is no exception).

~~~
Jasper_
I don't remember the exact claims I tried to fight, but let's pick a random
diagram from the page I linked:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Linux_AP...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Linux_API.svg)

See if you can spot any inaccuracies. Here are a few:

1\. SDL doesn't use libevdev. It uses the kernel ioctls directly:
[http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/3a50eb90e4b2/src/core/linux/SD...](http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/3a50eb90e4b2/src/core/linux/SDL_evdev.c)

2\. Sockets, netfilter, network protocols are all listed under "everything is
a file", but notably, sockets are one of the _few_ places of the UNIX API that
_isn 't_ a file namespace! Sockets _can_ be files in the case of UNIX domain
sockets, but configuring Netfilter goes through NETLINK:
[http://man7.org/linux/man-
pages/man7/netlink.7.html](http://man7.org/linux/man-
pages/man7/netlink.7.html)

3\. Similarly, the I/O scheduler isn't a file. Admittedly, I don't have a
source for this other than the kernel source code itself.

These are nitpicks, yes, but they add up, especially considering the near-100
diagrams this guy has made and cloned all over Wikipedia. When we saw people
joining our community and asking questions, this information made them think
things were different than they were, and that was frustrating. And yes, I
used sources like these when trying to correct this misinformation.

~~~
burfog
1\. You missed a thin red line in the diagram. The diagram is not meant to
claim that SDL uses libevdev.

2\. Sockets are files. No, they don't have filenames usually, but they do have
file descriptors and even inode numbers.

3\. The diagram does not imply that the I/O scheduler is a file. The I/O
scheduler is listed as a component underlying the listed filesystems.

There are no inaccuracies. That said, the diagram is awful. It is hard to
follow (your misinterpretation being a great example) and seems to be a
cluttered and incomplete collection of parts.

~~~
Jasper_
> 1\. You missed a thin red line in the diagram. The diagram is not meant to
> claim that SDL uses libevdev.

There's an arrow pointing to "SDL input". In theory, it makes sense that
libevdev is like libDRM and libasound in being "the officially sanctioned
userspace library", but that's not the case -- evdev is much, much older than
libevdev and does a lot more than wrap the ioctls.

> 2\. Sockets are files. No, they don't have filenames usually, but they do
> have file descriptors and even inode numbers.

Lots of things have file descriptors and are not files. For instance,
eventfd(). Or timerfd(). File descriptors should probably be renamed "kernel
object handles". As for inodes, abstract UNIX sockets do not have them.
Seriously, have a program make abstract sockets (sun_path should start with
'\x00'), then call lsof. The 'inode' field will be 00000000.

~~~
burfog
There is not an arrow pointing to "SDL input". Look again. :-)

Spoiler:

There is an arrow pointing to a large red box that happens to contain libevdev
right below the arrow. To see the edge of the box, you may need to scroll
right if your browser has a narrow window.

It is a terrible diagram, but it is correct.

In UNIX terminology, anything with a file descriptor is a file. Plan 9 would
have a filename, but that is a different OS.

See the man page for stat(1) where you will find S_IFSOCK. The st_mode value
is 0140000 for a socket, which is 0xc000 in hex.

I just hacked up the program shown by "man 3 getaddrinfo" to call fstat on the
file descriptor and show the results. I get this:

    
    
        fd 3 has inode 325043100, mode 140777 0xc1ff, dev 8 rdev 0
        
    

That inode number is the one that shows as symlink content in the /proc/*/fd/
directory listing.

Clearly, it works. Sockets do have file descriptors and inode numbers. Inside
the kernel, there is even a "struct inode" for each socket.

------
notahacker
I've interacted with Philip Cross many times (UK politics Wikipedia is a very
small place) and found him perfectly reasonable and his edits usually well
justified.

Needless to say, an anonymous critic launching a campaign complete with
website and Twitter account against him for allegedly being unfair to
conspiracy-mongering figures like Craig Murray and George Galloway and
genocide denial specialist Neil Clark and too nice to two Jewish journalists
(one considerably more outspokenly pro-Israel than the other) isn't about to
change my mind...

~~~
k1m
Why don't you engage with the substance of the criticism rather than who's
made it. He's made over a hundred thousand edits on Wikipedia in almost 15
years. I'm sure some of them are well justified. We're highlighting the ones
that aren't and in which he has a serious conflict of interest.

~~~
notahacker
To be brutally honest, the fact he's made over a hundred thousand edits on
Wikipedia and the examples you choose to highlight of alleged bias include
following WP policies and removing an unsourced claim about a libel suit from
a biography underlies the fact that beyond Galloway et al moaning about it and
Murray actually suggesting he's part of a government ' “cyber-war” op aiming
to defend the “official” narrative against alternative news media', there's
not a terrible amount of substance to the criticism. I'm pretty sure _I 've_
sided against him (and many other editors) in talk page disagreements over
more substantial issues of possible bias than that. Similarly the screenshot
suggesting that despite obviously politically disagreeing with them he
apparently contributed the majority of the very fair and balanced introduction
to the MediaLens article would be a _point in his favour_ for anyone
interested in the substance of the encyclopedia rather than going down the
Murray rabbit hole . Admiring a figure is not a prerequisite for writing
articles on them.

Sure, he has political opinions and wears them on his sleeve, but that applies
to pretty much everybody else involved in political Wikipedia.

~~~
k1m
_Admiring a figure is not a prerequisite for writing articles on them... Sure,
he has political opinions and wears them on his sleeve, but that applies to
pretty much everybody else involved in political Wikipedia._

Who said you have to admire them? He's openly hostile toward them and taunts
them on Twitter. Then makes blatantly unfair edits as we've shown. Remember,
we're not talking about posting your political views on your blog. This is
supposed to be an encyclopedia.

~~~
notahacker
I'm pretty sure the set of people who (i) know about and (ii) are neutrally
disposed towards most of the political figures highlighted here is an empty
one (maybe one can feel neutral towards Kamm, whose foreign policy views in
the early 2000s were very wrong but I've never felt to have behaved in a
particularly loathsome manner). And it's perfectly possible to contribute in a
dispassionate manner about people and organizations you fundamentally dislike,
as funnily enough the diff of the MediaLens article linked in the OP appears
to offer evidence for...

Traditionally, Wikipedia's approach to "unfair edits" is to make a case for
their reverting on the talk page, not to offer rewards for doxxing the
responsible editors, launch campaign websites against them and blog about how
it's likely he's part of '"cyber-war” ops aiming to defend the “official”
narrative against alternative news media' and Jimmy Wales is implicated too...

(I'm not exaggerating: here's Craig Murray's take on the same thing.
[https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-
philip-c...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-
affair/) I could insinuate that "fivefilters" must surely be part of some
shadowy organization coordinating to release information hostile to Philip
Cross, but I live in the real world where sometimes people have common
political views and wish to share their take on things they read online...)

~~~
k1m
I'm really not sure where you're going with all this.

We haven't offered rewards for doxxing anyone. We've written an article
highlighting a problem with a particular editor's behaviour on Wikipedia where
he has a conflict of interest and Wikipedia is refusing to act. You seem to be
talking about anything and everything except this.

~~~
notahacker
George Galloway offered the reward, according to RT in the article posted
above (and various other sources generally supportive of Galloway). That's...
not usual behaviour.

And as I pointed out above, having a negative opinion of a subject is not a
"conflict of interest", and several of the diffs, of literally thousands you
could have chosen, are entirely unobjectionable. I even pointed out one above
was actually removing something editors are _required_ to remove according to
Wikipedia policy. I'd expect the ratio to look rather different if he was a
disruptive or agenda-driven editor, as opposed to one whose choice of
commentary to include I don't always agree with. If the real interest was in
the edits as opposed to promoting conspiracy theories about Wikipedia
colluding with conflicted editors to damage the good name of Messrs Murray and
Galloway, presumably people would be devoting their time to reasoned
explanations of why X is important or Y is irrelevant in talk page discussions
on article wording rather than inviting people to astroturf HN as part of
their #ditchwikipedia campaign instead...
[https://twitter.com/newsyc50/status/997927206167941120](https://twitter.com/newsyc50/status/997927206167941120)

~~~
k1m
_George Galloway offered the reward_

Well, we're not George Galloway.

 _If the real interest was in the edits as opposed to promoting conspiracy
theories about Wikipedia colluding with conflicted editors to damage the good
name of Messrs Murray and Galloway, presumably people would be devoting their
time to reasoned explanations of why X is important or Y is irrelevant in talk
page discussions on article wording_

I'll just repeat what I said in another comment here:

What it seems you're suggesting is that those unfairly targeted on Wikipedia,
as Cross is doing, should learn the labyrinthine processes Wikipedia expects
to correct their entries. And then presumably to put in the same amount of
time Cross is putting in (hours and hours on weekdays and weekends) to monitor
their pages for more abuses from him.

Should we not be more concerned about blocking those who are clearly in the
wrong here?

~~~
nneonneo
If there's an editorial dispute, please solve it in an editorial manner.
Editors opposing Cross on Wikipedia have shown prior bad-faith activity. For
example, User:Leftworks1 created over a dozen sockpuppets
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investiga...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leftworks1/Archive))
to push their viewpoint, only to get smacked by several editors including
Cross repeatedly.

If there's a real editorial dispute - if anyone wanting to "correct" the bias
on the articles is actively doing that, with reputable sources, and getting
smacked down, then you can bring that to dispute resolution
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution))
and come to consensus. But yelling about Wikipedia being broken or unfairly
targeting people is just bunk until you've worked through the process.

In case you think this is me telling you to submit to the bureaucracy - that's
exactly what I'm suggesting. If you have a dispute in the real world, you
would go to the courts and use the legal system, not just yell about it
endlessly to passersby.

~~~
k1m
You might want to read Leftworks' response to you here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162387](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162387)

You have much more faith in the Wikipedia process than I do. Please read our
update which highlights how a certain admin has tried to shut down debate
around this from the beginning:
[http://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html](http://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html)

It's only finally now being debated thanks to lots of people "yelling" about
it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#George_Galloway)

------
roywiggins
"Anti-war" doesn't sound like a particularly descriptive adjective for the
apparent targets here. They are not anti-war campaigners per se, they seem to
be sitting in the Russia-sympathetic zone of discourse. I'm not saying that to
discredit them (I might, but I won't), but calling them anti-war rather
obscures the problems people might have with them.

That doesn't mean that a "one-man" effort to shepherd their Wikipedia entries
isn't notable or concerning but let's not pretend these guys are pacifists.

~~~
alexandercrohde
I'm not sure if whether it's Russia has anything to do with it. The point is
that objective truth requires moving above tribalist mentality, clearly cross
failed to do that. Dragging Russia into this is also failing to rise above
tribalist mentality.

~~~
wybiral
The fact that this "article" was published on a site that appears to have no
other purpose other than advertising some RSS tool and who has a Twitter
account that seems to be almost entirely dedicated to pushing this one story
is an objective truth.

Their other Twitter activity is mostly from an anti-western perspective with a
lot of pro-Assad, pro-Iran, pro-Wikileaks, pro-Corbyn, and a handful of
straight pro-Putin messages. I'm not giving an opinion, just stating the
objective truth (I can link exact Tweets if you'd like).

This article also mirrors pieces being shared predominately on pro-Putin
outlets like Sputnik and RT.

So the fact that some of the targets in this seem to be pro-Russia isn't
entirely a non-point when trying to evaluate the full picture of this
situation and the motivation of the different parties involved.

~~~
alexandercrohde
The question at hand is whether Cross is editing wikipedia beneficially. You
instead focus on the political views of the website that published this piece,
which is irrelevant, and also creates a distracting us/them mentality. None of
which has any bearing on whether Cross is editing wikipedia beneficially.

If you think the piece is unfairly critical, then dispute the facts of the
case (the merits of the edits he made) rather than the character of the
speaker.

~~~
wybiral
I think the editor may have been trolling these people, yes, and the people
offended should escalate the issue. But so far that's been Wikipedia's
response so I don't see any wrong-doing from their behalf. Just from one
editor.

But instead of going through the proper channels and attempting to resolve
this within the Wikipedia protocols these people seem to be launching a
campaign against Wikipedia which, in my opinion, borders on propaganda.

Some of the debate here was also over a subjective accusation that the targets
were "anti-war" when in reality the commonality seemed to have been pro-Putin.
That distinction also stinks of propaganda. Again, just my opinion.

------
brudgers
In the early 1990's, I picked up a complete with the bookcase 1957
_Encyclopedia Britannica_ at a yard sale for $15. Over the next decade and
more it was a useful resource for historical topics in the days before the
internet became what it is today...the basic scholarship of the Roman Empire,
Ming vases and Howe trusses has been pretty stable for a long time. On the
other hand, social and political topics usually tended to an editorial bias
long past expiration even twenty years ago...let's say the phrase "spinning in
his grave" is particularly appropriate for many of those _Britannica_ authors
and editors given today's events when "today" is taken literally.

Wikipedia is like any other encyclopedia, human endeavor with shortcomings,
biases, and failings. It should be taken with a grain of salt where warranted,
trusted as canonical elsewhere, and constitute one among many sources in other
cases. For me, at least there is the relatively high degree of transparency
that allows people to independently research the claims of this article
theirself should they choose. That's not the case with Google's search results
and those probably have more a role in my ordinary decisions than Wikipedia.

None of which is to say that this is good. Only that for me, it is a corner
case...contemporary politics is an area of Wikipedia where I expect political
gerrymandering and biased reporting simply due to the size of the attack
surface, the nature of politics and the stakes at stake.

------
Idontknowmyuser
I'm not that involved in wikipedia, but I do recall his name. It came up
during a discussion on reddit about aljazeera documentary "the lobby"[1]. He
was accused of actively censoring any mention of the incident from the "Israel
lobby in the United Kingdom"[2] wikipedia page.

[1]
[https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/thelobby/](https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/thelobby/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom)

------
whack
This is extremely concerning. Phillip Cross was easily caught because he was
running his mouth on twitter, and was blatantly making one-sided edits from
his single account. Imagine if a country like Russia makes an orchestrated
effort to achieve similar goals, using an army of fake-wikipedia-profiles.
They could easily turn Wikipedia into a platform for disseminating propaganda.
In fact, I'd be surprised if they haven't done so already.

[https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020974/mueller-indictment-
in...](https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020974/mueller-indictment-internet-
research-agency)

~~~
k1m
Wikipedia, however, appear to be trying to protect him. Please see one
Wikipedia editor's efforts to flag his behaviour:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KalHolmann)

~~~
tptacek
Exactly what is it we're supposed to be looking at here? And what does
"Wikipedia", as an entity, mean in your comment?

~~~
noobermin
The relevant bit is the last two comments by KalHolmann. Attempts to discuss
Cross' behavior in the relevant, public boards were closed within minutes of
each posting with unsatisfactory explanations. See [0] for example.

Not a wikipedian, but from my nerdish poking around and learning about how
wikipedia works, it was my impression that these boards are supposed to be
public forums to openly discuss issues, in line with its spirit of open
collaboration. The fact that editors closed it immediately is evidence that,
as KalHolmann says, there is circling of wagons going on.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Philip_Cross)

~~~
tptacek
I see an admin with no apparent connection to this subject[0]:

(1) instructing KalHolmann not to canvass (this is one of WP's older rules and
comes up all the time in AfD, where people will canvass WP and Twitter to get
votes to keep marginal articles)

(2) backing out KalHolmann's canvassing comments

(3) responding to KalHolmann's question about where to direct his concern by
telling him to take it to ANI

(4) advising against him taking it to the "COI Noticeboard" (I'm not sure I
know what that even is but I guess I can guess and I'm not surprised it
exists)

(5) after KalHolmann takes it there anyways and complains about the outcome,
telling him again to take it to ANI.

None of this seems bad to me; it seems like a WP admin going out of their way
to be helpful (in a WP'ian sort of way) and getting slagged for it on HN.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contribut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/NeilN&offset=&limit=500&target=NeilN)

~~~
k1m
You misssed the fact that he took it to ANI and was shut down there too very
quickly. Frustrated with the fact that no attempt was made to deal with the
matter, he, quite sensibly, concludes that it appears they are trying to
protect Cross.

I should also add that the people targeted by Cross all have a fairly large
audiences on Twitter, and have been vocal about this issue. Jimmy Wales is
aware (he's tweeted to them, as I say in another comment, but to dismiss the
matter). I, too, would conclude they were trying to protect him if I was met
with that kind of response.

~~~
tptacek
Who is "they" and why is it sensible that they're "protecting" some random WP
admin?

What seems more likely to me is that people have very legitimate concerns
about Cross's POV, but aren't following WP norms in raising those concerns,
and are getting shut down as a result. That's an expected outcome, not a sign
of something nefarious happening.

~~~
mjw1007
That's certainly the sort of thing that can happen, but as far as I can tell
the COIN report was within Wikipedia norms, and closing the report two minutes
later with "Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not
the other way around." was not.

(Unless "don't criticise a top-1000 user" counts as a Wikipedia norm, I
suppose.)

I disbelieve that that the admin in question is both a neutral arbiter and
capable of determining within two minutes that Cross is not an "avowed rival"
of Galloway (see WP:BLPCOI), particularly given the "And being attacked by RT
and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing
something right" bit on his talk page.

[The relevant part of BLPCOI is:

« Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute
with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of
that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material
about that person » ]

~~~
tptacek
A biased point of view isn't a conflict of interest. See:

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

We all have biases. But we have _conflicts_ when we have direct relationships
with topics.

Similarly: _edits_ are supposed to have NPOV. But _editors_ almost always have
a POV.

~~~
barrkel
Is truth defined by perseverance?

~~~
tptacek
No?

------
crazydoggers
Please hacker news... use your skeptical nature and research inclination to
understand where this junk is coming from. This is a propaganda outfit.

I have a suspicion HN is getting played here... upvotes and downvotes seem
suspicious on these comments.

Some info on who Media Lens and FiveFilters are...

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/fuller](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/fuller)

~~~
PrimHelios
I mean, you can actually see the edits the guy makes.

Why would FiveFilters falsely defend Media Lens - a conservative organization
- while attacking a wiki editor who is extremely pro-war? Your argument really
only makes sense if the editor is liberal and attacking Media Lens and
FiveFilters.

~~~
crazydoggers
Their issue with the editor is that he cares about sources... so whenever
these anti media outfits want to post unsubstantial claims in Wikipedia, he
has a problem with that (as he should).

This is propaganda war at its finest. Make it look like conservatives and
liberals agree with your points... then gloss over actual facts with hand
waving. Most people won’t dig deep enough to find out the truth. These guys
just want to control the narrative and generate public opinion that we should
doubt our journalistic institutions.

And if we stop caring about journalism and hard facts and the importance of
sources, then our democracy is going to have real issues.

Their ties with Russian propaganda outfits should also be troubling. Do a
little googling and you’ll see a host of pro Russian conspiracy stuff from
these “agencies”.

------
bijection
Why is FiveFilters taking such interest in this particular anonymous Wikipedia
editor? This doesn't look like simply an honest piece of investigative
journalism, given how far FiveFilters seems to be going to promote this story
([https://twitter.com/fivefilters/](https://twitter.com/fivefilters/)).

Why doesn't the article disclose the relationship between FiveFilters and
Media Lens? The FiveFilters blog
([http://blog.fivefilters.org/](http://blog.fivefilters.org/)) mentions Media
Lens three times (they've built tools for viewing Media Lens articles) and
explicitly thanks Media Lens for making their content go viral.

There's a lot that doesn't quite add up.

~~~
k1m
We're a huge fan of Media Lens. They do great work. But we're not Wikipedia.
We don't need to live up to the standards they set themselves. We don't run an
encyclopedia that pretends to be neutral.

~~~
crazydoggers
By huge fan you mean “are”. (Look at parents posts)

How did this garbage get on Wikipedia? Fivefilters and MediaLens are part of
the whole anti media propaganda outfits.

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/fuller](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/fuller)

~~~
k1m
No, we are not Media Lens.

------
lkrubner
This part:

“ _We pulled in the dates from his user contributions page and found that
Cross had not had a single day off from editing the site in almost 5 years!_ ”

Makes me think that this is an account shared by many people. Since we don’t
know who this person is, there is a chance that this person is really a whole
organization.

~~~
jpatokal
There are a _lot_ of obsessive people on Wikipedia. Back in the days when I
was an active editor, I was regularly embroiled in edit wars with somebody who
had odd but _extremely_ firm opinions about the romanization of Okinawan (not
a political topic even in Japan) and what appeared to be 24/7 ability to
enforce them. I suspect quite a few of those shut-in "hikikomori" types are
top Wikipedia editors...

All that said, checking the manual of style in question today, I'm positively
surprised to see the weirdness is gone. This is a strength of Wikipedia: over
time entropy of opinion tends to decrease, even though it may take years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-
related_articles)

~~~
hackandtrip
Is it good, though? I'm all about reducing entropy about facts, but what about
opinion or more delicate subject? The power on propaganda, on making a new
truth, is so big.

------
rectang
Cross's modus operandi seems to be many small edits which accumulate to
produce a large negative effect, at odds with Wikipedia's principle of
"neutral point of view". It's an example of operating within the letter of the
rules but not their spirit.

~~~
unreal37
I bet that if you changed 1 word per day on a page, after 2 or 3 years, you've
successfully modified the tone of an article that cannot be easily reverted.

------
wybiral
"ditch Wikipedia" seems a bit melodramatic.

Nobody should rely on Wikipedia as the sole source of any information, but it
can be a useful starting point and usually has enough references to back it
up.

People need to be more careful about examining the source of claims in
general. Including what is shared with them on social media, YouTube videos,
news articles, etc. But that doesn't mean those mediums are no longer useful.

~~~
reccanti
If anything, it seems like more of a reason to get more active and involved
with Wikipedia. Otherwise, people like this will get more and more control
over the site

------
jarym
Next time Jimmy pesters me for a donation I'll be contacting him and citing
this as a reason why I won't.

~~~
TwoBit
Why don't we start a big "don't contribute to Wikipedia campaign". Can we
start one of those "fund me" campaigns and use the proceeds to battle this?

~~~
Qwertie
Do you have a proposal for an alternative place to contribute to?

------
yasp
See also: [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-
philip-c...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-
affair)

------
throwaway_98554
Judging by the time card, I would bet _multiple_ individuals are using this
account. And they're probably getting paid to do it.

~~~
bhouston
Many wikipedians are obsessive types. Also why would multiple people pretend
to be one. Groups are more effective than individuals on Wikipedia.

~~~
throwaway_98554
Because many people would get upset if "my-political-party" was hiring team of
editors to change the wiki articles.

And if they are indeed getting paid, the organisation might have an important
turnover. By using a single account (or multiple shared accounts; I doubt
there's only one), you keep the 'prestige' you have built.

Your 1 week old new recruit can edit texts left and right while most people
think it's a legit old wikipedians tidying stuff up.

------
Kim_Bruning
This appears to be a bit longer running:
[https://sputniknews.com/amp/analysis/201805161064505256-cros...](https://sputniknews.com/amp/analysis/201805161064505256-cross-
galloway-wikipedia-obsession/)

(note: Sputnik news seems to be associated with the Russian government).

------
cyphar
My experience with Wikipedia's editing is that there doesn't seem to be any
unified concept of editors should act, nor does there appear to be any type of
non-reactive review process for changes. While I think that Wikipedia's
"anyone can edit" mantra sounds very nice it results in people changing
articles out of their personal interest, and nobody notices for a long time.

For instance, I recently discovered that the article on Comodo[1] didn't
mention any of their controversies (something that is quite important given
their history and significance). After I mentioned this there was an edit war
and the controversies were eventually restored, but it definitely worries me
that a single contributor removed a large portion of an article without any
checks in place (the edit description was just that "controversies are not
encyclopedic" \-- whatever that is supposed to mean).

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

------
hapnin
Early on, I tried to join in the Wikipedia community. After a couple of years
of on-again, off-again BS on the part of those with admin powers, I bailed.

Wikipedia is like a weird cult of powermad accountants.

------
tomtimtall
Wikipedia should maintain 3 separate threads for all these polarizing
individuals and organizations. Obliviously biased for, obviously biased
against, and the the idealt neutral statement of facts(with no facts
removerførsel because they play negative or positive, they can be dismissed or
remover In the biased sections only.

~~~
dredmorbius
There is frequently a "Controversies" section. Also the Talk page and revision
history.

------
infinity1
This article makes me sad. Sad it has so many upvotes for a blatant piece of
manipulative propaganda. Sad that hn has been the bated. For those that don’t
follow British politics, these politicians are oddly pro Russian. I would like
to see the reverse analysis, of pro Russian trolls’ edits on Wikipedia.

~~~
TheForumTroll
What has pro-russian to do with anything? Even if they are or were Nazi
sympathizers that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is being gamed by
someone with an agenda. 1700+ days of edits without pause? It is clearly a
group behind that account.

------
mistrial9
regarding general participation in English Wikipedia -- the last three or four
edits I made to Wikipedia articles I found interesting, were summarily
reverted. Why try ?

~~~
jakobegger
Same here. I realised that many articles are watched over by obsessive editors
that immediately revert edits for whatever reason. Makes it hard for
occasional editors and newcomers.

------
unreal37
As someone who's regularly donated to Wikipedia every year, this is
concerting.

I can't trust Wikipedia. I'm shocked actually.

~~~
throwaway59928
Actually you can’t trust this article. It’s an anonymous attack piece by an
apparently pro-Russian person or group.

~~~
scrumption
Thank you for your deep insight, detailed analysis and surfeit of evidence,
Mr. Throwaway Account, sir!

------
zero_intp
seems like a fairly obvious ops campaign by some interested group. I would
think that many state organizations would want long term reputable editors to
craft their messages.

------
justonepost
Yes, it just means it is working. There are a lot of anti-war people on
Wikipedia. I am personally very very anti war, a pacifist even. But I
appreciate the intellectual integrity of being challenged.

When I was first challenged with the arcane rules of Wikipedia I was a little
frustrated. But then I realized I could just learn those arcane rules and use
them myself. After that it was amazing how many of my edits were able to get
through.

~~~
cooper12
Let's stop pretending any of these rules are "arcane". Go to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page).
Right there in the sidebar in plain view, the first option is "Help":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents).
Everything you need to know to edit is there. You can also just Google
"Wikipedia how to edit" and plenty of hits will come up. It's not hard at all.
You sound no better than someone who bitches about some open source project
when they didn't even do basic due diligence and RTFM.

~~~
yongjik
How can it be considered _not_ arcane when it contains gems like "Wikipedia:Be
bold" _and_ "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point".

In other words, when I'm skirting a rule, I'm "being bold". When you claim
your edit did not violate some rule any more than my edit did, you're
"disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point".

If these issues are resolved by reasonable folks, it may still work, but
Wikipedia is not a democracy and issues are frequently not resolved by
reasonable folks.

~~~
cooper12
What is nuance and actually reading what these titles say? It's all written
out for you and there's no contradiction. Also, no one actually uses the
disrupt point like that.

~~~
hexane360
>It's all written out for you

>no one actually uses the disrupt point like that.

You're using institutional knowledge here, not something that's obvious
straight from the text. This is exactly the point GP is making.

~~~
cooper12
Nope, I'm saying they fabricated their own scenario that none of the
documentation actually backs up. Maybe you should read it too.

------
trynumber9
I've been conducting a similar campaign, on WikiWikiWeb, against anyone that
maligns functional programming. No one seems to mind though.

~~~
Barrin92
well you have the advantage of being on the right side of history on this one

------
wybiral
It's weird to see articles like this without a publish date or author
attributed to them.

~~~
megous
It's not just article. It's specifically created anonymous website just for
this single page on top of nearlyfreespeech.net.

------
varjag
On one hand, some shady Wikipedia vigilante. On the other, a bunch of Russia-
backed war crime deniers. Quite a moral dilemma!

~~~
dredmorbius
Sorry, could you unpack and clarify that?

~~~
varjag
From the fine article:

> Tim Hayward is one of the group of academics (his colleague Paul McKeigue is
> another) who set up the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media – or if
> you prefer the Times description, Apologists for Assad. The group’s
> questioning over whether it could be definitively concluded that the Syrian
> regime was responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack last month (they have
> also queried the Novichok attack of the Skripals) is apparently what
> provoked their pillorying in the Thunderer.

> The RT piece opens with: A mystery online figure called Philip Cross is
> targeting anti-war and non-mainstream UK figures by prolifically editing
> their Wikipedia pages – to the point that George Galloway is offering a
> reward to see him unmasked.

------
EdiX
Behavior like this is very prevalent in gamergate-adjacent wikipedia pages.
For example the OAPI page [1] claims that OAPI is a non-profit organization
and any attempts at amending it to clarify that it's not incorporated, only
exists as a wordpress blog and hasn't done anything in 3 years (including
updating said blog), gets reverted.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Abuse_Prevention_Initia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Abuse_Prevention_Initiative)

------
emodendroket
This stuff is happening everywhere on Wikipedia, sometimes obviously, and
sometimes with more subtlety.

------
mirimir
I don't trust Wikipedia for anything political. I mainly rely on it for purely
factual stuff. Basic geographical information, for example. I look at
technical stuff, but only as an introduction.

------
amiga-workbench
There was a similar pattern of behaviour with articles concerning Gamergate,
Wikipedia's rules regarding first hand sources meant that only the slanted
reporting of journalists who had a lot to lose in the exchange could be
referenced as a source.

The information up there now is a less than complete picture.

------
nneonneo
I'll preface this with noting that I did my own research into both sides prior
to writing this. I don't have a horse in this race one way or another.

Something is not right here. This is not the first attempt to discredit a
major organization - fivefilters previously ran a campaign against The
Guardian
([http://theguardian.fivefilters.org/](http://theguardian.fivefilters.org/)),
with much the same kind of conspiratorial tone that I detect in the page on
Wikipedia. The fivefilters folks seem to be surprised that this user is
spending so much time editing their favorite articles.

The articles in question have had quite a history of "interesting" editors pop
by. Look for example at the page on Oliver Kamm. The fivefilters folks allege
that Philip Cross is suppressing information about a pending court case. The
edit history
([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&offse...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&offset=&limit=500&action=history))
shows something much different:

\- 05/01, 86.63.4.158 adds some information about this "court case", which is
really just a crowdfunding request for pending legal action (sourced to a
blog). This user gets reverted several times by Cross for adding poorly
sourced material.

\- 05/01, User:Leftworks1 re-adds it, and gets into a revert war with Cross,
User:ScrapIronIV, and User:Cullen328 (all of whom are reverting the poorly
sourced stuff). This user has only ever edited the Kamm article.

\- 05/02, several IP address editors, in quick succession, attempt to re-add
that section. Three established editors revert. Protection is added to prevent
anonymous users from editing.

\- 05/04, protection expires and a pile of anonymous IPs start to add the
material again. Total of 12+ attempts.

\- 05/07, Leftworks1 comes back and attempts to add the court case material
again. Protection is added back.

\- 05/09, the article is edited several times by User:Ubli9917, User:Ubli4351,
User:Ther7514, User:Ifit8488, all of which are accounts created 05/05, who
have made exactly 10 edits to unrelated accounts (to gain autoconfirmation),
and who then promptly tried to add the court case to the Kamm article.

So what this reveals is that a number of _sockpuppet accounts_ , anonymous
IPs, and such have been trying to push unsourced crap through onto Wikipedia,
and Philip Cross (and others) have been trying to get it removed. This gets
played out on other pages, too. Just look at this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investiga...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leftworks1/Archive)

While Philip Cross might have a certain bias in his choice of articles, I
can't help but view this particular fivefilters article as a very biased
attack on an established editor who happened to step on some toes. His
Wikipedia opponents, apparently tired of fighting him with sockpuppets and
normal edit procedures, have taken to an external medium to decry him.
Wikipedia has many layers of dispute resolution, but other than an AN/I
posting by a largely uninvolved user, the aggrieved opponents of Philip Cross
appear not to have attempted any form of real dispute resolution. Until they
provide evidence that they have attempted to work within Wikipedia to solve
their editorial dispute, I would not pay this fivefilters article any heed.

------
Grue3
> RT piece

> Sputnik

Pretty much discredits the entire article.

------
chris_wot
It’s interesting, I edited the Salim Mehajer article and provided extensive
citations, yet I got banned. This guy makes thousands of edits and continues
with impunity? Wikipedia is rotten.

------
hollander
So would this mean Encyclopedia Brittanica becomes relevant again?

------
CharlesMerriam2
We used to moderate supports of the Wiki Foundation (4 figures a year) and
dropped in recent years. It does seem rudderless.

------
some_random
This is hardly the only problem with Wikipedia, the assumed infallibility of
sources is one I've run into several times before.

I've seen some pretty bad faith editors justify their edits by dumping piles
of sources that were flat out wrong or using suspect sources to push some sort
of political bias.

Not to mention editors adding crappy sources in good faith, or the classic
xkcd citogenesis phenomenon.

[https://xkcd.com/978/](https://xkcd.com/978/)

------
maboo
here is the editor's wikipedia page: [https://everipedia.org/wiki/philip-
cross-wikipedian/](https://everipedia.org/wiki/philip-cross-wikipedian/)

------
pulse7
Maybe these editor(s) are paid Public Relations of some "war investors".

------
sqldba
This is why I never donate to Wikipedia when they beg for money. That
organisation has long been rotten from the top down.

~~~
varjag
Can stop visiting them too, to complete your climb to the moral high ground.

------
paulpauper
Okay what about editors with a left-wing agenda/bias and who abuse their
powers. I'm sure there are some within the top 300.

~~~
pessimizer
You should find them, and write articles about them, rather than just assuming
they exist.

------
Swissindo
Id.wikipedia.org Thank you

------
always_good
My friends and I had a shameful game in uni where we competed to see who could
make the most egregious edits to wikipedia without getting reverted.

What was surprising was just how easy it was. We started with minor edits in
small articles, just adding our own name to some list of notable achievers.

Then, due to competition, we would add an entire paragraph that fabricated an
event. Like adding ourself as a conquistador of some made-up novohispano
population in some made-up location.

Imagine how compromised wikipedia must be by people with agendas more lofty
than uni students passing some time.

Hell, just the other day I removed "See Also: Donald Trump" from one of the
major fallacy articles. The history showed that the scathing political
commentary was up there for over 8 months and nobody cared.

~~~
smsm42
It is easy to mess up public places. You can spit on the floor in a bus, throw
trash on a street, vandalize Wikipedia. Or you can clean the trash and help
Wikipedia. The choice is yours. There's no mystical powers coming in and
cleaning up after you - just you and people exactly like you. So before
complaining "nobody cared" ask yourself - how did I help? What did I do to
expect others to clean up after me and feel entitled offense if they did not?
Maybe if you and your friends helped instead of messing it up, there would be
less need for somebody else to do it.

~~~
abugher
You have a choice. You can engage in conversation with peers as if you might
want to understand the reasons for their actions. Or you can preach at them
and blame them as individuals for system problems.

~~~
gnud
Those individuals, and a few thousand more like them, _are_ the system
problem.

~~~
komali2
And the way I see it the only way around it is cultural indoctrination.

It doesn't have to be a negative concept. It can be as simple as picking up a
can as you walk by it on the street, and otherwise having a completely normal
life. People with you can then see "huh, I can contribute just a little bit,
feel good about it, without going full hippie high-viz jacket and tongs with a
trash bag every weekend."

~~~
smsm42
Yes. Small things help. Or at least not making it worse. One doesn't have to
be a Greenpeace activist to not throw trash on the street, normal everyday
behavior would be enough in this case. If only all other societal problems
were so easy to solve!

------
gaius
We could have had the Encyclopedia Britannica still. But the people voted with
their wallets and now we have... this.

~~~
JdeBP
We do still have the Britannica.

* [https://www.britannica.com/new-articles](https://www.britannica.com/new-articles)

------
joering2
Wikipedia been disappointing for a while. I had few years run when every year
I got Jimmy email, I did donated $10 cause they gave me tons of info. Just
recent year or so, every single article is locked for edition and by different
reason (which really doesn't matter). After spending some time you clearly see
"clans" of wiki editors fighting with others, removing their content and
clearly having agenda, whether it is to continue discredit some individuals,
or keep others record unfairly "clean".

Here are all the locks they use as pretex to forbid you from adding your own
content, aka supposedly "wikipedia is build by anyone willing to donate their
time".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#fu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#full)

~~~
cooper12
It's not hard at all to be able to edit these articles once you make an
account and takes a bare minimum of effort. See one of my earlier comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16582767](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16582767)

------
nwah1
I'm confused as to why this is newsworthy? Are we operating on the assumption
that the 303 more prolific wikipedians are somehow all without a personal
ideology?

If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information
he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be
to petition to change wikipedia's rules.

~~~
k1m
There's a clear conflict of interest which Wikipedia is refusing to act on.

~~~
noobermin
I feel like we're missing the context here. Why is wikipedia ignoring it?

~~~
mjw1007
The admin who summarily closed the conflict-of-interest report explains his
motivation as follows:

« You can't amass 130,000 edits, as Philip Cross has, without being reasonably
committed to Wikipedia. You'd be noticed if you were an agenda account with
that many edits. And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably
reliable indicator that you are doing something right. »

(
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG)
)

This doesn't inspire much confidence in me, because obviously it _has_ been
widely noticed that "Philip Cross" is an agenda account (and it seems it was
noticed already almost a decade ago:
[http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-
phil...](http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-philip-
cross.html) )

~~~
bscphil
>And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable
indicator that you are doing something right

That is an absolutely astonishing statement and IMO something you should
immediately lose admin privileges for making. I have no love for RT or for
Syria sympathizers, but to defend someone's edits on the mere basis that they
are opposed by those groups is completely unacceptable.

