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...) or is starting ArbCom proceedings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...), 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.
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.
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.
I find that the desire to balance is because one has picked a side and wants to absolve one side of consequences via showing the other side as more guilty. This is dangerous in and of itself.
This is most obvious on politically charged topics in which there is a self interested party protecting "their" POV articles. In a way groups of editors claim articles like land in an ideological war. If you read one article events have a certain portrayal but other articles beyond the established front have a different portrayal.
It's a good thing for people to know how the Wikipedia sausage is made, even if it makes Wikipedia occasionally look bad.
I know nneonneo is a Wikipedia editor. Perhaps he, or any other Wikipedia editor who reads this, would like to look into the way Philip Cross adds an unfavourable opinion by James Bloodworth, a follower of Cross on Twitter, and quoted in the dubious source HuffPost, to Diana Johnstone's Wikipedia page, and attempts to disguise the addition by calling it a (ce) = (copy edit). Perhaps nneonneo or other editor would like to add this evidence to the ArbCom submission, and request Philip Cross to explain the matter? Best wishes. Leftworks. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diana_Johnstone&d...
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 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.
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.
 An extensive online archive of Chomsky’s work can be found at http://chomsky.info
& the aforementioned noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...
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.
Sadly the aims of groups with good intent and those with bad intent sometimes coincide.
> George Galloway is not "anti-war", he's an activist for Palestine and supports Russia's involvement in Syria - he may be anti some wars but the claim of "anti-war" is at best questionable. (from Guy)
> Also on May 14, the conflict spilled over into wider media. RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and two days later Sputnik followed with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". (from KalHolmann)
So, while this comment does seem a but unjustified, it is validated by the initial requests to refer to ArbCom.
Is this how fivefilters normally conduct themselves?
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...
And what's the Lancia status inaccuracy?
Wikipedia incorrectly states that Lancia only sells in Italy (see for example http://www.lancia.fr/mopar or 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.
TBH, I haven't seen a whole lot about this beyond some mentions on HN and Reddit. I tend to ignore Wikipedia news as a rule.
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.