YSK There’s someone running around Lemmy posting misinformation against Wikipedia
YSK There’s someone running around Lemmy posting misinformation against Wikipedia
He generally shows most of the signs of the misinformation accounts:
- Wants to repeatedly tell basically the same narrative and nothing else
- Narrative is fundamentally false
- Not interested in any kind of conversation or in learning that what he’s posting is backwards from the values he claims to profess
I also suspect that it’s not a coincidence that this is happening just as the Elon Musks of the world are ramping up attacks on Wikipedia, specially because it is a force for truth in the world that’s less corruptible than a lot of the others, and tends to fight back legally if someone tries to interfere with the free speech or safety of its editors.
Anyway, YSK. I reported him as misinformation, but who knows if that will lead to any result.
Edit: Number of people real salty that I’m talking about this: Lots
You're viewing a single thread.
On the contrary, seems like a lot of disinformation accounts are trying to elevate Wikipedia as a credible source. Seems to be coming from the same people pushing pro-western narratives. Which isn’t surprising, as western governments have been caught funding mass editing to promote western narratives.
https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-state-sponsored-disinformation/
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the effort to elevate Wikipedia as “credible” has been ramped up during this genocide. The Zionists teach classes to their people on how to manipulate the site for their narrative.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups
On the contrary, seems like a lot of disinformation accounts are trying to elevate Wikipedia as a credible source. Seems to be coming from the same people pushing pro-western narratives. Which isn’t surprising, as western governments have been caught funding mass editing to promote western narratives.
https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-state-sponsored-disinformation/
I think you should read the article you linked to, and then reread the way that you summarized what’s in it, maybe make some edits.
I know how you’d like it to be interpreted, based on your original post. But anyone with a smidge of media literacy would see this article is pointing out Wikipedia has poured efforts into bolstering western narratives, specifically against China and Russia, and to promote pro-NATO narratives. But based on your post history, I don’t expect you mind that slant.
Here’s what Wired had to say when they weren’t quoting a Koch foundation funded study: https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-tracker/
And just like that, I had an attack of perspective. Why am I in this conversation? Everyone watching seems to understand that you're changing your story and talking nonsense, so it seems unnecessary for me to say anything else for their sake. And it seems highly unlikely that, on your side, you're going to suddenly come to some kind of realization along the lines of, "You know what? Reality does have an anti-Putin bias, and quite a strong one, so it makes perfect sense that a source that made an attempt at publishing objective truth would be against Russia in terms of the 'bias' of a lot of the facts that it publishes. As well as being against Israel, NATO, or 'the West' in general, when those governments in turn do terrible things. I think I should spend less time carrying water for genocidal maniacs who happen to wear the right color hat, and start being reasonable."
So I hope your talking points go really well. You've said that Wikipedia is terrible. Well done! Mission accomplished. Feel free to continue, I won't stop you.
Edit: Changed to "anti-Putin," I have no problem with Russia or Russians, just their government.
It’s not the anti-Russia slant that concerns me. It’s the pro-Ukraine/pro-NATO angle.
Good rule of thumb: if you’re having trouble figuring out who’s the bad guys, it’s the side with Nazi symbols on their uniforms.
Please keep putting "Ukraine are the bad guys" stuff right next to "Wikipedia are the bad guys" stuff. I promise, it's totally accomplishing the mission and convincing everyone, and not at all a powerful living example of why maintaining free flow of information is an important thing, and no one particular government's perspective can be trusted to define the "correct" type of narrative and media literacy. You're killing it.
Sure. I’ll keep going.
Armies with Nazi symbols on their uniforms are the bad guys. Military alliances committing genocide are the bad guys. Common sense, right?
Philip would like everyone reading to believe that these organizations controlling what is permitted to stand as “truth” on Wikipedia is a good thing.
ETA: Keep the downvotes coming. When you’re flooding ‘Nazis bad’ and ‘genocide bad’ comments with downvotes, it reveals your manipulations for everyone to see. People need to know the narrative control is happening on Lemmy, too.
And this effort to drown it out helps people identify which accounts & communities are laundering this disinformation.
Weird how you can just look at the source and references in a wikipedia article to do your own research while articles like this are just "trust me bro it's all a conspiracy"
So to clarify, you do not believe intelligence agencies are manipulating Wikipedia?
Which wikipedia article? Check the references of that article. That's your answer.
Except the intelligence orgs and think tanks are also making up the source information. That’s how it works. They make up the initial info, launder it through a source, coordinate with the media to reference that source, get their editors to use the laundered info as a source in their wiki edits, etc. It’s a self-referential and self re-enforcing disinformation scheme. And it’s why western governments are working hard to ban opposition media outlets, deplatform anti-imperialist public figures, and ban/censor social media that allows anti-imperialist messaging through that challenges their narrative.
You should read up on “manufacturing consent.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media
You should read up on “manufacturing consent.”
https://ponder.cat/post/962017/1196897
I realize you weren't talking to me, but trying to pretend the people you are talking with aren't familiar with propaganda systems, or trying to cite Chomsky as to why we need to let Wikipedia get corrupted, is absolutely hilarious. One of the absolute hallmarks of Chomsky's work was that you need to evaluate claims in terms of the objective facts, and the definitions of the words involved, and not let whether it is "pro-Western" or "anti-Western" taint your evaluation of whether or not it is true.
I think that's kind of situational. They were freaking out recently about the genocide being labeled a genocide on Wikipedia, and IIRC the ADL being labeled an unreliable source.
everybody click your wrongthink ⬇️ button, quick!
I was interested enough in what he was saying that I read one of his sources, and it says the exact opposite of what he’s trying to use it to justify. It’s actually pretty interesting how big the difference is that he either didn’t care about or didn’t even notice. Then, after that happened, I downvoted him.
Carl Sagan, prejudice versus postjudice, yada yada yada.
the article you're talking about reads like a case of "our holy narrative-correcting taskforce vs their pagan misinformation agents"
[bad actors] put in the effort to build reputation..., mixing legitimate page edits with the more politically sensitive ones
through subtle changes like casting doubt on the objectivity of pro-Western accounts
they also mention adding links from Russian state-owned news, but the article doesn't indicate that those things happen in the same incidents though mentioning it in the same sentence is certainly an attempt to conflate them. It's one thing to remove insufficiently reliable sources, correcting misrepresented facts, and banning the wreckers that consistently produce it, but I think there is an issue if validly-sourced edits are being censored by "bias adjusters" (NPOV purposes withstanding) just because the content is deemed to have been written by a suspected bad actor.
the article you’re talking about reads like a case of “our holy narrative-correcting taskforce vs their pagan misinformation agents”
Sure, if you want to make this new, totally different argument, you're welcome to. My point was that the original argument, that western governments have been caught funding mass editing to promote western narratives, was exactly backwards from what's in the article. If you now want to say that funding mass editing for anti-Western narratives is a good thing to do, and it's a bad thing Wikipedia making a "holy narrative-correcting task force" to try to stop it, then sure. You can.
I spoke against the bot farms. Their wrath is coming.