Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: this is only a small sample (Score 1) 2

by metasonix (#47499241) Attached to: Pranks, hoaxes, manipulation: Virtual Unreality on Wikipedia
I've estimated that English Wikipedia contains thousands of hoaxes at any given time. Some of them are removed quickly as "vandalism", some of them last for many years. It is simply not possible to make accurate studies of this situation, because the hoaxes are ever-changing, old ones removed while new ones are added.

Part of the perverse subculture of Wikipedia is the absolute, near-religious certainty that Wikipedia does not contain false or malicious information, because it "simply isn't possible". This is the dark and slimy legacy of Jimbo Wales and his early supporters. By and large a very dishonest group. They are simply pathologically incapable of admitting that they are wrong, or that they ever make mistakes.

+ - Pranks, hoaxes, manipulation: Virtual Unreality on Wikipedia-> 2

Submitted by Andreas Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe (2591067) writes "Kids confess on Reddit that in order to wind up a classmate named Azid, they added his name to the Wikipedia article on Chicken Korma. Two years on, and Azid is established online as an alternative name of the dish. A prankster twice changes the name of the inventor of the hair straightener, and both names are now widely credited with the invention online. Another kid writes in Wikipedia that coatis are also called Brazilian aardvarks, and incredibly, the name catches on in newspapers, even a university press book. Governments around the world seek to control Wikipedia content through anonymous contributions. Misinformation and propaganda on Wikipedia spread like a virus into other publications: how pranks, hoaxes and manipulation undermine the reliability of Wikipedia, and indeed the fabric of consensual reality."
Link to Original Source

+ - Media Viewer: yet another Wikipedia scandal in the making 3

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "As reported on Wikipediocracy today, the Wikimedia Foundation's software developers created a new "Media Viewer" feature to show high-resolution Wikipedia images in a pop-up window. It worked, but had many problems. Result: "One month after implementation, volunteer administrator Pete Forsyth unceremoniously switched the new feature off, only to find his change reverted by none other than the Wikimedia Foundation’s Deputy Director and VP of Engineering and Product Development, Erik Möller, who threatened to remove Forsyth’s administrative privileges. Möller in turn has now been hauled in front of Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, accused of overstepping his authority." This is roughly similar to a group of volunteer police cadets attempting to remove their chief of police, for changing department policy. The story is bizarre, and it perfectly underscores the dysfunctional and twisted internal culture of Wikipedia."

Comment: If it is true, is it defamation? (Score 2) 268

by metasonix (#47313187) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit
Well, well, well, I don't suppose you're really Lee "Camembert" Pilich, one of Wikipedia's earliest administrators and arbitrators, are you?

If so, why did you more-or-less give up on Wikipedia in 2010? Did you finally realize that Jimbo Wales wasn't an "Internet Hero" or some bullshit like that, and that he had installed some very dishonest people in the admin ranks, and thence at the WMF? When did it dawn upon you that Wikipedia was declining?

+ - Wikipedia editors hit with $10 million defamation suit->

Submitted by Andreas Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe (2591067) writes "Businessman, philanthropist and musician Yank Barry and the Global Village Champions Foundation are suing four Wikipedia editors for defamation, claiming they have maliciously conspired to keep Barry's Wikipedia biography unduly negative. The Daily Dot article includes a copy of the legal brief and quotes Barry as saying, “My page was so ridiculously false and made me sound like a terrible person and people believed it causing deals to fall through. I finally had enough.”"
Link to Original Source

+ - A Wikipedia content-abuse story -- only with real-world violence 1

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "Once again, the Wikipediocracy website has uncovered a substantial abuse of the truth on Wikipedia. Like the "Qworty" debacle that ran in the news media last year, this post describes people who are deliberately inserting misinformation and attacking anyone who criticizes them for it. Unlike Qworty, it involves two editors — one is simply not very competent, the other (called only "Henry" here, possibly for fear of the author's safety) is not only protecting her, he is also posting his own phony articles and outright lies on Wikipedia. By the way, he spent years in prison for beating a woman with a pool cue."

Comment: Re:The "threat" (Score 1) 55

1) No, I am not Oppong. I did partly assist him with the publication of his Wikipediocracy article. That is all.

2) I don't read German and so am not privy to much of what happens on de-WP. But Wikipediocracy has a couple of regulars who follow de-WP, and they tell us that even though it is better run overall than en-WP, it has major problems with "cranks" pushing extreme viewpoints. Also, many of the worst users on Wikimedia Commons, who fight any controls over adult content tooth and nail (resulting in thousands of close-up penis photos and other disgusting stuff), came to Commons from de-WP.

3) Your nitpicking about the exact language is superfluous. Oppong himself read it as a direct and violent threat, and he contacted his local police. Who did nothing, as usual, saying that "it's an American website and we have no control over it legally". This is part of how Wikipedia gets away with its abuses and incompetence.

4) Are you "Giftzwerg 88"? Because your furious spluttering reminds me of him.

Comment: So, to summarize.... (Score 1) 55

So, to summarize:

1) it appears from the threads on this post that many Slashdotters find it acceptable for corporate paid editors to mess openly with Wikipedia articles.

2) and, it's similarly perfectly acceptable for anonymous Wikipedia editors to threaten people who uncover these schemes.

3) plus, Oppong is black, and the threat involved "curb stomping", a very ugly act of violence that white "skinheads" are fond of doing to their enemies. As Oppong noted, it was seen being done (by a white racist, to a black man) in the film "American History X". So acts of skinhead violence are A-OKAY on Wikipedia, because "oh well, people make violent threats on Wikipedia all the time".

I'm getting the impression that soon it will be socially acceptable for Wikipedia's cultlike fans to commit acts of real-world violence against their critics, plus any journalists who uncover Wikipedia corruption. Why?

+ - German Wikipedia Has Problems With Paid Editing -- And Threats Of Violence 2

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "As German journalist Marvin Oppong learned recently, there are a number of people who work to make articles about certain corporations and trade groups on German Wikipedia "look better". And when Oppong published his discoveries, one reaction was an openly violent threat, aimed at him, posted on de-WP's "Kurier" noticeboard. Just as with English Wikipedia, it is apparently a "terrible crime" to criticize German Wikipedia, even when Jimbo Wales's "bright line" rule on paid editing is being violated. Unlike English WP, the Germans will threaten to "curbstone" people for saying it."

+ - Major Wikipedia donors caught editing their own articles 7

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "As reported before on Slashdot, one of the most terrible sins on Wikipedia is to edit articles for pay, or otherwise violate the "neutral point of view" policy, per their co-founder Jimmy Wales. And yet, the Wikipedia-criticism website Wikipediocracy has recently performed a study showing that a large percentage of the Wikimedia Foundation's largest cash donors have violated that policy. Repeatedly, and wantonly. In short, they wrote articles about themselves or their companies, then gave the WMF big donations — and were not confronted about violating the NPOV policy. It reeks of outright favoritism. The first installment of an upcoming multi-part series discusses the co-creator of Cards Against Humanity, and his blatant editing of the Wikipedia article about his card game, followed by a $70,000 donation to the WMF. An honest donation, or hush money?"

+ - Is Wikipedia "accurate"? Not necessarily..... 1

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "A new post on the Wikipediocracy website discusses the notorious, albeit now badly-dated, 2005 study published in Nature magazine claiming that Wikipedia content was almost as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica in science topics. Despite not being a ringing endorsement of Wikipedia, the news media of 2005 tended to report it as such. This new article includes a long list of examples of Wikipedia content failures, including major paid-content abuses and some outright, highly-successful hoaxes. All were subsequent to the 2005 study, the bulk of them having occurred in the past year. And all occurred while Wikipedians continued to claim that Wikipedia just keeps "getting better and better". Perhaps Klee Irwin might have a different take on that?"

Comment: Criticism of Wikipedia -- there is a place for it (Score 1) 161

by metasonix (#44126617) Attached to: Interview: Ask Jimmy Wales What You Will
If anyone wants to see evidence of Wikipedia's many, many (many!) problems, try Wikipediocracy. There is a blog with regular posts full of horror and madness, plus a forum where you can be lectured at length about the failings of Wikipedia, and Jimbo. And all nonprofit too.

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Working...