[Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

[Rui Correia]

I've have my setting on "receive copy of own emails", but did not receive
this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?

Regards,

On 22 July 2013 18:02, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All
>
> It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on
> on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to address
> these issues.
>
> But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing information
> know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass by to
> add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that get
> reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the 'ownsership'
> syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they don't
> like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they 'own'
> certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are actually
> lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s).
>
> A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos
> sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I added a
> few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I admit
> the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the history of
> the page.
>
> That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything
> negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was
> 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of hibernation 2
> months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add pro-Flickr
> edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page of
> Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has
> practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr (there
> is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there is
> indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work in a
> concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes
> suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a high-school
> student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are making
> rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a
> section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other
> (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a number of
> Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a
> relaible source, apparently..
>
> This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the Flickr
> article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it and
> most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of bad
> press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at
> whatever hour of day or night.
>
> The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project play
> into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist.
> Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor will
> persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit elsewhere.
> Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not use
> them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up for
> arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors involved
> or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon as it
> develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and
> driving away good editors.
>
> I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have come
> across this type of behaviour.
> And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind
> spots of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the same
> principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In an age
> when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the service of
> 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rui Correia.
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
>




-- 
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________