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

[Fred Bauder]

I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the
mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of
inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the
original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...

Fred

> 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
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>