Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Wikipedia

Richard Dawkins, Jimmy Wales - Unlike Facebook, No One Gets Special Treatment on Wikipedia (washingtonpost.com) 212

"In a world of inequality, we are well accustomed to rich, powerful, connected people getting preferential treatment..." argues an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

"The notable exception is Wikipedia." There, VIPs have been shouting "Do you have any idea who you are dealing with?!" for years, only to be told either, not really, or, don't care, and then instructed...to take their objections to a Talk page where the community can weigh in...

One reason the project is different from other digital platforms for VIPs is the absence of a mechanism for "escalating the case to leadership," as one internal Facebook memo, recently published by the Wall Street Journal, euphemistically described the process of Facebook's giving special treatment... The closest approximation to a Wikipedia power player would be Jimmy Wales, the chairman emeritus of the foundation that supports Wikipedias in more than 250 languages and the face of the project for its 20 years of existence. But Wales is not actually in control of anything. When he gets personally involved in helping a petitioner, a crowd of editors track his movements to ensure that he not hold special influence. This tradition began way back in Wikipedia's history, when Wales insisted that the birth date on his own article, and his birth certificate, was wrong. The editors did not take his word for it...

With no bigwig to enlist, people who object to what appears on their article page try to navigate Wikipedia on their own, an often-treacherous experience. In the early days of Wikipedia, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins edited the article about him to correct an error. He confirmed in an email to an editor, Alienus, that "yes, the person who purported to be me is indeed me! But thank you very much for checking. I am bowled over by how good Wikipedia generally is." That same editor followed up, however, by questioning a change Dawkins had made to his article to reduce the number of journals he edits from four to two and to remove any mention of one, Episteme Journal. "Do you have any citations to support this change?" Dawkins was flabbergasted: "It is unreasonable to ask for a positive citation to demonstrate that I did NOT found a journal called Episteme. I am telling you that I never founded a journal called Episteme. I didn't even know that a journal called Episteme existed." Turned out an editor had made an error; the sentence was removed permanently.

The article — by Wikipedia editor Noam Cohen — opens with the story of John C. Eastman, a lawyer advising president Trump, and his argument with Wikipedia editors over his biography (an argument still archived on the biography's "Talk" page).

Eastman complains that their supporting references — which included the New York Times — were biased against him, and yet rather than allowing him to delete them "I had to ask permission from some unknown twentysomething."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Richard Dawkins, Jimmy Wales - Unlike Facebook, No One Gets Special Treatment on Wikipedia

Comments Filter:
  • How horrible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @01:40PM (#61945037)

    Eastman complains that their supporting references — which included the New York Times — were biased against him, and yet rather than allowing him to delete them "I had to ask permission from some unknown twentysomething."

    Yes, how horrible the press report on his attempt to overthrow the U.S. election [cnn.com] and foment a coup. How dare the press do its job.

    • Re:How horrible (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @01:49PM (#61945067)

      Eastman is the epitome of the Republican Party, which is the Trump Party, which has fully rejected democracy. They are seditionists full stop. They have taken advantage of and benefited from media deference for so long they have spent years taking it as given. It is no surprise that he is outraged that he cannot edit his online Wikipedia footprint to suit himself.

      • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        They are seditionists full stop.

        Sorry, you lost all credibility right there. Your "full stop" should have ended in the prior sentence after Republican Party.

        And to be clear, I'm not giving Eastman a pass on this at all, but your comment is BS.

        • They are seditionists full stop.

          Sorry, you lost all credibility right there. Your "full stop" should have ended in the prior sentence after Republican Party.

          And to be clear, I'm not giving Eastman a pass on this at all, but your comment is BS.

          Your argument is that the party that consistently rejects the legitimacy of any election they do not win is not an anti-democratic/seditious party. And this is not just about 2020 either -- it goes back to the 2000 election if not further.

          In 2020, the only thing that stopped them from proceeding to overturn the election was that Mike Pence was advised not to go along with Eastmaan's plan. By Dan Quayle. Dan. Quayle.

          But go ahead with your delusions if that makes you feel better.

    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      Interesting angle, but I'm hoping the discussion gets into the deeper aspects of "unified truth" and "abuse of reputation". I'm kind of skeptical of Wikipedia's premise that "best" articles can be written and offended by scammers (especially spammers) who exploit Wikipedia's reputation to push their scams. (So has anyone heard of any cases of scammers going the last mile and editing the articles to fit the scams?)

      But on your vague Subject of "horrible", I'm taking it to be horrible people, so I reply with a

    • Re:How horrible (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @02:57PM (#61945251)

      Andrew Clyde claims they were just friendly tourists. Want to see a picture of Andrew Clyde greeting those tourists?

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1... [twimg.com]

      He seems pretty scared in that picture. In fact he screamed in terror at the friendly tourists who came knocking that day.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]

    • by cpurdy ( 4838085 )
      Can we please upvote this ^ to infinity? And beyond?
    • If all the references are biased against you, perhaps they aren't the ones with bias. In a similar vein, if 70% of the population says you are an asshole on a survey, it seems highly likely that you are an asshole.
    • Oh man, please tell me you do not honestly think Trump tried to overturn an election. Tell me another one XD
  • understandable (Score:5, Informative)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @01:45PM (#61945053) Journal

    If I were a scumbag like John Eastman, I'd also be very upset that my Wikipedia entry is accurate.

  • by OneSmartFellow ( 716217 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @01:53PM (#61945073)

    There's plenty of examples on Wikipedia of left leaning positive bias, and right leaning negative bias.

    Hell, there was even a relatively mainstream media report about it maybe a year ago.

    I'm too old, drunk and frosty to back up my claims with references; but I'm sure someone can find them with minimal effort.

    Or mod me minus into oblivion to be suppress the truth.

    • I don't see the article claiming there isn't bias - just that VIPs don't have anyone to appeal to, to get the consensus overturned.

      So, you may be right... but it's irrelevant.

    • by Retired Chemist ( 5039029 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @02:10PM (#61945117)
      It is well established that highly educated people (who probably make up the majority of Wikipedia editors) tend to me more liberal than the general public. The trend for people with less education to be conservative can be traced back in history pretty much as far as you want to go (see Luddites etc. for examples). In my opinion, any website that tries to insist that entries be based on facts is going to look left leaning to conservatives. They are much more inclined to base their positions on unsupported precedent or authority (the Bible (not the actual text which is in Hebrew and Greek which they cannot read, but what they want it to say), the Pope, some preacher, etc.).
      • Mostly right, but the "poorly educated tend to be conservative" thing is just wrong. How education levels interact with the left/right spectrum thing can have drastic changes depending on the situation.

        In the early 19th century the UK was the standard-bearer against the extreme-leftist Jacobins, and then the center-leftist Napoleon. The Luddites were de facto supporting the French because more English troops were engaged suppressing Luddites than in defeating the French. If you have to take their distinctly

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by BadDreamer ( 196188 )

          If by "the Nords" you mean the Nordic countries, you are missing the mark by a mile by claiming they adhere to Neoliberal Capitalism. Rather the contrary, strong interventions and control in the market is a foundation for their prosperity. If anything, they fight against the concept of Neoliberalism in practical political choices.

          Thus, I can conclude Bernie is right to hate being called that.

          • The comment you replied to is a complete load. The assertions made are lies and the conclusions stupid.
            • If that was actually true it would be trivial for you to prove any of the assertions wrong.

              Seriously man, the fact that the Bush did better in the College-educated vote than either of his opponents is a verifiable fact. OP could be making an argument based on Graduate degree-holders, but the their argument seemed to be that more education inevitably led to less Conservatism. Which is just verifiably untrue.

          • That depends rather heavily on your definition of Neoliberal, doesn't it? Which means it is helpful to define terms.

            I define it as multiple sets of inter-related policies that appeared on the scene roughly the time the Soviet Empire fell. They all strongly support free trade, which means all forms of neoliberalism are pro-immigration. They tend to be pro-marketish, use a lot of cost-benefit analysis, support Democracy, insist on balanced budgets, tax consumption (ie: workers buying stuff) rather than produc

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              Many of those policies here in Canada were introduced by the right, they pushed free trade, GST and immigration and talked about the balanced budget. That party basically got wiped out federally but we're stuck with many of the policies.

    • When you say "left" and "right", are defining those terms with respect to the average USA person, or with respect to the average person from a rich country?

      And if it's the former, why would you believe that Wikipedia would focus on a US point of view?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mspohr ( 589790 )

      Reality has a left leaning bias.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Various editors take on pages as pet projects, and those editors have specific agendas. Years ago I attempted to correct the Sea World article with citations and all of the changes were reverted. There is no point in trying to make changes to the wikipedia at this point, one's own time is too valuable. 15 years ago the public could participate and make it better. Unless I'm looking up something that nobody could possibly have an agenda over (e.g. species of monkeys or tropical plants, or math, or a summary
    • Put up or shut up.

      Provide evidence or your claim will be dismissed. I'm not doing your work.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @01:57PM (#61945081) Journal

    "I had to ask permission from some unknown twentysomething."

    I don't know who John Eastman is, but already I don't like him.

    I could probably like him, if he stopped acting like he was better than other people.

    • That's not how egomania works. People that automatically think they are better than others (for instance having an issue with some 20something authority), are not going to magically be able to stop acting like they are better than others.
      • If you spend enough time in a Zen temple (or zen center, to be politically correct), then you will see people lose their ego from time to time.

  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @02:18PM (#61945135)
    I used to contribute to a number of articles on Wikipedia where I am a subject matter expert. I no longer do so, as arguing with unqualified editors who are highly bureaucratic and ego driven (i.e., don't like being told they are wrong) is a waste of my time.
  • It is in their policy that external references must be given. They do not care if such external references are deceptive, biased, libel, etc., so as to put off lawsuits against Wikipedia and to place any potential lawsuits by others against the external resource.

    I personally know of a few articles that persist with inaccurate information, even misleading information while the editors of such articles rule over them. Some editors are even paid by third parties and skilled in subtly biasing articles they rule

  • by beepsky ( 6008348 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @02:44PM (#61945205)
    Wikipedia has tons of VIPs, they're called admins and they regularly get away with egregious stuff like banning an entire IP range of millions of addresses just to stop one person from editing articles maliciously.
    • by dcollins ( 135727 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @03:31PM (#61945339) Homepage

      If there's "tons" of them, then they're not VIPs.

      • If there's "tons" of them, then they're not VIPs.

        wat

        Definition of VIP
        : a person of great influence or prestige especially : a high official with special privileges

        I don't see anything about scarcity in there.

        Wikipedia editors are officials with special privileges. Whether they're a "high" official or not is I suppose debatable, but since there are few levels of officialdom at Wikipedia I propose that the question is moot.

  • by robi5 ( 1261542 )

    Anyone remembers Knol? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Mob Rules (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ShakaUVM ( 157947 )

    Given the absolute state of Wikipedia, I don't think that Wales has much of a leg to stand on. Democracy only works when people have good character, and Wikipedia editors, especially the ones who engage in extensive never ending edit wars, are not people with good character. A fair number, I wager are shills.

    I was engaged in an edit war in which I cited a dozen or so major health organizations on what the definition of something was, and a bunch of people kept deleting it and inventing a definition that was

    • by rbrander ( 73222 )

      I'm one of those subject matter experts, in a couple of areas that are kind of esoteric (i.e. only a few jobs like mine, even in a 10,000 person corporation). I just read over the Wikipedia articles on them and have no additional comments; they did OK.

      Then again, they aren't the sort of topics I can imagine edit-wars on, either.

      Most topics fall into that category (it's hard to imagine an edit-war over the properties of Yttrium).

      While your experience was bad, the thing is, TFA is all about Wikipedia managi

    • by N1AK ( 864906 )
      Aside from the fact you didn't link to the example, which in an ironically citation needed makes me question how real the example is, the idea that any source of information is perfect is obviously flawed. I'm not a Wikipedia fan, but every time I've seen an attempt to do something similar its been a very obvious attempt to take Wikipedia and create a much more obviously biased version that people who share that bias prefer.
    • I don't think your post is insightful: it amounts to "people are crap".

      Sure. But declarations of nihilism aren't particularly useful. No one is claiming it's perfect. Can we reasonably do better though, are we doing better and is it on the whole a net benefit.

      I think the answers agree perhaps, no and yes in that order. It's not a useful or interesting discussion to simply cut everything down. Building is more fun. So do you thing we as a species can actually do better and if so how? It's clear that a crazy

      • Suggestions of "don't do X" aren't useful. Is it possible to construct a system which cram do better?

        It can, but only if it involves the requirement "don't do X", where X is defined as enablement of bad behavior.

        Wikipedia is amazingly great, but it could be greater if only they would self-police at least as much as they police everyone else.

  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @03:29PM (#61945333)

    ... when people stuck to revising the chicken article [everytopic...ickens.com].

  • I know someone who isn't really a celebrity, but who did a few minor things of note making her worthy of a Wiki page. And they got her age and birthdate wrong. When she tried to correct it they wouldn't take her word for it, because she was the subject of the article. Now, I understand the reluctance to just take someone's word about things that establish their own reputation or credibility, but this is a simple fact that isn't easily verifiable through "other sources" because she isn't really a famous person. They wouldn't take a picture of her driver's license as evidence. They insisted that someone _other than her_ must corroborate her own birthdate. Which is, frankly, insane. I suppose I understand the reasoning behind this -- they are being consistent with a policy that is much more important and sensible in other spheres -- but it's still insane to refuse to listen to someone who is trying to correct basic bio information about themselves when they are offering documentation.
  • To respond to "Do you have any idea who you are dealing with?!" with something like "a dude that still didn't paid the bill"

  • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Monday November 01, 2021 @03:51AM (#61946405)
    Some years ago there was the case of the German minister for agriculture, whose name I have forgotten, except he had almost a dozen first names, and Wikipedia got them wrong.

    He tried to fix it. They asked for citations. A birth certificate is apparently not a citation. But a report in a German newspaper, which copied the incorrect list of first names and printed it, _that_ was a citation.
  • Then why do we have an editors cabal who favor counter-factuals?

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...