This highlights to me more and more that we probably need to be involving ourselves in a massive and organised way in natopedia editing.
Almost everything these people know about the world is learned from natopedia. When they don’t know anything about a topic the very first thing they read on that topic is a wiki article on it, they accept it at face value and do extremely little further research under the false assumption that wikipedia editors are a check and balance against one another for bias or incorrectness.
This highlights to me more and more that we probably need to be involving ourselves in a massive and organised way in natopedia editing.
We’re at least 15 years too late for that. Feds have full-time jobs as Wikipedia editors. All that rules-lawyering bullshit is either something that heavily advantages full-time jobs editors who get paid to memorize those rules or something completely conceived by them in the first place. Plus, I think Jimbo Wales or some Wikipedia higher-up has fed connections, so there’s that as well.
At this point, it’s better to start a campaign that discredits Wikpedia as a source rather than attempt to change it from within. If you go to /r/askhistorians, they constantly shit on Wikipedia, so it’s not just those tankie commies who don’t like Wikipedia. Wikipedia has always sucked for anything not related to the hard sciences, and even for that, there’s plenty that it gets wrong.
Just call people who link Wikipedia a pseud who doesn’t know how to read books.
I don’t see how a wikipedia discrediting campaign is going to achieve much. People have discredited wikipedia ever since it started. I recall even teachers in schools discrediting wikipedia. None of it sticks.
Then I guess we’re stuck with Wikipedia as an anti-communist weapon because once the rules-lawyering culture was set around the late 00s, it left the door wide open for government agents who can afford to memorize and eventually expand upon Wikipedia’s byzantine rules and bylaws. It would be interesting to see whether the non-English Wikipedias have the same rules-lawyering culture although linking Spanish Wikipedia articles to English-speakers isn’t going to work for obvious reasons.
I’m just extremely jaded about Wikipedia at this point having been enthusiastic about it during the late 00s. As soon as we even attempt to correct some article, they will reflexively throw some bullshit rules violation that’s complete bullshit even by rules-lawyering standards and when we go “aktually, this is a bullshit rules violation even by rules-lawyering standards good sir,” they’ll throw the real rules violation that we would have to fight over. Now don’t get me wrong, it can be done, but it’s going to take an extraordinary amount of effort to memorize those rules and bylaws and know the major edit wars and administrative decisions which those rules and bylaws were invoked. We would also have to know how Wikipedia functions as an administrative body as well as suck up to some poweruser or admin because just like real life, a lot of law violations and bureaucratic red tape get overlooked if you know the right people. In short, we would have to become some bureaucratic lawyer, which makes sense why feds have infiltrated Wikipedia since feds are already government bureaucrats irl.
And this is just the front face of Wikipedia. Like government institutions, there’s the law and SOP, and there’s how things are really done. I do not know which policies and guidelines are de facto ignored and which essays are de facto enforced.
if The New York Times feels that RFA is reliable enough to directly republish their journalism, then I don’t see why we have much of a case to say that RFA is anything but generally reliable for reporting facts on the ground.
They bolded this. They think this is a good point.
teachers always had the angle that wikipedia is bad because the mere rabble editing it don’t have staid institutional reputation behind them. it was always obvious to everyone else, though, that wikipedia does a fine job of interpreting the sources. wikipedia is consistently useful as an aggregator of mainstream sources
the only way to attack it I think is with vandalism. add incorrect information like slightly wrong dates, wrong distances to astronomical objects, and wrong molecular weights of chemicals; mix up physics theorems with subtly-incorrect contrapositives; replace working code with pseudocode that doesn’t quite handle the edge cases. make people as frustrated with wikipedia as they are with quora! then wikipedia will become irrelevant.
it won’t change all of the liberalism that wikipedia was collecting in the first place, but
it’ll be harder to find anything at all so people will trust their lived experience more
it’ll be on more equal footing with weird fringe stuff in search results instead of being woven into a whole authoritative-sounding encyclopedic narrative
it won’t be laundered through wikipedia’s “community consensus” on reliable sources
the hardcore editor dorks are a lost cause anyway so I’m not worried about them getting upset by putinbots trying to destroy democracy or whatever they think. to the mostly indifferent reading masses, it’s just quality steadily going down
you might be right though that vandalism alone wouldn’t be enough. maybe if the quality of wikipedia declines enough then ai can start to supplant it as the go-to source for looking something up. it’s the same lib nonsense but at least people know to be skeptical of what they see in their google results. as it is people are bamboozled by mystifying “consensus” and “reputation” etc
I think a pertinent detail here is that Wikipedia operates by community consensus (except when admins say “fuck you”) meaning that, like real-life democracy, it is very in favor of organized groups that have people spending time evaluating and advocating for things who can consistently vote as a bloc in favor of certain positions wherever and whenever such things are relevant. Most people have lives and thereby cannot participate on this level.
The people who devote their lives to editing NATOpedia would never allow any non-Western viewpoints in articles. Just look at the discussion page for the Azov article where they say they aren’t Nazis and Radio Free Europe is a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Brigade
The people who devote their lives to editing NATOpedia would never allow any non-Western viewpoints in articles.
They get paid. You’re fighting against people who get paid to sit on their asses all day editing Wikipedia articles and rules-lawyering people to block their edits.
Nah it won’t work. We don’t have editorial control there and any based commie views will get assimilated and mutilated beyond recognition into pro-NATO final outcomes. If we somehow did take over control of NATOpedia through some kind of admin coup (the only way our changes would stick) then the vaushites and radlibs will say “this is a tankie site now” and find another western propaganda slop tube to suck on. They are chauvinists, they like the taste of the western slopaganda - they will seek it out. They aren’t reactionary imperialists because they read some imperialist media, it’s the other way around. They are imperialists and they seek out slop to confirm their views.
Paraphrasing you mean? I’ve read it in the past, but the general sentiment is widespread and true. Americans, by in large, benefit from imperialism and like it. They aren’t “duped” into being imperialists, it’s in their material interest to be imperialists. If anything, our task is to “dupe” them into being socialists because their quality of life is gonna take a short term hit unless they are poor as hell and in the bottom quartile
If I was drafting a strategy for this, I’d suggest:
Get a pool of people who have nitpicky expertise in non-political subjects
Share potential edits among the group, splitting them up into tiny edits instead of big article refactors. Spread them out among members and time. Use a bug tracking system or something
Start mixing in politically sensitive corrections after a given account has been around for a month. Use the same time/person spreading strategies
Confront pushback with sources, requests for citation, and as much legalistic paperwork as possible. Be as bland as possible. Pretend you don’t understand why the other person isn’t reading your sources. Be repetitive and boring in the talk pages until someone snaps, then give them another round of repetitive and boring before calling for administrators.
Never touch the hot button topics that the media is currently pressing on. Focus on places where you don’t have to fight an entire CIA office. If it’s in the news, set a reminder to look at it in a year
Hmm what I had in mind was more like dunk_tank but for wikipedia and somehow teaching the group how to get edits through wikipedia and tactics on how to navigate it all properly. One thing that’s missing is obviously that everyone here is highly experienced at reddit-style engagement so dunk_tank works for that, but there’s probably very little skill in wikipedia.
In essence the aim would be to build a community of people that are good at this.
This highlights to me more and more that we probably need to be involving ourselves in a massive and organised way in natopedia editing.
Almost everything these people know about the world is learned from natopedia. When they don’t know anything about a topic the very first thing they read on that topic is a wiki article on it, they accept it at face value and do extremely little further research under the false assumption that wikipedia editors are a check and balance against one another for bias or incorrectness.
Half of their worldview is derived from it.
We’re at least 15 years too late for that. Feds have full-time jobs as Wikipedia editors. All that rules-lawyering bullshit is either something that heavily advantages full-time jobs editors who get paid to memorize those rules or something completely conceived by them in the first place. Plus, I think Jimbo Wales or some Wikipedia higher-up has fed connections, so there’s that as well.
At this point, it’s better to start a campaign that discredits Wikpedia as a source rather than attempt to change it from within. If you go to /r/askhistorians, they constantly shit on Wikipedia, so it’s not just those tankie commies who don’t like Wikipedia. Wikipedia has always sucked for anything not related to the hard sciences, and even for that, there’s plenty that it gets wrong.
Just call people who link Wikipedia a pseud who doesn’t know how to read books.
I don’t see how a wikipedia discrediting campaign is going to achieve much. People have discredited wikipedia ever since it started. I recall even teachers in schools discrediting wikipedia. None of it sticks.
Then I guess we’re stuck with Wikipedia as an anti-communist weapon because once the rules-lawyering culture was set around the late 00s, it left the door wide open for government agents who can afford to memorize and eventually expand upon Wikipedia’s byzantine rules and bylaws. It would be interesting to see whether the non-English Wikipedias have the same rules-lawyering culture although linking Spanish Wikipedia articles to English-speakers isn’t going to work for obvious reasons.
I’m just extremely jaded about Wikipedia at this point having been enthusiastic about it during the late 00s. As soon as we even attempt to correct some article, they will reflexively throw some bullshit rules violation that’s complete bullshit even by rules-lawyering standards and when we go “aktually, this is a bullshit rules violation even by rules-lawyering standards good sir,” they’ll throw the real rules violation that we would have to fight over. Now don’t get me wrong, it can be done, but it’s going to take an extraordinary amount of effort to memorize those rules and bylaws and know the major edit wars and administrative decisions which those rules and bylaws were invoked. We would also have to know how Wikipedia functions as an administrative body as well as suck up to some poweruser or admin because just like real life, a lot of law violations and bureaucratic red tape get overlooked if you know the right people. In short, we would have to become some bureaucratic lawyer, which makes sense why feds have infiltrated Wikipedia since feds are already government bureaucrats irl.
Here’s a Wired article about the Herculean effort an editor had to take to undo the deception peddled by cryptofascists on articles related to WWII. She spend half a year fighting against some Aussie cryptofascist over an article about some shitty Nazi medal. She essentially won because she knew to play the rules-lawyering game and for not being a lying cryptofascist. But going up against the NATO consensus is far more difficult than streamrolling a bunch of loser cryptofascists. Just look at the list of reliable sources. RFA and VOA both get listed as reliable sources.
Here’s some of the discussion on whether to consider RFA as reliable sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#Radio_Free_Asia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Reliability_of_Radio_Free_Asia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Views_on_International_Campaign_for_Tibet,_UNESCO,_Tibet_Post_International/The_Tibet_Post,_Tibet_Watch,_Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization,_Free_Tibet,_Radio_Free_Asia
At bare minimum, we would have to speak Wikipedian, which means we would have memorize everything here as well as know when to invoke them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_ruleset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Principles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_difference_between_policies,_guidelines_and_essays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Essays
And this is just the front face of Wikipedia. Like government institutions, there’s the law and SOP, and there’s how things are really done. I do not know which policies and guidelines are de facto ignored and which essays are de facto enforced.
They bolded this. They think this is a good point.
Enhancing the credibility of RFA rather than diminishing the credibility of NYT
teachers always had the angle that wikipedia is bad because the mere rabble editing it don’t have staid institutional reputation behind them. it was always obvious to everyone else, though, that wikipedia does a fine job of interpreting the sources. wikipedia is consistently useful as an aggregator of mainstream sources
the only way to attack it I think is with vandalism. add incorrect information like slightly wrong dates, wrong distances to astronomical objects, and wrong molecular weights of chemicals; mix up physics theorems with subtly-incorrect contrapositives; replace working code with pseudocode that doesn’t quite handle the edge cases. make people as frustrated with wikipedia as they are with quora! then wikipedia will become irrelevant.
it won’t change all of the liberalism that wikipedia was collecting in the first place, but
death to wikipedia
Read an article on the PRC and this idea falls apart
I don’t think vandalism will do it and any concerted attempt to do so would inevitably be discovered and only reinforce people’s support for it.
the hardcore editor dorks are a lost cause anyway so I’m not worried about them getting upset by putinbots trying to destroy democracy or whatever they think. to the mostly indifferent reading masses, it’s just quality steadily going down
you might be right though that vandalism alone wouldn’t be enough. maybe if the quality of wikipedia declines enough then ai can start to supplant it as the go-to source for looking something up. it’s the same lib nonsense but at least people know to be skeptical of what they see in their google results. as it is people are bamboozled by mystifying “consensus” and “reputation” etc
Sprinkles extra spaces everywhere.
I think a pertinent detail here is that Wikipedia operates by community consensus (except when admins say “fuck you”) meaning that, like real-life democracy, it is very in favor of organized groups that have people spending time evaluating and advocating for things who can consistently vote as a bloc in favor of certain positions wherever and whenever such things are relevant. Most people have lives and thereby cannot participate on this level.
The people who devote their lives to editing NATOpedia would never allow any non-Western viewpoints in articles. Just look at the discussion page for the Azov article where they say they aren’t Nazis and Radio Free Europe is a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Brigade
They get paid. You’re fighting against people who get paid to sit on their asses all day editing Wikipedia articles and rules-lawyering people to block their edits.
deleted by creator
Nah it won’t work. We don’t have editorial control there and any based commie views will get assimilated and mutilated beyond recognition into pro-NATO final outcomes. If we somehow did take over control of NATOpedia through some kind of admin coup (the only way our changes would stick) then the vaushites and radlibs will say “this is a tankie site now” and find another western propaganda slop tube to suck on. They are chauvinists, they like the taste of the western slopaganda - they will seek it out. They aren’t reactionary imperialists because they read some imperialist media, it’s the other way around. They are imperialists and they seek out slop to confirm their views.
https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/#the-bourgeois-proletariat , is that what you’re quoting from?
Paraphrasing you mean? I’ve read it in the past, but the general sentiment is widespread and true. Americans, by in large, benefit from imperialism and like it. They aren’t “duped” into being imperialists, it’s in their material interest to be imperialists. If anything, our task is to “dupe” them into being socialists because their quality of life is gonna take a short term hit unless they are poor as hell and in the bottom quartile
If I was drafting a strategy for this, I’d suggest:
Get a pool of people who have nitpicky expertise in non-political subjects
Share potential edits among the group, splitting them up into tiny edits instead of big article refactors. Spread them out among members and time. Use a bug tracking system or something
Start mixing in politically sensitive corrections after a given account has been around for a month. Use the same time/person spreading strategies
Confront pushback with sources, requests for citation, and as much legalistic paperwork as possible. Be as bland as possible. Pretend you don’t understand why the other person isn’t reading your sources. Be repetitive and boring in the talk pages until someone snaps, then give them another round of repetitive and boring before calling for administrators.
Never touch the hot button topics that the media is currently pressing on. Focus on places where you don’t have to fight an entire CIA office. If it’s in the news, set a reminder to look at it in a year
Hmm what I had in mind was more like dunk_tank but for wikipedia and somehow teaching the group how to get edits through wikipedia and tactics on how to navigate it all properly. One thing that’s missing is obviously that everyone here is highly experienced at reddit-style engagement so dunk_tank works for that, but there’s probably very little skill in wikipedia.
In essence the aim would be to build a community of people that are good at this.
Ok, wikipedia shitposters to regularly sabotage it in subtle ways. I can support this, not as praxis but as a good bit