advertisement


Wikipedia and the Philip Cross affair

I've also always said it's obvious that Wikipedia is edited to suit the Western/neocon agenda.

Craig Murray is a legend!
 
maxflinn said:
I've also always said it's obvious that Wikipedia is edited to suit the Western/neocon agenda.
Click to expand...

If you peered out from your conspiracy theory blinkers you’d notice it is peer-reviewed and evidence-based, e.g. anything without adequate citations can be flagged for deletion. Why not read up on how it actually works?
 
Tony L said:
If you peered out from your conspiracy theory blinkers you’d notice it is peer-reviewed and evidence-based, e.g. anything without adequate citations can be flagged for deletion. Why not read up on how it actually works?
Click to expand...
I think you need to read Murray's piece again, Tony.
 
No, I checked Wikipedia and it says " We are aware of these claims but after a thorough investigation by Cambridge Analytica nothing untrue or detrimental to anyone, anywhere was found."

[edit] Philip Cross
 
monkfish said:
Maybe if you did read it, you might not be so sure.
Click to expand...

Just read it. Interesting and suspicious for sure, but Wikipedia remains a peer-reviewed and evidence based site with a clear set of instructions and rules for editing. It is a world away from the typical political blog or highly partisan “news” sites such as Wikileaks, Guido Fawkes etc. If anyone has an issue with this admittedly suspect Philip Cross they are perfectly free to revise and correct the edits. It is an open platform.
 
Tony L said:
Just read it. Interesting and suspicious for sure, but Wikipedia remains a peer-reviewed and evidence based site with a clear set of instructions and rules for editing. It is a world away from the typical political blog or highly partisan “news” sites such as Wikileaks, Guido Fawkes etc. If anyone has an issue with this admittedly suspect Philip Cross they are perfectly free to revise and correct the edits. It is an open platform.
Click to expand...

The edits occur when they are going to be read most, ie general election, by the time they've corrected the falsehoods the damage is done, the vote has been influenced.
 
monkfish said:
The edits occur when they are going to be read most, ie general election, by the time they've corrected the falsehoods the damage is done, the vote has been influenced.
Click to expand...

ISTR that the consensus was that social media didn't affect UK GE 2017 nor the EU Referendum. If that's true, then someone making pretty transparently daft edits such as "Craig Murray's wife is a stripper" in one online resource is going to have very little influence.
 
Seeker_UK said:
ISTR that the consensus was that social media didn't affect UK GE 2017 nor the EU Referendum.
Click to expand...

Where do you get that from? I thought the consensus was the exact reverse and on both sides with social media being largely responsible for the extreme polarisation and dumbing-down of politics leaving a lot of empty space where the centre and properly informed discussion once was. The UK just following the lead of the Tea Party etc in the US. We have a POTUS happy to spout vacuous conspiracy theory etc as fact and that mindset is now rife within the Tory party. It all feels stupid and frightening from where I’m standing. The idiots have taken control.
 
Tony L said:
Where do you get that from? I thought the consensus was the exact reverse and on both sides with social media being largely responsible for the extreme polarisation and dumbing-down of politics leaving a lot of empty space where the centre and properly informed discussion once was. The UK just following the lead of the Tea Party etc in the US. We have a POTUS happy to spout vacuous conspiracy theory etc as fact and that mindset is now rife within the Tory party. It all feels stupid and frightening from where I’m standing. The idiots have taken control.
Click to expand...
That’s the ranty hard centre consensus.
 
Tony L said:
Where do you get that from?
Click to expand...

I was thinking more about the discussion around the role of bots; their activity seems a good parallel to this story.

[edit]

I just don't understand how something as transparently obvious as one account editing Wikipedia articles can ever be effective, especially if it's almost certainly going to get called out.
 
Seanm said:
That’s the ranty hard centre consensus.
Click to expand...
Am I the only one who is irritated by this attempted weaponisation of ‘centre’ and ‘centrist’?

ISTM that a centrist is somebody who rejects the extreme ends of the left and right. That describes probably 90% of the population, many of whom probably self identify as ‘of the centre’. Alienating these just feels counterproductive.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Am I the only one who is irritated by this attempted weaponisation of ‘centre’ and ‘centrist’?

ISTM that a centrist is somebody who rejects the extreme ends of the left and right. That describes probably 90% of the population, many of whom probably self identify as ‘of the centre’. Alienating these just feels counterproductive.
Click to expand...

It strikes me as pure doublethink. Like 'war is peace', 'freedom is slavery'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top