So I've been an on/off (mostly off) Wiki editor for a few years. I've made a few pages on random academic stuff that probably no one has read. Occasionally I'll read an article, find some bullshit like a poor source or an incorrect interpretation of a source, and then I'll fix it. I'm sorry I'm a nerd.
So I randomly found some major bullshit on a page about communism. Wikipedia editors call it "original research" when an article has text that doesn't match the reference that the editor is sourcing. So if you're putting a NY Times article as a reference, and the article says "Nancy Pelosi has a delicious ass" and you write in the article "Californian congresspeople have sexy butts", then you're taking liberties with the truth. I don't fucking expect anyone to say that that "Stalin crushed 2 divisions with his bare hands". Obviously any article about communism in English will be somewhat negatively slanted as most sources in English are very negative.
Anyhow, I fixed a few things. "This isn't sourced... this isn't in the source... this is unproven opinion... etc". OMG like fucking the same minute, my edits all get reverted. I get mean replies in the edits. Fine, I'll put it in the talk page and tag the page with {{dispute}}. Rage flows on the talk page. I try to fix a few more downright lies on the page, also get reverted instantly.
So the chud complains in the admin noticeboard about me. The saints that spend their time refereeing that hellhole actually take my side and say that my edits are reasonable. Some small improvements happen on the page.
So get this, this chud is trying to edit 10 various pages about our relating to communism. The admin page is filled with him reporting tankies and trying to get them banned. The guy writes like two whole pages on my sins. Like Jesus, this is the first communism page that I've edited, and you're going to war over the entirety of 1917-1950 USSR.
I'll wake up to take a piss in the middle of the night. I'll check my phone, and see this "Stalin was renowned for his genocidal mustache".
So edits go:
4:11am -[genocidal] // unsupported by source and not neutral point of view
4:12am +[genocidal] // don't make edits without consensus
Fuck guy, do you sleep?
Anyhow, he's either a super dumb loser retiree that can't comprehend how research works, or he's part of a very smart op. Because being an aggressive dickhead works.
Then he messages a bunch of buddies and they all start hounding me on the admin complaint page about me. There's legit no way to win.
Sorry for the rant. I intentionally did not mention the real article as Chapo.chat is searchable through Google.
The wiki power users are legitimately unhinged. If they're not writing outright falsehoods that suit their (almost exclusively reactionary) politics, they're jealously guarding major pages like their personal fiefdoms - spending 26 hours a day keeping the mongrel hordes from sullying their perfectly curated authority.
When they get in fights it can be pretty funny though. Take a gander at the talk page on Stanley Kubrick - there's been a years long argument on why that page doesn't have a public figure info box
Add links to the Italian internment as well, Streisand effect him!
lol
"possible children"? An infobox presents them as fact, so why introduce misleading material in the interests of "quick facts, now!"? And it's not a "resting place". He's not "resting", or "sleeping", or "waiting for god". He's dead. It's a burial place.
From one of the guys in opposition, who is apparently on special "Infobox Probation" for some reason???
The kubrick infobox saga is one of my favorite things to link to people when I want to show them the "dark underbelly" of wikipedia
The wiki power users are legitimately unhinged
Basically my experience 😭
Plus you gotta imagine that some right wing groups do this as well.
Anecdote: I edited a conservative's page to include a reference to a controversy they had and it was removed & I recieved a warning in about 10 minutes. Certain people I am CONVINCED guard their own pages like a hawk to create a better version of themselves than what actually exists. (Hi Pete Buttigeig)
People are VERY aware of the power they have when editing those pages and will exercise it however they can to support their world view, no matter what it is.
Relentless harassment works, it tires you out until you're no longer willing to continue.
If you dare to say this unspoken truth outside of chapo.chat, your house gets droned.
Fuck guy, do you sleep?
Spoilers it's a team of CIA reptiles
I know a lot of people here shit on Wikipedia, and I'm discerning enough now to be able to understand the particular biases that go into editing and what information is being presented, but reading articles about Soviet history in 2004 was foundational to my radicalization and editing that shit is a thankless job. Thank you for your efforts comrade :chavez-salute:
Honestly in hindsight, it's a super waste of time. I wouldn't recommend that anyone go down that path.
Honestly in hindsight, it’s a super waste of time
No it wasn't. That's what they want you to think. You're doing great work. Thank you.
It's as much of a lost cause as other social media sites or the internet in general
I disagree. The corporate social media sites are miles farther down the drain. If you make a good post on social media it is effectively gone a day later. A good wikipedia edit could stick around for years, especially if you are sadistic enough to play the debatelord game.
"Wikipedia is/not a trusted source"
Stage One: Wikipedia is not a trusted source. It can be edited by anyone. Do not cite it - high school teachers
Stage Two: Actually, Wikipedia is a pretty great source. It has references that you can check and cite and serves as a great introduction to many topics - university
Stage Three: Wikipedia is another victim of capitalism - what was meant to be a showcase of true human freedom has turned into a playground for the powerful and the unhinged. Still it can be a introduction for the less political topics as long as you take it with a grain of salt.
Can’t help but suspect there’s people whose job it is to keep watch over certain articles.
Yes, I am involved in wikipedia and there are some pages, mainly political, where you will get reverted in a matter of minutes if you put something down that upsets the narrative.
Everyone has a bias. The internet and wikipedia are just a reflections of our human condition.
Back in my day it use to be the victor who wrote the history books. Now it's whoever slams enough monster energy and frustrates the fuck out of people trying to correct the record. smh
Every community on wikipedia has it's own loons and such. I am involved in the MMA community on there and there is a guy with a vendetta against Bellator. No idea why, but he will do anything to shit on it. Convinced it's Dana White. I will defend wikipedia since I am involved in it, it really depends on who is involved, and in MMA most of the people are chill and nice, even the guy with the Bellator vendetta is fine besides that topic. Send me a personal message and I will see what I can do.
As yes there are paid shills who get paid to edit and watch over some pages. The political pages are especially notorious hence why I never wanted to get involved with those.
