Wikipedia Admin Filibusters Crash Override Network Page To Bury Chat Leaks
oneangrygamer.net/2016/09/wikipedia-admins-fi...
oneangrygamer.netPosted Sep 15, 2016, 1:48 AM UTC
8513
oneangrygamer.netEditors have tried their best to discredit the sources, including Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner, someone Jimbo Wales has cited the work of before in discussion of a COI issue https://archive.is/FaKsK#selection-1825.0-1825.33
10
You know, I'm starting to think that editors should start gutting the other articles that use the Examiner as a source. The ones in the general Wiki rather than this little corner of it.
If MastCell and MjolnirPants feel they have the ability to unilaterally decide who is and who isn't reliable then they should reap the whirlwind. You've either got a policy or you haven't.
10
Well some are arguing that only articles by that specific writer are unreliable. Would be interesting to know if that writer has any more articles used as sources.
2
If a paper is hiring writers who are known to be unreliable, that entire paper is now unreliable. Either the examiner holds itself to high standards or it doesn't. Wikipedia editors don't have the magic ability to know and choose which of the writers from a given source are reliable or unreliable. If they did, that opens up questions about which Breitbart writers are reliable, which heatst writers are reliable, and whether sources like that should be allowed as long as it's certain writers.
12
Beyond that, it should probably be pointed out that not all papers even put which employee actually wrote the article even so would make it even more impossible to use as a standard.
6
Wikipedia editors don't have the magic ability to know and choose which of the writers from a given source are reliable or unreliable.
You mean checking their political affiliation isn't good enough?
/s
5
Well, there's that, there's also the matter of the two Wikipedians deciding at-will if something is an opinion piece or not. Given the ambiguity and the overriding requirement that the encyclopaedia retain it's trustworthiness, I suspect a root-and-branch removal of anything related to the Examiner is the only way to go about this.
6
Anybody who tries that is gonna get WP:POINT thrown at him and simply blocked. The bureaucracy has all bases covered.
2
And you folks are STILL shocked when MastCell does sneaky wiki-lawyer shit? Do I need to remind you of his personal page at Science Based Medicine? The fine gentleman loves to fight with people.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
3
At least one of the participating IP editors, got blocked for sockpupetting. Well that's certainly one way to suppress the opposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.84.155.22
Im not sure about the bureaucratic traditions in Wikipedia, but don't they have to do an investigation first, or can an admin just suddenly decide "I don't like this guy, i say he is an sockpuppet, BANNED and case closed" ?
I guess so. seemed to me like a pretty cut-and-dry "oh I got blocked better reset my dynamic-ip router and keep editing" action to me, what with the similar IP addresses, and just the behavior and timing itself. I certainly would have waited for more than two edits to happen to build up a case.
FTFY