![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
The critical feature in distinguishing conspiracy theory based accusations from simple accusations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and even cabals is that there must be a claim of powerful external entity which has a vested interest in the article(s) on Wikipedia and, therefore, must have agents infiltrating the editing process. Accusations are based on this entity's existence, not any specific activity (e.g. multiple single purpose accounts). The conspiracy theorist shares features with other tendentious editors and vocal advocates, but goes the extra step of attacking the whole collaborative process as "corrupted" when they don't get their way because there is an important "Truth" that the "agents" (any editors who disagree) are burying. Seeing these features should raise warning bells, since such an editor perceives enemies on Wikipedia prior to the first edit. Novangelis ( talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
With regard to sample quotes, they should should be taken from stable archives so that referencing is stable. No more than one quote should be used from any editor (and any suspected sockpuppets), and they should be from a variety of topics where there are documented conspiracy theories. Good sampling would be better for illustration. Using a limited sample of editors may sensitize essay readers to their idiosyncrasies than the problem at large. Novangelis ( talk) 18:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
...and preferably users that have reached indefinite block for their behavior and are unlikely to be unblocked. Novangelis ( talk) 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing at Wikipedia, including the sacred and supreme NPOV policy, can function properly in an uncollaborative atmosphere. That's because collaboration and dispute resolution are more important than content contributions in a wiki community.
That reasoning somehow doesn't feel right - content contributions are a vital part of writing an encyclopedia, and if an editor decides to provide sources (preferrably on the talk page) but doesn't want to go beyond that, that's OK as long as they accept that not all of their suggestions, or sometimes none of them, will be included in the end. I'd change that to simply say “That's because Wikipedia is a thoroughly collaborative project, so if there's a dispute, it has to be resolved in a collaborative way.” -- Six words ( talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Such persons are often immune to cognitive dissonance and cannot be reasoned with. Fortunately this condition isn't necessarily lifelong, since people sometimes experience life altering experiences, traumas, [...]
Two points:
Six words ( talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Finally, I suggest to add a “see also” section that links to all the some relevant policies/guidelines as well as some other essays like
WP:AXE,
WP:FANATIC,
WP:KEEPCOOL or
WP:CALM. --
Six words (
talk)
08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need an essay on such a specific behavior? I agree that this is an overlooked problem that should be taken much more seriously, but I wonder if a slightly more general topic might be better. WP:COI says almost nothing on the general problems of how to properly make coi accusations, the consequences of making coi accusations without grounds for doing so, and how to respond to improper coi accusations. Even if the topic of this essay is kept as is, WP:COI needs to address these general problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I am an interested, outside observer and, for what it is worth, I approve of this message. 208.125.237.242 ( talk) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I submit that Wikipedia is at the mercy of "edit rings" already because it tends to cover extremely sensitive topics. I feel that this page or a page it links to should become a portal for studies (academic or otherwise) involving statistics and data processing, with the ultimate goal of imputing rogue editing processes or programs carried on by various organizations. I'm sure that the various intelligence agencies are already hard at work on such tools, but the general public needs open source tools that perform largely the same analysis.
It should be possible to arrive at standards that allow editors to assert with confidence and evidence that "X,Y, and Z are the same with 99.9% confidence". For this we would need a statistical model of Wikipedia edits.
Wikipedia became internationally famous some time before serious "big data" hardware became very very cheap, so I think it would be prudent to revisit the landscape of tools that can help individuals collect information that could corroborate such accusations.
I believe that Wikipedia will be a victim in the information arms race if it turns a blind eye to conspiracies. 173.239.78.54 ( talk) 00:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, this is a bit off topic, Is there a better a place to put my concerns? This is not a true conspiracy, any more than say, Corporate Media puts out pro-corporate assumptions and stories. I don't really have the vocabulary for this so it will be sloppy, but I hope decipherable. I'm worried that Wikipedia is vulnerable to powerful covert attacks and subversion of "Truth." Not from conspirators, but from well known powerful (arguably irresistible) economic forces.
Analogy:
1) Wikipedia is a regulatory agency serving the public good, and it regulates "non-Truth authors" to favor the output of solid "Truth."
2) Wikipedia (its product) is worth billions of dollars.
3) "Non-Truth authors" now spend millions of dollars to publish their false opinions as Truth. This industry is exploding, no longer bound to old and quick fairly obvious and honest methods. Now this even includes state actors. In the past, Wikipedia's "non-Truth authors" were rather obvious, typically individual emotional amateurs, not professionals schooled in subversion, not schooled in say; How to gain a rock-solid reputation (and Wiki-power) over years.
IOW, they were unfunded, honest single amateurs with a burning issue making them obvious and subject to the above observations and strategies.
I am worried that Wikipedia is unprepared for the economic forces akin to Regulatory capture. What the article on regulatory capture does not make clear is; Nobel-award winning economist George Stigler wrote that it is not just probable, it is inevitable. It is not driven by mere evil-doers, it is driven by economic forces. I'd rather fight an atom bomb.
An example scenario:
For five years, a group of say, 20 well educated people are paid to be excellent Wikipedia authors, and to create "unrelated" reputable Web sites, and all the goodies that reputable news agencies and Wikipedia values, including friendships. This might look like hundreds of unrelated persona, and a dozen organizations.
Economic law: If it's economic, it exists. (No conspiracy needed.)
Does Wikipedia have defenses I'm not aware of?
Thoughts? Suggestions?
--
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:FD5C:9B99:4C02:3EC7 (
talk)
17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)JustSaying
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
The critical feature in distinguishing conspiracy theory based accusations from simple accusations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and even cabals is that there must be a claim of powerful external entity which has a vested interest in the article(s) on Wikipedia and, therefore, must have agents infiltrating the editing process. Accusations are based on this entity's existence, not any specific activity (e.g. multiple single purpose accounts). The conspiracy theorist shares features with other tendentious editors and vocal advocates, but goes the extra step of attacking the whole collaborative process as "corrupted" when they don't get their way because there is an important "Truth" that the "agents" (any editors who disagree) are burying. Seeing these features should raise warning bells, since such an editor perceives enemies on Wikipedia prior to the first edit. Novangelis ( talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
With regard to sample quotes, they should should be taken from stable archives so that referencing is stable. No more than one quote should be used from any editor (and any suspected sockpuppets), and they should be from a variety of topics where there are documented conspiracy theories. Good sampling would be better for illustration. Using a limited sample of editors may sensitize essay readers to their idiosyncrasies than the problem at large. Novangelis ( talk) 18:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
...and preferably users that have reached indefinite block for their behavior and are unlikely to be unblocked. Novangelis ( talk) 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing at Wikipedia, including the sacred and supreme NPOV policy, can function properly in an uncollaborative atmosphere. That's because collaboration and dispute resolution are more important than content contributions in a wiki community.
That reasoning somehow doesn't feel right - content contributions are a vital part of writing an encyclopedia, and if an editor decides to provide sources (preferrably on the talk page) but doesn't want to go beyond that, that's OK as long as they accept that not all of their suggestions, or sometimes none of them, will be included in the end. I'd change that to simply say “That's because Wikipedia is a thoroughly collaborative project, so if there's a dispute, it has to be resolved in a collaborative way.” -- Six words ( talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Such persons are often immune to cognitive dissonance and cannot be reasoned with. Fortunately this condition isn't necessarily lifelong, since people sometimes experience life altering experiences, traumas, [...]
Two points:
Six words ( talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Finally, I suggest to add a “see also” section that links to all the some relevant policies/guidelines as well as some other essays like
WP:AXE,
WP:FANATIC,
WP:KEEPCOOL or
WP:CALM. --
Six words (
talk)
08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need an essay on such a specific behavior? I agree that this is an overlooked problem that should be taken much more seriously, but I wonder if a slightly more general topic might be better. WP:COI says almost nothing on the general problems of how to properly make coi accusations, the consequences of making coi accusations without grounds for doing so, and how to respond to improper coi accusations. Even if the topic of this essay is kept as is, WP:COI needs to address these general problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I am an interested, outside observer and, for what it is worth, I approve of this message. 208.125.237.242 ( talk) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I submit that Wikipedia is at the mercy of "edit rings" already because it tends to cover extremely sensitive topics. I feel that this page or a page it links to should become a portal for studies (academic or otherwise) involving statistics and data processing, with the ultimate goal of imputing rogue editing processes or programs carried on by various organizations. I'm sure that the various intelligence agencies are already hard at work on such tools, but the general public needs open source tools that perform largely the same analysis.
It should be possible to arrive at standards that allow editors to assert with confidence and evidence that "X,Y, and Z are the same with 99.9% confidence". For this we would need a statistical model of Wikipedia edits.
Wikipedia became internationally famous some time before serious "big data" hardware became very very cheap, so I think it would be prudent to revisit the landscape of tools that can help individuals collect information that could corroborate such accusations.
I believe that Wikipedia will be a victim in the information arms race if it turns a blind eye to conspiracies. 173.239.78.54 ( talk) 00:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, this is a bit off topic, Is there a better a place to put my concerns? This is not a true conspiracy, any more than say, Corporate Media puts out pro-corporate assumptions and stories. I don't really have the vocabulary for this so it will be sloppy, but I hope decipherable. I'm worried that Wikipedia is vulnerable to powerful covert attacks and subversion of "Truth." Not from conspirators, but from well known powerful (arguably irresistible) economic forces.
Analogy:
1) Wikipedia is a regulatory agency serving the public good, and it regulates "non-Truth authors" to favor the output of solid "Truth."
2) Wikipedia (its product) is worth billions of dollars.
3) "Non-Truth authors" now spend millions of dollars to publish their false opinions as Truth. This industry is exploding, no longer bound to old and quick fairly obvious and honest methods. Now this even includes state actors. In the past, Wikipedia's "non-Truth authors" were rather obvious, typically individual emotional amateurs, not professionals schooled in subversion, not schooled in say; How to gain a rock-solid reputation (and Wiki-power) over years.
IOW, they were unfunded, honest single amateurs with a burning issue making them obvious and subject to the above observations and strategies.
I am worried that Wikipedia is unprepared for the economic forces akin to Regulatory capture. What the article on regulatory capture does not make clear is; Nobel-award winning economist George Stigler wrote that it is not just probable, it is inevitable. It is not driven by mere evil-doers, it is driven by economic forces. I'd rather fight an atom bomb.
An example scenario:
For five years, a group of say, 20 well educated people are paid to be excellent Wikipedia authors, and to create "unrelated" reputable Web sites, and all the goodies that reputable news agencies and Wikipedia values, including friendships. This might look like hundreds of unrelated persona, and a dozen organizations.
Economic law: If it's economic, it exists. (No conspiracy needed.)
Does Wikipedia have defenses I'm not aware of?
Thoughts? Suggestions?
--
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:FD5C:9B99:4C02:3EC7 (
talk)
17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)JustSaying