The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Wikipedia Scandal -- The Secret Mailing List

BamelinBamelin Registered User regular
edited December 2007 in Games and Technology
First off, I wasn't sure where to put this .... Wikipedia has long been a source where I grab information on just about anything, but often about games I'm thinking of buying, or have heard about here in Games and Technology.

The online encyclopedia has been a major "revolution" in my eyes at least in the way we can go get information about anything .... and it's always been a site I regarded as truly democratic ... run by the people for the people.

Grim Reaper posted something in the thread about Jeff that got me doing some digging ... it appears that Wikipedia isn't as democratic as we once thought:

Slashdot
"Wikipedians are up in arms at the revelations that respected administrators have been discussing blocking and banning editors on a secret mailing list. The tensions have spilled over throughout the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit' and news agencies are sniffing around. The Register has this fantastic writeup — read it here first."
The article says that some Wikipedians believe Jimbo Wales has lost face by supporting the in-crowd of administrators and rebuking the whistle blower who leaked the existence of the secret mailing list.

The Registar article can be found here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/


The article is kind of long but basically it outlines how a "ruling clique" of super admins at Wikipedia kept a secret list of users they felt were "troublemakers/trolls". Except "traitors" kind of got added to the list as well and the lines between legitimate "trolls" and those that just didn't agree with certain wikipedia policies got blurred.

The reason I posted this here is that it feels kind of relevant (we often cite wikipedia here in G&T) ... looking at the way technology has changed the way information is processed and the power granted to the gatekeepers of that information. Normally I'd put this in Debate and Concourse, but with the heavy "technology" angle and the explosive nature of the scandal I thought G&T might be intersted in discussing this too (if I was wrong about this please move to D&D)

Bamelin on
«134

Posts

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Sounds like another case of people in power being corrupted by their position and no longer following the ideals on which their organization was founded on. "We don't like you, so you can't edit this site."

    Henroid on
  • DoomulonDoomulon Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Popularity and power corrupt equally. They had both.

    Doomulon on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    There's already a thread over in D&D about the secret mailing list.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It's just another example of technology being useless without the people.

    Evander on
  • FireWeaselFireWeasel Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!

    FireWeasel on
    AC:CL Wii -- 3824-2125-9336 City: Felinito Me: Nick
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I've come across some of the asshole mods myself. Dunno if the particular one was involved in the shenanigans in this here story, but he definitely had a stick up his ass.

    Don't know why, but he was super pissed about the article for Mario 128. User thought it shouldn't have been there, period. It was an okay article, just not up to article standards. Eventually someone had it redirect to Super Mario Galaxy. To start things off, I reverted the redirect to the old page.

    Immediately the article was locked for discussion. User claimed that the information in the article was independent research, and didn't come from the original source, an expert, or a legitimate source of information. To clarify, the references in the article pointed to the YouTube video of the Mario 128 demo, interviews with Miyamoto, IGN, Wired, and CNN. Professional research, information from the original source, experts, and legitimate sources all together. Another point was that Wiki doesn't have pages for technical demonstrations. Dunno where he got that idea. I just posted links to the pages for idTech, Quake Engine, etc.

    So, eventually, enough people chimed in with strong support for the article.

    I finally got it cleaned up a bit earlier today. Still have to go through and finish the job off, but I think it will do for now.

    Regardless, in the end, it definitely seemed like the guy had different motives for wanting the deletion than the reasons cited.

    Sheep on
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    FireWeasel wrote: »
    FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!

    More like, "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BETTER!"

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • PhishPhanpaPhishPhanpa Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    why is this "an outrage" again?

    call me a commie or some other bad name... but isn't this a step in the right direction?

    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    People look down on wiki for its open-source nature, i like it, but i know a lot of people that hate it.

    maybe i'm just evil..

    PhishPhanpa on
    phished.png
  • B.C.B.C. is a bee! remember me?Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    why is this "an outrage" again?

    call me a commie or some other bad name... but isn't this a step in the right direction?

    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    People look down on wiki for its open-source nature, i like it, but i know a lot of people that hate it.

    maybe i'm just evil..

    But the way it's being spun around by the media (at least in my eyes) is that Wiki is for the people by the people.
    Problem is, a bunch of idiots are letting it all go to their head, thinking themselves more important than they really are. I let that happen to me once, and it wasn't pretty in the end.

    Really, all that needs to happen here is a massive ego check for all the super mods/admins. This getting out to the mainstream media should be enough.

    B.C. on
    Friend code for Pokemon fiends everywhere: Arch 0447-6824-1112
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    There were also one or more mods there who had a grudge against webcomics, and wanted pages for them taken down.

    The removal of pages from Wikipedia is one of its biggest issues, IMO. The wording of the requirements to be in there is FAR too vague, allowing the mods essentially to make sole disgression as to what is allowed, which goes COMPLETELY against the idea of having an encyclopedia which contains the information that the PEOPLE want to provide. I undestand the desire to prevent self-promotion, but even when faced with a variety of individuals, the mods are more likely to accuse the originator of creating alts than to they are to see their own mistakes.



    I'm curious; did this list thing actually come as a surprise to anyone?

    Evander on
  • PhishPhanpaPhishPhanpa Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    B.C. wrote: »
    why is this "an outrage" again?

    call me a commie or some other bad name... but isn't this a step in the right direction?

    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    People look down on wiki for its open-source nature, i like it, but i know a lot of people that hate it.

    maybe i'm just evil..

    But the way it's being spun around by the media (at least in my eyes) is that Wiki is for the people by the people.
    Problem is, a bunch of idiots are letting it all go to their head, thinking themselves more important than they really are. I let that happen to me once, and it wasn't pretty in the end.

    Really, all that needs to happen here is a massive ego check for all the super mods/admins. This getting out to the mainstream media should be enough.



    but the "Super admins" have been chosen to be so for a reason, its not like the heads at wiki just threw darts at a board and went "oh these are gonna be them, i guess".

    PhishPhanpa on
    phished.png
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    I sure hope not.

    Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the authority on things, it is supposed to be a one stop collection of information, with links to allow you to see where the info came from.

    As long as Wikipedia is open to be edited, it should NEVER be allowed as a citable source for academic works. Follow the damn links at the bottom of the page, and cite those.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    B.C. wrote: »
    why is this "an outrage" again?

    call me a commie or some other bad name... but isn't this a step in the right direction?

    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    People look down on wiki for its open-source nature, i like it, but i know a lot of people that hate it.

    maybe i'm just evil..

    But the way it's being spun around by the media (at least in my eyes) is that Wiki is for the people by the people.
    Problem is, a bunch of idiots are letting it all go to their head, thinking themselves more important than they really are. I let that happen to me once, and it wasn't pretty in the end.

    Really, all that needs to happen here is a massive ego check for all the super mods/admins. This getting out to the mainstream media should be enough.



    but the "Super admins" have been chosen to be so for a reason, its not like the heads at wiki just threw darts at a board and went "oh these are gonna be them, i guess".

    So, because they were chosen, anything they do is acceptable?

    Evander on
  • SirUltimosSirUltimos Don't talk, Rusty. Just paint. Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'm pretty shocked by this. I hold Wikipedia in higher regard than a lot of people, so something like this is pretty big, I think.

    SirUltimos on
  • whitey9whitey9 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It sucks, but anybody that's shocked by this is completely naive. It's ultimately an internet community, and I don't give a fuck where you are, you give people power and they do dumb shit. It's ops in irc, mods on forums, admins on servers. I have never seen one that doesn't corrupt in some way. The fact that Wikipedia has a respectable goal doesn't change anything.

    I have $100 that says Wikipedia won't become widely accepted at a college level in our lifetimes because of dumb shit like this.

    whitey9 on
    llcoolwhitey.png
  • FieryBalrogFieryBalrog Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    why is this "an outrage" again?

    call me a commie or some other bad name... but isn't this a step in the right direction?

    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    People look down on wiki for its open-source nature, i like it, but i know a lot of people that hate it.

    maybe i'm just evil..


    Um, the whole point is, Wiki is supposed to be an open project which anyone can edit. What happens when you get a small clique of editors who block out others with admin powers, is you get certain views forced upon the whole superstructure, which is totally against the spirit of the whole thing. Political and current topics are particularly vulnerable to this, think about the power you have to present issues or topics a certain way, and at the same time, pretend that its NPOV (non point of view, objective, agreed upon by consensus)? Think about how many people are reading your topics on a controversial issue like abortion or environmental issues, the power you have to influence them, and then if a clique of editors does take control, the ability to (even unconsciously) tilt such articles towards your views?

    Its very deceptive to subtly or even overtly enforce your views on articles and at the same time pretend that theyre open for editing by people with any viewpoints who are bringing information to the table.

    Furthermore, wiki will never be an acceptable academic source. The idea is laughable because even if everyone can't edit it, you have no idea about the academic credentials of those who CAN edit it. Academic citations have to be credentialied organizations or authors.

    FieryBalrog on
    In Koprulu Sector, marines micro YOU!
  • DeathPrawnDeathPrawn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    Unless the fundamental focus of Wikipedia changes drastically, this will never happen. One of the first rules of research papers is that you NEVER cite a general encyclopedia, regardless of whether it's an online collaborative effort or a good old-fashioned edited book.

    DeathPrawn on
    Signature not found.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    why is this "an outrage" again?

    call me a commie or some other bad name... but isn't this a step in the right direction?

    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    People look down on wiki for its open-source nature, i like it, but i know a lot of people that hate it.

    maybe i'm just evil..

    Because this scandal suggests that Wikipedia is operating in the opposite of how Wikipedia is purported to run.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • PhishPhanpaPhishPhanpa Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    B.C. wrote: »
    why is this "an outrage" again?

    call me a commie or some other bad name... but isn't this a step in the right direction?

    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    People look down on wiki for its open-source nature, i like it, but i know a lot of people that hate it.

    maybe i'm just evil..

    But the way it's being spun around by the media (at least in my eyes) is that Wiki is for the people by the people.
    Problem is, a bunch of idiots are letting it all go to their head, thinking themselves more important than they really are. I let that happen to me once, and it wasn't pretty in the end.

    Really, all that needs to happen here is a massive ego check for all the super mods/admins. This getting out to the mainstream media should be enough.



    but the "Super admins" have been chosen to be so for a reason, its not like the heads at wiki just threw darts at a board and went "oh these are gonna be them, i guess".

    So, because they were chosen, anything they do is acceptable?

    I'm not saying that by any means, I'm just saying that Wikimedia knows that for it to work, it has to be adminned. I personally dont have a problem with "stubs" or movie entries that are from a "in world" standpoint. But it has to be looked over by someone, and its WikiM's job to appoint people and make sure they aren't abusing their power. We all know Wiki is amazing, but the methodology still needs to be hammered out. Bottom line is this kind of stuff happens all the time, its the way of the world.

    PhishPhanpa on
    phished.png
  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    I undestand the desire to prevent self-promotion, but even when faced with a variety of individuals, the mods are more likely to accuse the originator of creating alts than to they are to see their own mistakes.

    I remember reading about an experiment a guy did.

    He decided to try and get his Webcomic article on Wikipedia deleted.

    He created about half a dozen alts, aka: "Sock Puppets" to do this.

    Not one was investigated.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    whitey9 wrote: »
    It sucks, but anybody that's shocked by this is completely naive. It's ultimately an internet community, and I don't give a fuck where you are, you give people power and they do dumb shit. It's ops in irc, mods on forums, admins on servers. I have never seen one that doesn't corrupt in some way. The fact that Wikipedia has a respectable goal doesn't change anything.

    I have $100 that says Wikipedia won't become widely accepted at a college level in our lifetimes because of dumb shit like this.

    Wikipedia will never be accepted at a college level for the same reasons you're not allowed to cite Brittanica or Encarta at a college level: you're in fucking college now, you don't cite shit straight out of an encyclopedia for college-level research papers.

    Daedalus on
  • vrstvrst Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    1) What whitey9 said. It's pretty naive to NOT think this stuff is going on.

    2) I had to grade some first-year essays this week. One of them had wikipedia as a source. I stopped right there, failed the paper and threw that shit in the bin. Something has gone wrong is people actually think Wikipedia is a valid academic source. Oh well.

    vrst on
  • SirUltimosSirUltimos Don't talk, Rusty. Just paint. Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I was always aware that there were certain cliques of users on Wikipedia that would block edits and generally manipulate certain pages to their will, but I never even thought about the admins of the site. What exactly can the admins and mods do that regular users can't? I'm pretty curious about this.

    SirUltimos on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    I was always aware that there were certain cliques of users on Wikipedia that would block edits and generally manipulate certain pages to their will, but I never even thought about the admins of the site. What exactly can the admins and mods do that regular users can't? I'm pretty curious about this.

    They can ban people, perma-delete articles, lock pages from being edited by mere mortals, and edit pages thus locked.

    Basically, the issue here is that there's a secret mailing list cabal where ultra-paranoid admins hang out, and one of the most paranoid banned somebody for being a) a new user and b) good, because he figured that since he was new AND was contributing, he MUST be just getting ready to gain everyone's trust and vandalize Wikipedia. Which clearly shows that that one admin probably belongs in a padded room somewhere, but I'm not sure what it says about Wiki as a whole.

    Daedalus on
  • Zetetic ElenchZetetic Elench Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So nobody's posted the Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad theory yet? For shame.

    Zetetic Elench on
    nemosig.png
  • SirUltimosSirUltimos Don't talk, Rusty. Just paint. Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So once again it's a case of some people becoming incredibly over protective?

    SirUltimos on
  • DeathPrawnDeathPrawn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Because this scandal suggests that Wikipedia is operating in the opposite of how Wikipedia is purported to run.

    This.

    Wikipedia is all about being a self-editing communal entity. I can understand that there is a need for some authority figures to, say, issue bans. However, there has to be a system in place to deal with the inevitable problems that will arrive with these admins. Since Wikipedia is a place supposed to be based on communal collaboration, one would assume that all administrative goings-on with regard to content would be conducted out in the open, where everybody can have their say, so as to keep the admins in check and avoid a tyranny (such as what happens when someone gets paranoid and bans an innocent user).

    DeathPrawn on
    Signature not found.
  • PhishPhanpaPhishPhanpa Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    i was extremely stupid for making the college comment, I apologize to everyone, i just woke up from a nap and my synapses weren't clicking on all cylinders yet.


    My question is, out of all of the people viewing this topic, how many have gone into a discussion for a locked article and joined in it.

    PhishPhanpa on
    phished.png
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    i was extremely stupid for making the college comment, I apologize to everyone, i just woke up from a nap and my synapses weren't clicking on all cylinders yet.


    My question is, out of all of the people viewing this topic, how many have gone into a discussion for a locked article and joined in it.
    o/

    Just once, though. In general, I don't edit anything -- maybe once a year, when i realize I can correct a fact that almost nobody else can, due to very specific experience in whatever field.

    gilrain on
  • Zetetic ElenchZetetic Elench Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The entire basis of this scandal is quite amusingly cliche, when you think about it - the Knights of Wikipedia becoming the very monsters they were created to hunt down.

    Zetetic Elench on
    nemosig.png
  • whitey9whitey9 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The entire basis of this scandal is quite amusingly cliche, when you think about it - the Knights of Wikipedia becoming the very monsters they were created to hunt down.

    Take that mob of villagers that chased Frankenstein through the streets. Now, wouldn't it have been smarter for Frankenstein to pick up the torch and help the villagers hunt down some other freak?

    whitey9 on
    llcoolwhitey.png
  • PhishPhanpaPhishPhanpa Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    gilrain wrote: »
    i was extremely stupid for making the college comment, I apologize to everyone, i just woke up from a nap and my synapses weren't clicking on all cylinders yet.


    My question is, out of all of the people viewing this topic, how many have gone into a discussion for a locked article and joined in it.
    o/

    Just once, though. In general, I don't edit anything -- maybe once a year, when i realize I can correct a fact that almost nobody else can, due to very specific experience in whatever field.

    I'm not trying to single you out or insult anyone at this wonderful forum(because I've never added anything to wiki either), but its like, what good is a community when half of the community wouldn't "help out" if WikiM offered to give each person a gold-plated monitor(and I'm talking about the lizard, not what your staring at right now). It is really creepy thinking about people trolling wikipedia though, just imagine what THAT guy looks like..lol

    PhishPhanpa on
    phished.png
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2007
    The email is full of hilarious paranoia.
    Nobody's put their finger on this yet in a systematic way. Maybe it's for lack of time; maybe people's brains are wired differently. I need to show you not just what Wikipedia Review is doing to us, but how they're doing it.

    And I'm setting this forth as a brief seminar so you can do more than recognize when it's presented to you; you can find these signs yourselves.

    The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped about this.

    First, the good news:

    1. They're working from the same playbook.
    2. They don't know this list exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=167325580&oldid=167325471

    Now, the case study:

    Here's a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters. !!

    It's what I would call "ripened sock" - a padded history of redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work. Some of the folks at WR do this to game the community's good faith. I can tell immediately that it's not the user's first account. Soon you'll see the telltale signs as quickly as I do.

    A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup.

    Edit summary on the first edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Kerr&diff=prev&oldid=141874955

    Correct use of page links on the second edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Brocklehurst&diff=prev&oldid=141877151

    Knows how to create line references on the third edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Pompidou&diff=prev&oldid=142914869

    Creates an appropriately formatted stub on the fourth edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colin_Rimer&diff=prev&oldid=142927003

    B. They do wikignome work far too early in the account history to be genuine wikignomes. The purpose is to pad the account history with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate them against the banhammer later on.

    Redirects a page on the seventh edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%8Ele-St-Louis&diff=prev&oldid=144015208

    This user favors redirects and stub creations. Others do RC patrol or copyediting. They continue for days, weeks, or perhaps a few months playing "useful editor."

    C. Many of them tip their hands occasionally during the preparation phase.

    Obscene trolling; knows German: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=156788817

    This user slips for the joy of trolling. Others let down their guard momentarily for WR-related incidents. Look for behavior that seems out of character such as a sudden cluster of talk page posts or odd edit summaries.

    D. They are team players.

    Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=162747326

    Now the moves.

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_5_%282006%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062162
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=163062161
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_6_%282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062164
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=163062163
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_7_%282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062167
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_7&diff=prev&oldid=163062166
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062248
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062247
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062253
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062252
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062257
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062256
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062262
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062263

    E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into the appearance of a legitimate editor.

    I doubt Bishonen knew what this account really was. By now it looks legit to most editors. The nasty side shows itself, though:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=162335262

    F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and takes extremist positions for no apparent reason.

    This rocket-to-the-sky pattern among ripened socks contrasts against sincere but troubled editors, who follow an arc with some visible cause and effect.

    For contrast:

    A regular problem editor will decide Wikipedia has problems after breaking 3RR and getting turned down for an unblock request.

    A ripened sock heads doesn't need to be coaxed to the dark side; it just heads over to a discussion and screams foul while its own reputation is clean as a whistle.

    So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians don't get more than a sense of vague unease about this account's behavior. The sock is fully ripened, the account well established, and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if anyone intervenes. I have a hunch the skilled trolls wait for events that they know will cause a lot of flurried attention onsite so the sudden launching of full implementation is less likely to be noticed in the crowd.

    Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking:

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=168176874
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/My_desysop_of_Zscout370&diff=prev&oldid=168213973
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost&diff=prev&oldid=168209114
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=168487235
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penwhale&diff=prev&oldid=168631084

    G. Many trolls can't resist the temptation to gloat.

    Still doubt me? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Llywrch&diff=prev&oldid=168171012

    Looking ahead:

    Foremost, please keep mum! Many of these mistakes can be corrected and these people are very patient. They will change tactics and get even more careful if they realize how we spot them.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • terminal stupidityterminal stupidity Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Elki wrote: »
    The email is full of hilarious paranoia.
    Nobody's put their finger on this yet in a systematic way. Maybe it's for lack of time; maybe people's brains are wired differently. I need to show you not just what Wikipedia Review is doing to us, but how they're doing it.

    And I'm setting this forth as a brief seminar so you can do more than recognize when it's presented to you; you can find these signs yourselves.

    The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped about this.

    First, the good news:

    1. They're working from the same playbook.
    2. They don't know this list exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=167325580&oldid=167325471

    Now, the case study:

    Here's a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters. !!

    It's what I would call "ripened sock" - a padded history of redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work. Some of the folks at WR do this to game the community's good faith. I can tell immediately that it's not the user's first account. Soon you'll see the telltale signs as quickly as I do.

    A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup.

    Edit summary on the first edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Kerr&diff=prev&oldid=141874955

    Correct use of page links on the second edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Brocklehurst&diff=prev&oldid=141877151

    Knows how to create line references on the third edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claude_Pompidou&diff=prev&oldid=142914869

    Creates an appropriately formatted stub on the fourth edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colin_Rimer&diff=prev&oldid=142927003

    B. They do wikignome work far too early in the account history to be genuine wikignomes. The purpose is to pad the account history with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate them against the banhammer later on.

    Redirects a page on the seventh edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%8Ele-St-Louis&diff=prev&oldid=144015208

    This user favors redirects and stub creations. Others do RC patrol or copyediting. They continue for days, weeks, or perhaps a few months playing "useful editor."

    C. Many of them tip their hands occasionally during the preparation phase.

    Obscene trolling; knows German: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=156788817

    This user slips for the joy of trolling. Others let down their guard momentarily for WR-related incidents. Look for behavior that seems out of character such as a sudden cluster of talk page posts or odd edit summaries.

    D. They are team players.

    Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=162747326

    Now the moves.

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_5_%282006%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062162
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=163062161
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_6_%282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062164
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=163062163
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_7_%282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062167
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_7&diff=prev&oldid=163062166
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062248
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062247
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062253
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062252
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062257
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062256
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II/archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062262
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062263

    E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into the appearance of a legitimate editor.

    I doubt Bishonen knew what this account really was. By now it looks legit to most editors. The nasty side shows itself, though:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=162335262

    F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and takes extremist positions for no apparent reason.

    This rocket-to-the-sky pattern among ripened socks contrasts against sincere but troubled editors, who follow an arc with some visible cause and effect.

    For contrast:

    A regular problem editor will decide Wikipedia has problems after breaking 3RR and getting turned down for an unblock request.

    A ripened sock heads doesn't need to be coaxed to the dark side; it just heads over to a discussion and screams foul while its own reputation is clean as a whistle.

    So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians don't get more than a sense of vague unease about this account's behavior. The sock is fully ripened, the account well established, and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if anyone intervenes. I have a hunch the skilled trolls wait for events that they know will cause a lot of flurried attention onsite so the sudden launching of full implementation is less likely to be noticed in the crowd.

    Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking:

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=168176874
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/My_desysop_of_Zscout370&diff=prev&oldid=168213973
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost&diff=prev&oldid=168209114
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=168487235
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penwhale&diff=prev&oldid=168631084

    G. Many trolls can't resist the temptation to gloat.

    Still doubt me? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Llywrch&diff=prev&oldid=168171012

    Looking ahead:

    Foremost, please keep mum! Many of these mistakes can be corrected and these people are very patient. They will change tactics and get even more careful if they realize how we spot them.
    Hahah Christ, that might as well read, "From the Desk of Administrator Crazy-pants, Chief of the Wikipedia Thoughtcrime Taskforce."

    terminal stupidity on
  • rchourchou Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    That has got to rank as one of the most hilarious emails I've ever read.


    They want to bring us down, and I have proof:

    Pointeth the First: They are good samaritans! Subterfuge and sabotage!

    Pointeth the Second: They know how to edit Wikipedia! Clearly, we're in trouble!

    Pointeth the Third: They contribute to the community! Trying to gain our trust, so that one day they will be able to take us down from the inside.


    Irrefutable! Soon, you will recognize the signs as well!

    :lol::lol:

    rchou on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    As I said in the D&D thread, it's sheer paranoia.

    She says the user does 'wikignome' work far too early for him to be genuine. 'wikignome' work is minor editing - fixing typos, links and things. There's huge numbers of wikipedians who do those edits and those alone; I know it's the only sort of editing I ever do on Wikipedia.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    B.C. wrote: »
    why is this "an outrage" again?

    call me a commie or some other bad name... but isn't this a step in the right direction?

    eventually college students will be able to use wiki as a actual source for papers, and it will gain respect as a source of information.

    People look down on wiki for its open-source nature, i like it, but i know a lot of people that hate it.

    maybe i'm just evil..

    But the way it's being spun around by the media (at least in my eyes) is that Wiki is for the people by the people.
    Problem is, a bunch of idiots are letting it all go to their head, thinking themselves more important than they really are. I let that happen to me once, and it wasn't pretty in the end.

    Really, all that needs to happen here is a massive ego check for all the super mods/admins. This getting out to the mainstream media should be enough.



    but the "Super admins" have been chosen to be so for a reason, its not like the heads at wiki just threw darts at a board and went "oh these are gonna be them, i guess".
    Except Jimbo seems to be quite incapable of detaching himself from his favoritism a lot of the time.

    SithDrummer on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Yeah that letter screams "I'm a freaky deaky crazy pants!". And this person was an editor on the inside? Good lord.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Squirminator2kSquirminator2k they/them North Hollywood, CARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Wikipedia, ultimately, is run by a Shower of Dunces.

    Squirminator2k on
    Jump Leads - a scifi-comedy audiodrama podcast
  • Zetetic ElenchZetetic Elench Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think the most hilarious part about the email is that she's right - he wasn't a new user. He was an experienced editor who had had privacy problems with his other account and created a new one.

    Zetetic Elench on
    nemosig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.