User talk:Prunesqualer/Archives/2021/May

Wikipedia subverted?

There has been some discussion over the years about the potential for Wikipedia to be at least partially subverted by organised special interest groups. The case of CAMERA (a group whose aim is to serve Israeli interests in the field of information dissemination ie propaganda) springs immediately to mind. They appear to have been engaged in the large scale recruitment and training of persons sympathetic to Israel, for the purpose of biasing relevant Wiki articles ie showing Israel and it's policies in a good light, and showing Israel's perceived enemies in a bad light. This particular scheme was eventually exposed thanks to an infiltrator who leaked incriminating e-mails to the Wiki administration. The following is part of Wiki's written response;

"We believe that the group posed a significant long-term threat to the integrity of Wikipedia's Middle Eastern articles. We note that CAMERA reportedly has 55,000 members and that its mailing list had already been used to recruit "Isra-pedia" members. There is no reason to believe that the group would not have grown in numbers and experience over time, particularly if CAMERA had continued to use its mailing list to solicit recruits. However, we regard the group's apparent intention to recruit so-called "stealth admins" as naïve and unlikely to have succeeded."

I wonder if that last sentence about the "intention to recruit so-called 'stealth admins'" being "unlikely to have succeeded." Is just a tad complacent. Surly such a admin infiltration/subversion operation would be hard to detect provided that the operatives where well trained to avoid suspicions. If such a scheme is already in operation, then I think it would be reasonable to make the following prediction; editors who have frequently made contributions critical of Israel will have been proportionatly - more frequently, and more severely sanctioned than, those who make pro-Israeli contributions. I suspect that performing the large scale statistical study, necessary to test such a prediction, would be very arduous. It might make a very interesting post grad project for someone though? Prunesqualer (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I offer the following Guardian article as further food for thought Re- the possibility of Wiki neutrality being systematically undermined;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

Prunesqualer (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example of how Wiki is being subverted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AQu4KtWWz4

Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Vultures move in

On the 28th of October 2010, I was banned from contributing to articles concerned with the Middle East conflict. My downfall was the Gaza War article. I worked hard to influence the intro section (against determined resistance from certain quarters), because I sincerely felt it to give an incomplete and biased impression of that piece of history. I allowed myself to become too emotionally involved and made some procedural errors. Other parties where not slow to capitalise on my mistakes. One day later, and I note that nearly all my work is undone, and that editors on the talk page are advertising an open season on reverting my edits.

For instance;

• Under the section "Obama and congress in the lead" we have "Procedural note: Edits by Prunesqualer can be reverted since he was banned. This was one of them…"
• Under the section "Citation overkill" we have "Procedural note: Edits by Prunesqualer can be reverted since he was banned. A couple of them culminated in this edit…"
• And under a newly created section titled "Edits of banned user" we have "I have reverted this edit of banned editor Prunesqualer who was under an article ban when he made the edit". This from an editor who had previously offered (but not acted on the offer) to perform the very edit he was now reverting.

Strangely enough there was no extra comment under the existing section titled (by another editor) "Prunesqualer's edit".

I think this gives a very revealing insight into what conditions prevail re. editing on the Gaza War article.

Re my current topic ban status

In order to avoid unnecessary/duplicated calls for clarification about my status re. editing in the Arab/Israel field, could editors please refer to the following - [1] and [2]. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prunesqualer. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Message added 02:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I copied your post from Talk:Main page to WT:DYK. Discussion is taking place at DYK talk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Generally, large issues with parts of the main page (i.e. problems with more than just the blurb that shows up on the main page) go to the talk page for that respective section (DYK, Today's featured article, On this day, etc.). Only problems with the blurbs appearing on the main page go to Talk:Main page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)