Skip to content

Comment on How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

Comments

Nation-state actors on Wikipedia which hide behind the byzantine rules and regulations on the site are a far worse problem, imho. I think Wikipedia is still the best tool for information on the net, if the user approaches it with a critical mind, check sources (which a frightening number of times say the exact opposite of what was included in the article!), and check Talk and revision history pages. But, I would bet that most people do not approach Wikipedia in this manner. Furthermore, Wikipedia is used to train LLMs, and the problem compounds via citogenesis.

If you spend time editing Wikipedia a decent amount, you will see the same groups of moderators and actors which rapidly alter certain types of articles to fit particular metanarratvies. Anyone who points this out will get revdel'd, which means that non-admins can't even see what happened. revdelling is supposed to be reserved for doxing and serious matters, but when you see it abused with your own eyes by the same users working in tandem with mods (I am talking within 3-4 minutes of a controversial post going live), then I guarantee you will never look at Wikipedia the same way again. There are obvious nation-state actors acting out in the open, running automated software (dozens of edits across pages within minutes) without an authorized bot, and they are allied with particular circles of mods who are on the same payroll. If any other user attempts even a mere fraction of a percentage of the biased and violative TOS activity in which they engage, you will get revdel'd and/or have your account banhammered.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.