As usual, Wikipedia Administrators can be relied upon to let their egos spill the beans on how Wikipedia reality works, and Beeblebrox is a nothing if not an egomaniac.....
Like I said we were already discussing the use of protection, and in fact I'm the one who started the discussion. It isn't like it's some big secret that there is a lot of disinformation floating around this election, so I thought we should discuss what we our plans were. Whoever did that semi did so on their own authority as an admin.
And there is no new policy. Admins are possibly stretching/ignoring the rules a little in an effort to minimize disruption, which is also withing policy per IAR, but to actually change policy we would've had to take it to the community, have an RFC, all that, and, at least in my opinion, it was a a little late in the day for all that.
He doesn't say where this discussion took place, but if it was an Admin only event, or if it was an outcome of the sekrit WMF-Admin disinformation task force wargaming that we are only just learning of, that's totally against what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. Every single editor is meant to have an equal voice in matters of basic policy.
Administrators are explicitly disallowed from supplanting the community's judgement for their own, and there are no exceptions (except IAR), not even in the category of 'stuff which needed to be done quickly'. You're allowed to take unilateral action in an emergency, which this obviously isn't, but you're still expected to be open to feedback.
I get tired of saying it, but "per IAR" (ignore all rules) is not some blank cheque that allows people to do whatever they personally think would benefit Wikipedia and if others disagree they can go to hell. It is only a valid use of IAR if there is not a reasonable expectation beforehand that if you had put your proposal to the community first, there would be pushback.
And it's a sad day indeed, if, in the event of someone proposing that Wikipedia should pre-emptively lock down articles relating to the U.S. election before it has even been shown that there is going to be "disruption" due to "disinformation" isn't met with howls of protest.
The plain truth is, obvious "disinformation" is easily kept out of Wikipedia, and there will be hundreds if not thousands of eyes watching every second, waiting for the opportunity to remove it.
The sort of disinformation they are really talking about here, is simply information that they do not like, that they do not agree with, for reasons of personal politics, but has otherwise been published in a reliable source.
For example, according to the BBC, Hunter Biden has never confirmed or denied if he ever handed in a laptop to be repaired. I found that very interesting, but not half as interesting as realising Wikipedia seems to have decided this is not relevant information for their OMFG HUNTER BIDEN DID NOTHING WRONG THIS IS ALL A CONSPIRACY THEORY article.
I'm not saying it's not a conspiracy theory, I just think that if Biden was innocent, he'd have happily gone on record as saying this now infamous laptop either does or doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then people would know the truth regarding what Wikipedia calls, emails of "unknown authorship".
I mean, if he never even owned this laptop, there would be no controversy, right? A random laptop turns up in October in the hands of the Vampire In Chief and it appears to have incriminating emails written on it from Hunter Biden? Naturally your first thought woud be Russian plot.
Wikipedia's current modus operandi in that scenario, is a to "depreciate" the source, so it can never be used, but that takes time. It's not something you can do on the fly in a matter of days (although you shouldn't be misled into thinking that means the outcome must be the result of reasoned debate). And obviously, you can't depreciate the BBC.
This is where Wikipedia is, after twenty years of unfettered corruption. It is biased. They genuinely believe the Daily Mail routinely fabricates stories, that there is no significant difference between it and Fox. Christ, they actually think Fox is more reliable that the Mail for non politics/science.
Over here, in the real world, where Wikipedia thankfully still plays only a minor role in informing the general public, the Mail is seen as what it is. A right leaning newspaper, but a newspaper all the same. A newspaper which is not in lock-step with any political party, and doesn't happily carry their disinformation.
I'm sitting here watching Trump basically try cling to power by literally climbing on the dead bodies of even his supporters, and I'm watching Fox News happily assist him in these efforts, and I'm genuinely wondering how the hell the Mail became Wikipedia's go to example of a disinformation outlet.
Truth time. The Mail has eviscerated Trump many times, as a dishonorable reprehensible demagogue. The Mail has never reflexively supported any UK party/leader. The front page of mailonline today gives you a fair and accurate run down of how and why our right leaning Prime Minister has gone against his political instincts (and against a string of Mail editorials I am guessing) and ordered a new national lockdown.
And yes, I suppose people will now debate whether more people will have been saved if it has been done a week or two earlier, but if we ignore the fringes and the obviously biased sources like The Guardian, it will be accepted that this was a reasonable difference of opinion borne of political disagreement, not pure evil, it being noticed by all that the leader of the opposition party has only been calling for a national lockdown very recently.
Wake up America. Britain is still a functioning democracy. Our media still works, it is still largely trusted. It's YOUR country that has descended into a lake of flaming shit, it's YOUR country where news anchors are openly tearing their hair out at the madness. And it all happened at the very same time Wikipedia was supposedly there to guide you, to help you make informed decisions, to shield you from disinformation.
You're being lied to. Wikipedia is a left wing entity. Your media has been forced to be partisan, by Wikipedia. A non-partisan source, given that runs the risk of it fairly and accurately reporting what the right wing thinks, is under constant threat of depreciation by Wikipedia.
You will never ever get more proof that Amercians are totally crazy and probably deserve everything they are getting right now, as when they claim the Daily Mail is the British equivalent of the National Enquirer, or that Johnson is the British Trump. Obvious nonsense is obvious. Have they never heard of The Daily Star or Nigel Farage?
These batshit opinions came from the bias factory that is Wikipedia, they were the people who took them from the fringes of the loony left wing, and made them "mainstream".
Wikipedia are so determined to fight this election in behalf of the Democrats, every single principle they ever had, is indeed, ignored, forgotten, and the place really is simply the personal platform of a handful of Administrators.
People who, in the true left tradition, find the in truth quite powerless proletariat of the ordinary editors, to be easily led, easy to call on for a show of support, be that by a show of hands or angry shouting. Anything that sort of looks like democracy, just as long as it's not a genuinely secret ballot.
And of course, all done in a manner that makes it seem to the dumb journalists that everyone is invited to the market square, but where in reality, the purpose of the people with red armbands lingering at the entrance, is known to all. It's not your papers they want, it's evidence of your commitment to The Party. Your loyalty to Wikipedia. Ergo, your loyalty to the left.
People like David Gerard and Guy Chapman, who are on a personal crusade to have the Daily Mail wiped out as a source, because they think it is WORSE than FOX. These are Wikipedia Administrators. Perhaps the most secure, most trusted, most immovable Administrators they have. The real top rank piggies.
So if you're looking for people to blame for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are about to die, either from the virus or at the barrel of a gun, you could do worse than investigate the role of these two.
They're British by the way. They would have no place in our media or politics, they would be insignificant bloggers stuck on the fringes, which is why they have found a home on Wikipedia, as part of the "mainstream".
It is perhaps ironic that your American dream has been turned into a nightmare by your former Colonial masters. Because like it or not, Chapman and Gerard epitomize the sort of "we know better than you, so shut up and let us do our thing" attitude that kinda ticked you off and made you dump all that precious tea into the harbour.
The above comment by Beeblebrox was made on Wikipediocracy, an American website purported to be all about investigating the corrupt underbelly of Wikipedia. The very fact he seems to think he wouldn't suffer enormous criticism for having said it, shows you what role they have played in bringing you to the brink of your doom.
Fun fact. In Wikipediocracy's off topic forum thread on US politcs, I told them that if they didn't have a plan for what happened in the time between election day and inauguration day, bad shit was going to happen. They laughed.
They seemed to think America could handle it, because Secret Service and Constitution or whatever. They couldn't tell me the plan because obviously it was a secret, not because there isn't one. At least one that doesn't simply say "shall we just keep trying to do the same thing and expect different results?".
Shortly after, they banned me, because apparently I don't know shit about shit (and I make beloved members like Beeblebrox sad and angry). All I did was listen to Bill Maher and engage my brain, which is pretty smart due to my high-quality state funded education.
You Americans should really look into that some time. And, y'know, all the medicine and stuff. It can be abused of course, Gerard and Chapman are undoubtedly smart, but that's what society is for, keeping those people away from positions of influence.
So, whose laughing now? There's a high chance some of the Wikipediocracy people, or some of their relatives, are going to actually die before Inauguration Day. All because America, the BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, somehow became a FAILED STATE where their elected President gets to stand up on a podium and lie to them all, with utter impunity.
Me, I'm good. The chances of me or anyone I care about catching the virus this winter are now lower than they were in March, and while the general death toll is nothing to be sniffed at, it is within acceptable bounds for a pandemic. We can't all be New Zealand.
This is what Capitalist Neo-Liberal society is all about. If we wanted it to be anything else we, would have elected Corbyn, or Kinnock, or Foot. Our system does quite reliably return the government that most people want, without all the flaws of a pure majority vote for one single personality, that seems to be the dream of the American left.
You Americans came closer to electing your "radical" option than we ever did, remember, such has been the influence of Wikipedia over your culture. How ironic that it was Jimmy Wales, not Jeb Bush, who put a nail in that coffin.
You're not half as free as you think you are. Jimmy can be a British citizen if he wants, we're happy to tax him if you can't or won't. Gotta pay for that spilt tea somehow. It still thankfully means his preferences over who should lead this country, are largely ignored.
And of course, the chances of me dying from a bullet fired in the midst of a protest or even a civil war, are zero. And I mean that in the true mathematical sense. Jimmy knows the score. Safest place to be right now, is the place where owning a gun is not considered a right.
The Wikipediocrats will blame Trump, or course. Or the Russians. Or Mitch. They will not blame Wikipedia, and they will not blame themselves.
Dumb.
I for one am glad to live in a country where the Daily Mail's strident opinion is apparently the means by which Russia is about to DESTROY US ALL and our only saviour is The Guardian, whose grand plan for financial security is the Wikipedia inspired begging bowl method. How much did Jimmy bilk from their coffers for that nugget of Baordroom wisdom?
Yeah, good luck with that Ivan.
When you're done with dissolving to the bones of America in a barrel of acid, just remember that we still have the SAS. We don't need fancy toys and a Space Force, we still remember what warfare is all about. We know how to kill people with laptops. You cave a skull in with it.
Happy Halloween people. And a happy Fifth of November too. If you Americans don't know what that particular British festival is all about, what it can teach you about the true spirit of Britain in the Twenty First Century, what it could have told you about how our Democracy works and the historical roots therein, and why you were such idiots for thinking you could do better than Papa Bear, well, wouldn't you know, Wikipedia is to blame for that too!
This has been a message of Anonymous. Enjoy the party. January truly will be a New Year for you all. Those who survive at any rate.
Who else is in the mood for Lamb kebab right now?
