Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18-05-2018, 10:34 AM   #1
ivand
Senior Member
 
ivand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 543
Likes: 76 (28 Posts)
Default Time to ditch Wikipedia

https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/

Time to ditch Wikipedia? A look at a Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign to discredit anti-war campaigners and journalists

A Wikipedia editor called Philip Cross (Andrew Philip Cross and later "Julian" on Twitter) has a long record of editing the entries of many anti-war figures on the site to include mostly critical commentary while removing positive information contributed by others. At time of writing he is number 308 in the list of Wikipedians by number of edits.

Wikipedia entries very often appear first in search results, and so for many will be the first and only port of call when researching something. People unaware of the political nature of the editing that goes on on the site, in this case supposedly by a single, dedicated editor, are being seriously misled.

As an active editor for 15 years, Cross is very familiar with some of the more arcane Wikipedia rules and guidelines (along with their obscure acronyms) and uses them to justify removing information he dislikes in favour of his own inclusions. Often in a very subtle manner and over a long period of time. Anyone familiar with the work of the people he targets will recognise how one-sided and distorted those entries become.

Cross is, however, much nicer to the entries of people he likes. Former hedge-fund manager and Iraq war supporter Oliver Kamm, and right-wing author Melanie Philips, both columnists for The Times, are two examples.

On Twitter, where Cross is more provocative and antagonistic, he doesn't hide the fact that he has long-running feuds with many of his targets on Wikipedia.



After George Galloway, Media Lens is his second most edited article on the site. Cross is responsible for almost 80% of all content on the Media Lens entry.



The 'goons' being anti-war politician George Galloway, former MP Matthew Gordon-Banks, historian, human rights activist and former UK ambassador Craig Murray, investigative journalist Dr Nafeez Ahmed, Edinburgh University professor Tim Hayward, Sheffield University professor Piers Robinson, and media analysis group Media Lens.

And he's happy to openly taunt his Wikipedia targets on Twitter:





How this behaviour doesn't fall foul of Wikipedia's rules, we don't know. Especially as his efforts, in addition to misleading the public, have serious consequences for the people targeted.





Cross' activities are now finally getting some attention thanks to more of his targets speaking out on Twitter. The story has now also been picked up by RT and the Sunday Herald.

Ron McKay writes in the Sunday Herald:

Within the cyber cloisters of academe Wikiwars are raging, with one Edinburgh professor in particular catching the flak. Tim Hayward is one of the group of academics (his colleague Paul McKeigue is another) who set up the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media – or if you prefer the Times description, Apologists for Assad. The group’s questioning over whether it could be definitively concluded that the Syrian regime was responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack last month (they have also queried the Novichok attack of the Skripals) is apparently what provoked their pillorying in the Thunderer.

Within hours Hayward’s Wikipedia had been strafed and apparently favourable references removed. Former ambassador Craig Murray is another who claims to have come under “obsessive attack” with his page subject to 107 detrimental changes over three days. The journalist Neil Clark has a similar story about amendments and alterations.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that there are common threads here. All of those are – (select your own description, anti-war, assiduous, useful idiots?) – prominent campaigners on social media and in the mainstream media vigorously questioning our foreign policy. All have also clashed with Oliver Kamm, a former hedge-fund manager and now Times leader writer and columnist.
The RT piece opens with:

A mystery online figure called Philip Cross is targeting anti-war and non-mainstream UK figures by prolifically editing their Wikipedia pages – to the point that George Galloway is offering a reward to see him unmasked.

Active on Wikipedia since 2004, Philip Cross has been editing wiki entries for nearly 15 years. Recently, trouble has been brewing online, with Cross accused of paying special attention to a cluster of Wikipedia accounts, editing them or deleting chunks of information.

Pundits like Galloway, academic Tim Hayward, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, and ex-UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray have fallen in the crosshairs of the editorial mystery man (or perhaps woman) who goes by the name of Philip Cross – and many of them are growing frustrated with the lack of action from Wikipedia to prevent malicious editing.
See also this Sputnik interview with George Galloway. Galloway's Wikipedia entry is Cross' most edited page on the site with 1,796 edits.

So far none of this has resulted in any action from Wikipedia, only dismissals from Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder.

Wikipedia diffs

Considering Cross' quite open hostility towards the people whose pages he edits on Wikipedia, it should already be apparent that he should not be editing those pages at all. Those demanding diffs (exact changes made in an edit) are really missing the bigger picture here.

But let's take a look at just a few of Cross' recent edits. His edit history goes back many years, so this will only be a tiny sample. We encourage those targeted by Cross to send links to edits made to their pages so we can try to highlight them here.

Cross doesn't like Sheffield University professor Piers Robinson.

So, he edits his Wikipedia entry and removes the fact that Robinson has written for the The Guardian...



...and throws in an unsourced claim about journalist Eva Bartlett (someone else he doesn't like) and then tries to make a tenuous, defamatory connection between Robinson and another one of his targets (journalist Vanessa Beeley).



Cross likes Iraq war supporter, former hedge-fund manager and Times columnist Oliver Kamm.

So he removes the fact that there's an upcoming court case brought against Kamm by journalist Neil Clark for harassment and defamation:



Craig Murray observed what happened to his Wikipedia entry when he criticised Kamm:

On 7 February I published an article calling out Kamm for publishing a blatant and deliberate lie about me. The very next day, 8 February, my Wikipedia page came under obsessive attack from somebody called Philip Cross who made an astonishing 107 changes over the course of the next three days. Many were very minor, but the overall effect was undoubtedly derogatory. He even removed my photo on the extraordinary grounds that it was “not typical” of me.
Cross likes right-wing Times columnist Melanie Philips.

So why should anyone have to learn about Philips' climate change denial?



Cross doesn't like media analysis group Media Lens.

So he removes something nice former BBC editor Peter Barron wrote about them...



...and changes it to:

Peter Barron, the former editor of the BBC's ''Newsnight'' commented in November 2005 that although Cromwell and Edwards "are unfailingly polite", he had received "hundreds of e-mails from sometimes less-than-polite hommes engages - they're almost always men - most of whom don't appear to have watched the programme" as a result of complaints instigated by Media Lens.
And lets throw in some vacuous complaints from people who prefer to insult and smear Media Lens rather than engage with their work:



Despite Cross' hostility toward Media Lens and a self-confessed "long standing feud", he is, remarkably, responsible for the majority (77.8%) of the content on the Media Lens Wikipedia entry:



Click the image to expand it (made with WhoColor).

Occasionally, it seems, Cross does get caught out. His recent effort to write the entry for Edinburgh University professor Tim Hayward resulted in another editor reverting the change with the note:

this is all completely overheated; if it's all he is known for, we're headed for BLP1E [Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event]; if it is to be included, it will be worded responsibly and added via consensus
Cross attempted again to get his edit in, and was rebuked again:

you're not even trying via a talk-page discussion
Wikipedia usage

Cross is listed number 308 in the list of Wikipedians by number of edits. (Linking to archived copy as Cross asked to have his name removed from the list after his edits started to get more attention on Twitter.)

He is very active on Wikipedia, as his time card shows:

timecard

More information

See list of Philip Cross' Wikipedia contributions
See stats on Cross' Wikipedia activity
Follow leftworks, Neil Clark, George Galloway, Media Lens, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson, Craig Murray
Don't trust what you read on Wikipedia!

Please spread the word to anyone who's unaware of the extent to which Wikipedia can be manipulated in this way.

And if you'd like to see some action taken by Wikipedia, please tweet Jimmy Wales and let him know.

Contact

If you'd like to get in touch about anything here, please email [email protected] or tweet us @fivefilters.
ivand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2018, 10:39 AM   #2
ivand
Senior Member
 
ivand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 543
Likes: 76 (28 Posts)
Default

If you think Wikipedia is open and anyone can edit the pages, try this....
Make an edit to a page like your home town's page with a valid, referenced bit of information. See how quickly its edited back.

Wiki is anything but open, its highly censored..
ivand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2018, 02:41 PM   #3
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,006
Likes: 1,234 (792 Posts)
Default

It sure is!!!!

One time I found a page about M&Ms candies and I added that they changed the recipe in 2000 to using SKIM MILK (From reg milk they had used since the beg) and within a day they edited it back!!

I tried again and the same thing....... MARS MUST REALLY BE TRYING TO KEEP THIS COVERED UP!!!!!! (I used to love m&ms before 2000... NOW THEY TASTE LIKE CRAP (Skim milk))
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2018, 05:25 PM   #4
madbomber
Senior Member
 
madbomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,060
Likes: 1,766 (840 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivand View Post
If you think Wikipedia is open and anyone can edit the pages, try this....
Make an edit to a page like your home town's page with a valid, referenced bit of information. See how quickly its edited back.

Wiki is anything but open, its highly censored..
I made some alterations, fake ones, to a couple of obscure Wiki entries a few years ago. Silly stuff and quite harmless, but they are still there and, what's more, have migrated to other sites that copy stuff from Wiki. Haven't tried it for a while though so maybe they've tightened up.
__________________
What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today.
madbomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2018, 05:51 PM   #5
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,347
Likes: 3,951 (2,181 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madbomber View Post
I made some alterations, fake ones, to a couple of obscure Wiki entries a few years ago. Silly stuff and quite harmless, but they are still there and, what's more, have migrated to other sites that copy stuff from Wiki. Haven't tried it for a while though so maybe they've tightened up.
They won't give a shite about truth, it's about self preservation and making sure all the children and students follow their agenda.
So if your post is not exposing a truth about them or their "fellows" or the fake education agenda, they really won't be bothered.

Wiki has always been shite imho
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2018, 07:34 PM   #6
madbomber
Senior Member
 
madbomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,060
Likes: 1,766 (840 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
They won't give a shite about truth, it's about self preservation and making sure all the children and students follow their agenda.
So if your post is not exposing a truth about them or their "fellows" or the fake education agenda, they really won't be bothered.

Wiki has always been shite imho
It's a joke. Apparently, it's the go-to site for lazy journalists who like a quick cut 'n paste of Wiki's 'facts' for their stories. They've been caught out time and again. I've got my trusty old Britannica for my own use though it is out of date by now.

As for Wiki, I made up a totally bogus local council resolution about adopting a plan for disposing of dogshit. The named proposers of said resolution were my neighbour and her dog (with her consent of course).

Another created a restaurant at a listed country house. The owners, a supposed executive chef and a former sous chef at a well-known London hotel, were actually a pair of burger-flippers from a local greasy spoon.

Lastly, I promoted the local drunk to the position of town mayor and leading light in a brewing festival, complete with bogus quotes.
__________________
What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today.
madbomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2018, 07:39 PM   #7
nofuture
Premier Subscribers
 
nofuture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 9,121
Likes: 483 (233 Posts)
Default

Galloway talking about this now.

Zionist filth driving people to near suicide.
__________________
On balance, I think the only reason our political elite haven't slaughtered us in camps is they need us to produce children for them to fuck

Frankie Boyle
nofuture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2018, 02:26 PM   #8
cosmic tramp
Senior Member
 
cosmic tramp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,523
Likes: 2,479 (1,603 Posts)
Default

Don't know if people know about this already, but there is an alternative to Wiki. By no means as big (yet) but with over 16,700 articles to date and growing, citizendium is presenting itself as an alternative to Wikipedia, not sure if it is subject to any censorship of any kind, it certainly seems to be as equally all embracing a compendium as Wikipedia even if it doesn't yet match English Wikipedia's current 5 million 644 thousand articles.

Link here :


http://en.citizendium.org

Last edited by cosmic tramp; 19-05-2018 at 02:31 PM.
cosmic tramp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2018, 09:17 PM   #9
ivand
Senior Member
 
ivand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 543
Likes: 76 (28 Posts)
Default

https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/...e-bans-author/

"Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso” recently tried the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo source, making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in perpetuity. Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible is a banning offence

Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for yourselves if the response was deserved,

Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment journalists, bloggers, authors and academics such as:

George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging, however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in concert.

Edit references are provided below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history"
ivand is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:19 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.