this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
880 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

69211 readers
3559 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

One of the earliest global bans was against user "russavia" - research him and you'll know what I'm talking about. After that I stopped following Wikimedia internals because it was 100% clear that they were now just completely arbitrarily banning people.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Banned user Russavia edited two of the oligarch articles. He was a very active administrator on Wikimedia Commons, who specialized in promoting the Russian aviation industry, and in disrupting the English-language Wikipedia.

After finally being banned on the English Wikipedia, he created dozens of sockpuppets. Russavia, by almost all accounts, is not a citizen or resident of Russia, but his edits raise some concern and show some patterns.

In 2010, he boasted, on his userpage at Commons, that he had obtained permission from the official Kremlin.ru site for all photos there to be uploaded to Commons under Creative Commons licenses. He also made 148 edits at Russo-Georgian War, and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

Idk, when you're using Wikipedia as a tool to push Russian propaganda, it seems fair that you'd be banned. That's not what Wikipedia is for. He's free to start russopedia.ru or whatever if he wants to do that.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

the ridiculously detailed

An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is... interesting.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Kinda burying the lede on that complaint......

and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

Wikipedia cares more about bias than* ridiculous details, especially when the ridiculous detail is there to put bias into the article

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I read it as adding a bunch of superfluous details that were biased.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

What is the difference between including ridiculous amounts of detail to bias the article, and superfluous biased details that still end up with a biased article?

Seems like a distinction without a difference.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago

I didn't imply those were different, I don't get your point.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I think their point was that since he got Russian government permission to use Russian gov media, and he wrote a very detailed (although very biased in favour of Russia) article, then they think he is receiving assistance from the russian government to push Russian propaganda.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

You could have just said you're upset that a Russian propagandist was banned. Would have been quicker and more honest lol.

[–] weststadtgesicht@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Great. Making generalizing statements based on ONE case from over 10 years ago, which was - at best - debatable (see other response).

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago

To be fair, they were asked for an example and they gave one. I'm not saying I agree with them but this feels unfair to say.