He generally shows most of the signs of the misinformation accounts:

  • Wants to repeatedly tell basically the same narrative and nothing else
  • Narrative is fundamentally false
  • Not interested in any kind of conversation or in learning that what he’s posting is backwards from the values he claims to profess

I also suspect that it’s not a coincidence that this is happening just as the Elon Musks of the world are ramping up attacks on Wikipedia, specially because it is a force for truth in the world that’s less corruptible than a lot of the others, and tends to fight back legally if someone tries to interfere with the free speech or safety of its editors.

Anyway, YSK. I reported him as misinformation, but who knows if that will lead to any result.

Edit: Number of people real salty that I’m talking about this: Lots

  • Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 day ago

    I do the research and script writing for a documentary company. In 2023, I noticed that the pages of serial killers I’d been researching, started mentioning political affiliation in the top paragraph… but they all said Democrat (or socialst, communist sympathizer, anti-fascist, etc). Then, one of the murderers I was researching, who was literally a Republican politician who killed his wife , said Democrat and I had a team investigate. It got corrected, but we have no idea if it was one person or a group that changed the pages. Someone out there wants murderers to be associated with democrats.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    1 day ago

    1. I don’t trust Wikipedia, but I do think they’re a good STARTING POINT for research, the problem comes when it’s used as the end-all be-all

    2. Can you be specific about this misinformation so I don’t just point fingers at anyone who doesn’t worship the ground Wikipedia walks on. Like what are they saying and why isn’t it true?

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    1 day ago

    Wikipedia is just another website run by some privileged dickheads and their mods.

    I’m not bothering to argue whether it’s better or worse than other websites.

    But only a fool would trust it or believe that it’s inherently “good”.

  • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 day ago

    As long as people keep in mind what Wikipedia is, there should be no issue. There’s a reason teachers never allow it as a source, but it is great as an introduction to any topic, from which point you can further your own research.

  • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    2 days ago

    DOWNLOAD A COPY OF WIKIPEDIA NOW. RIGHT NOW. DO NOT WAIT.

    WIKIPEDIA WILL BE RUINED IN (just guessing) THREE MONTHS (I hope I’m wrong)

  • auzy@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 days ago

    There’s a lot of people posting lies and acting weird on Lemmy at the moment unfortunately. There’s been a sudden shift from evidence based to being an echo changer

    A few months ago you could have a discussion and people would exchange evidence. Now evidence no longer matters. People here have started acting the same as places like truth social unfortunately. It’s a pity and I do miss the real discussions here I used to have.

    In fact, it’s part of the reason I’ve started to move back to Reddit.

  • Schwim Dandy@lemm.ee
    0·
    2 days ago

    Lemmy is too small to be a worthwhile target for musk-like campaigns. It’s usually just people escaping their echo chambers to get their rage fix. If you’re able to think for yourself, there’s really no negative impact and scrolling past is a great solution.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 days ago

    On the contrary, seems like a lot of disinformation accounts are trying to elevate Wikipedia as a credible source. Seems to be coming from the same people pushing pro-western narratives. Which isn’t surprising, as western governments have been caught funding mass editing to promote western narratives.

    https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-state-sponsored-disinformation/

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the effort to elevate Wikipedia as “credible” has been ramped up during this genocide. The Zionists teach classes to their people on how to manipulate the site for their narrative.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      I think that’s kind of situational. They were freaking out recently about the genocide being labeled a genocide on Wikipedia, and IIRC the ADL being labeled an unreliable source.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      Weird how you can just look at the source and references in a wikipedia article to do your own research while articles like this are just “trust me bro it’s all a conspiracy”

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      0·
      2 days ago

      On the contrary, seems like a lot of disinformation accounts are trying to elevate Wikipedia as a credible source. Seems to be coming from the same people pushing pro-western narratives. Which isn’t surprising, as western governments have been caught funding mass editing to promote western narratives.

      https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-state-sponsored-disinformation/

      I think you should read the article you linked to, and then reread the way that you summarized what’s in it, maybe make some edits.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
        0·
        2 days ago

        I was interested enough in what he was saying that I read one of his sources, and it says the exact opposite of what he’s trying to use it to justify. It’s actually pretty interesting how big the difference is that he either didn’t care about or didn’t even notice. Then, after that happened, I downvoted him.

        Carl Sagan, prejudice versus postjudice, yada yada yada.

        • LiberalSoCalist@lemm.ee
          0·
          2 days ago

          the article you’re talking about reads like a case of “our holy narrative-correcting taskforce vs their pagan misinformation agents”

          [bad actors] put in the effort to build reputation…, mixing legitimate page edits with the more politically sensitive ones

          through subtle changes like casting doubt on the objectivity of pro-Western accounts

          they also mention adding links from Russian state-owned news, but the article doesn’t indicate that those things happen in the same incidents though mentioning it in the same sentence is certainly an attempt to conflate them. It’s one thing to remove insufficiently reliable sources, correcting misrepresented facts, and banning the wreckers that consistently produce it, but I think there is an issue if validly-sourced edits are being censored by “bias adjusters” (NPOV purposes withstanding) just because the content is deemed to have been written by a suspected bad actor.

          • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
            0·
            2 days ago

            the article you’re talking about reads like a case of “our holy narrative-correcting taskforce vs their pagan misinformation agents”

            Sure, if you want to make this new, totally different argument, you’re welcome to. My point was that the original argument, that western governments have been caught funding mass editing to promote western narratives, was exactly backwards from what’s in the article. If you now want to say that funding mass editing for anti-Western narratives is a good thing to do, and it’s a bad thing Wikipedia making a “holy narrative-correcting task force” to try to stop it, then sure. You can.

            • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 days ago

              Now I’m thinking you didn’t actually read the article. The entire thing is bragging about massive efforts enforcing western narratives on Wikipedia.

              But considering your post history is a flood of western narratives, I understand how you wouldn’t be able to interpret that as a bad thing. You’re either a very enthusiastic volunteer in this effort, or getting paid for it.