except, the policy isn’t being applied selectively? The page was kept. Do you think that every Wikipedia editor agrees with you on the notability of Yaroslav Hunka? Because it only takes one for there to be a discussion and a couple idiots to provide fuel for the rage-bait. But it takes an overwhelmingly large number of Wikipedia editors to disagree with you, specifically, for this to be a Wikipedia problem
Complaints on Wikipedia are raised selectively: the policy isn’t uniformly enforced and many people notable for only one thing have their pages kept up without dispute. The fact that an issue was raised for this page in particular (and not the many others that feature people notable for only one event) is the point of contention.
Then unless there is there is some technically complex process by which Wikipedia articles are put up for review that I don’t know about it, your contention is with a single user. That individual is not reviewing every single new person article created and applying their fully discrete interpretation of Wikipedia’s policy universally. And shame on them.
Be serious, any human language law/policy/rule managed with human interpretation cannot be applied without an element of bias. Assuming an adequate judicial process, the worst consequence of a flag->review is an issue not being flagged. If we’re talking about meat-space laws for humans, then yeah you have to be more careful with false flags (arrests) because there are consequences to a human for that action. But if someone inappropriately flags a Wikipedia page for Review what are you going to do? Hurt its feelings?
Really we’ve reached the Strawman segment of this argument?
Fine then, I shall reiterate my position in its entirety, with extra clarifying details, and then I’m done.
I dislike misinformation. Particularly misinformation designed to evoke anger, and I dislike the people who spread it because being angry is more important to them than being right. That’s a pet peeve of mine I don’t expect everyone to feel as strongly as I do, but when I see it in action I like to call it out in the hopes that maybe at least one person will improve their internet literacy.
And so on this post, I saw a number of people operating on the assumption that the article already existed, and was being deleted in response to the recent controversy to try to cover it up, that ticked my pet peeve and I chose to comment on it.
Now, since I have been forced to learn how to read Wikipedia discussion forums, I have been able to find the original comment requesting it for deletion which states “WP:1E. This man is famous as of yesterday for one event. Not notable.” Now you’re lucky enough to have the privilege of seeing this discussion on September 30th, after all the controversy has been marinating for a week. But that was not the case when the page was created and marked for deletion, which was one of the pieces of evidence brought up in the deletion discussion. The user who marked the page for deletion did also in a separate comment express support for migrating the page to be about the event instead of for the person, in accordance with Wikipedia’s notability policy. So my money is on not a Nazi apologist (Why am I even entertaining this idea?)
Yes, there are a couple bad eggs in there, as our OP has so lovingly pointed out. And the ones referenced by OP specifically are anonymous users, whose comments have since been removed. So please I dare you to convince yourself that they are representative of Wikipedia’s values.
You never responded to this point because you decided to play the Nazi card instead, so I’ll say it again anyway for comprehensiveness. Bias is an inescapable factor of any policy enforcement, and Wikipedia seems to have established an effective process for reducing that. Maybe when I said “bias” you read “Nazi ideology” but let me clarify I really meant “someone slightly less passionate about this subject than you” or “someone didn’t drink coffee this morning and so they’re feeling a little grumpy”
TL;DR: This was a routine case of content moderation surrounding a controversial subject that Wikipedia handled with 5 Stars. Some users representative of Wikipedia supported the deletion of the newly created page because of their individual interpretations of Wikipedia’s notability policy, and if you have a have a problem with that individual interpretation then go ahead. If you have a problem with those users being “Nazis” then please step away from the computer, go find a spot outside in the sun, and read a book. There are some users unrepresentative of Wikipedia as a whole who are/might be Nazi sympathizers, and go ahead be mad at them please, but just know that Wikipedia has already dealt with them days before you even saw that they existed. I don’t think it’s okay for people to be Nazi sympathizers or for them to have a platform to speak from. I also don’t think that the people you’re criticizing are Nazi sympathizers.
Ok, that’s a fair point, but it still doesn’t detract from the fact that Wikipedia’s mechanisms against this exact method of abuse aren’t exactly very robust. There needs to be more accountability behind anonymous accounts playing a role in these discussions.
How exactly are you coming to the conclusion that this is the position of the person you’re replying to?
Because in the comment chain that I’m reading @authorinthedark@lemmy.sdf.org is making the very reasonable argument that one editor/user =/= Wikipedia.
The mistake you’re making here is assuming that disagreeing with someone’s reasoning is the same as disagreeing with their conclusion. We are all on board with the conclusion that the user (or users) that are trying to do nazi apologia are bad. What’s being challenged is not whether or not it is good to do nazi apologia, but that in order for this specific event to be considered an example of Wikipedia engaging in nazi apologia as an organization then you need look at the outcome of the appeals process and not simply the fact that an appeal was made. An editor/user tried to white-wash and obscure the subject’s nazi affiliation by making an appeal for deletion, the appeal was denied and Wikipedia kept the article up.
You can still conclude that Wikipedia is systematically biased in numerous ways. That conclusion is not the subject of this discussion. What is being disputed is whether or not this specific incident is a valid component of the reasoning to make a conclusion about Wikipedia one way or the other, and I think it’s apparent to everyone that the answer is “no, it is not.” This incident tells us that there is a user or users that are shitty, but the end result was that Wikipedia as an organization denied their appeal and left the article up.
There are certainly other arguments that can be made which support the conclusion that Wikipedia is full of pro-imperialist bias and the like, but this incident is not a good candidate for supporting that conclusion. But what you seem to be doing is working backwards by assuming, “we all agree that (conclusion) is correct, therefore all arguments supporting (conclusion) must also be correct. And anyone who disputes (argument/reasoning) must also be disputing (conclusion).” But this line of thought is simply wrong. You can use ridiculous logic and land on the correct conclusion by chance. It’s the classic case of “Right answer, wrong equation.” There’s no reason to assume that someone is supporting a conclusion that opposes the the one you support just because they’re pointing out that you used the wrong equation to get there.
The guy has nothing to really tie him to the action so he can just go on the next post and do the same thing. Eventually it’ll get through, because Wikipedia isn’t staffed by perfect people. That’s a bad thing.
Ah, so we’re going with “it would be bad if this scenario had a different outcome, so we’re just going to pretend this scenario actually represents the bad outcome that didn’t happen so I can rationalize being mad about this non-issue.”
except, the policy isn’t being applied selectively? The page was kept. Do you think that every Wikipedia editor agrees with you on the notability of Yaroslav Hunka? Because it only takes one for there to be a discussion and a couple idiots to provide fuel for the rage-bait. But it takes an overwhelmingly large number of Wikipedia editors to disagree with you, specifically, for this to be a Wikipedia problem
Complaints on Wikipedia are raised selectively: the policy isn’t uniformly enforced and many people notable for only one thing have their pages kept up without dispute. The fact that an issue was raised for this page in particular (and not the many others that feature people notable for only one event) is the point of contention.
Then unless there is there is some technically complex process by which Wikipedia articles are put up for review that I don’t know about it, your contention is with a single user. That individual is not reviewing every single new person article created and applying their fully discrete interpretation of Wikipedia’s policy universally. And shame on them.
Be serious, any human language law/policy/rule managed with human interpretation cannot be applied without an element of bias. Assuming an adequate judicial process, the worst consequence of a flag->review is an issue not being flagged. If we’re talking about meat-space laws for humans, then yeah you have to be more careful with false flags (arrests) because there are consequences to a human for that action. But if someone inappropriately flags a Wikipedia page for Review what are you going to do? Hurt its feelings?
So “people can be Nazi apologists and that’s ok”
That’s seriously the position you’re taking?
Really we’ve reached the Strawman segment of this argument?
Fine then, I shall reiterate my position in its entirety, with extra clarifying details, and then I’m done.
I dislike misinformation. Particularly misinformation designed to evoke anger, and I dislike the people who spread it because being angry is more important to them than being right. That’s a pet peeve of mine I don’t expect everyone to feel as strongly as I do, but when I see it in action I like to call it out in the hopes that maybe at least one person will improve their internet literacy.
And so on this post, I saw a number of people operating on the assumption that the article already existed, and was being deleted in response to the recent controversy to try to cover it up, that ticked my pet peeve and I chose to comment on it.
Now, since I have been forced to learn how to read Wikipedia discussion forums, I have been able to find the original comment requesting it for deletion which states “WP:1E. This man is famous as of yesterday for one event. Not notable.” Now you’re lucky enough to have the privilege of seeing this discussion on September 30th, after all the controversy has been marinating for a week. But that was not the case when the page was created and marked for deletion, which was one of the pieces of evidence brought up in the deletion discussion. The user who marked the page for deletion did also in a separate comment express support for migrating the page to be about the event instead of for the person, in accordance with Wikipedia’s notability policy. So my money is on not a Nazi apologist (Why am I even entertaining this idea?)
Yes, there are a couple bad eggs in there, as our OP has so lovingly pointed out. And the ones referenced by OP specifically are anonymous users, whose comments have since been removed. So please I dare you to convince yourself that they are representative of Wikipedia’s values.
You never responded to this point because you decided to play the Nazi card instead, so I’ll say it again anyway for comprehensiveness. Bias is an inescapable factor of any policy enforcement, and Wikipedia seems to have established an effective process for reducing that. Maybe when I said “bias” you read “Nazi ideology” but let me clarify I really meant “someone slightly less passionate about this subject than you” or “someone didn’t drink coffee this morning and so they’re feeling a little grumpy”
TL;DR: This was a routine case of content moderation surrounding a controversial subject that Wikipedia handled with 5 Stars. Some users representative of Wikipedia supported the deletion of the newly created page because of their individual interpretations of Wikipedia’s notability policy, and if you have a have a problem with that individual interpretation then go ahead. If you have a problem with those users being “Nazis” then please step away from the computer, go find a spot outside in the sun, and read a book. There are some users unrepresentative of Wikipedia as a whole who are/might be Nazi sympathizers, and go ahead be mad at them please, but just know that Wikipedia has already dealt with them days before you even saw that they existed. I don’t think it’s okay for people to be Nazi sympathizers or for them to have a platform to speak from. I also don’t think that the people you’re criticizing are Nazi sympathizers.
Ok, that’s a fair point, but it still doesn’t detract from the fact that Wikipedia’s mechanisms against this exact method of abuse aren’t exactly very robust. There needs to be more accountability behind anonymous accounts playing a role in these discussions.
How exactly are you coming to the conclusion that this is the position of the person you’re replying to?
Because in the comment chain that I’m reading @authorinthedark@lemmy.sdf.org is making the very reasonable argument that one editor/user =/= Wikipedia.
The mistake you’re making here is assuming that disagreeing with someone’s reasoning is the same as disagreeing with their conclusion. We are all on board with the conclusion that the user (or users) that are trying to do nazi apologia are bad. What’s being challenged is not whether or not it is good to do nazi apologia, but that in order for this specific event to be considered an example of Wikipedia engaging in nazi apologia as an organization then you need look at the outcome of the appeals process and not simply the fact that an appeal was made. An editor/user tried to white-wash and obscure the subject’s nazi affiliation by making an appeal for deletion, the appeal was denied and Wikipedia kept the article up.
You can still conclude that Wikipedia is systematically biased in numerous ways. That conclusion is not the subject of this discussion. What is being disputed is whether or not this specific incident is a valid component of the reasoning to make a conclusion about Wikipedia one way or the other, and I think it’s apparent to everyone that the answer is “no, it is not.” This incident tells us that there is a user or users that are shitty, but the end result was that Wikipedia as an organization denied their appeal and left the article up.
There are certainly other arguments that can be made which support the conclusion that Wikipedia is full of pro-imperialist bias and the like, but this incident is not a good candidate for supporting that conclusion. But what you seem to be doing is working backwards by assuming, “we all agree that (conclusion) is correct, therefore all arguments supporting (conclusion) must also be correct. And anyone who disputes (argument/reasoning) must also be disputing (conclusion).” But this line of thought is simply wrong. You can use ridiculous logic and land on the correct conclusion by chance. It’s the classic case of “Right answer, wrong equation.” There’s no reason to assume that someone is supporting a conclusion that opposes the the one you support just because they’re pointing out that you used the wrong equation to get there.
But these people see no accountability. Wikipedia doesn’t have a mechanism of accountability against these anonymous bad actors.
Accountability for what? Failing to delete an article?
Accountability is for people who wield power. The review process denied them the power to delete the article. That seems plenty sufficient to me.
The guy has nothing to really tie him to the action so he can just go on the next post and do the same thing. Eventually it’ll get through, because Wikipedia isn’t staffed by perfect people. That’s a bad thing.
Ah, so we’re going with “it would be bad if this scenario had a different outcome, so we’re just going to pretend this scenario actually represents the bad outcome that didn’t happen so I can rationalize being mad about this non-issue.”