Wikipedia: A Digital Cess-Pit by Heidi Svenson

Print 🖹

20/5/24

A recent foray into the fetid digital swamp that is Wikipedia was for me both highly frustrating: and illuminating. Enjoy. I didn’t but you just might….

You do not need to be psychic to get the idea NFB has a long-standing deep-rooted aversion to Wikipedia: our editor refuses to waste time on it, citing for example the fatuous entry on Combat 18, full of basic errors and misinterpretations. Ironically, in the ‘further reading’ section on that topic, two of Larry’s publications are cited, though the body has no mention of what they say! On 2/9/2011 I made a contribution to the Hope not Hate – Wikipedia entry:

Hope Not Hate is not a membership organisation in the traditional sense: supporters have no right to make or alter policy/initiate campaigns. That is reserved for those running Searchlight magazine, of which it is an appendage (it has no independent bank account). It is very much a campaign of the internet (virtual) age and has been strongly criticised on this and other grounds by veteran anti-fascists grouped around Notes From the Borderland magazine[

While the above comment was entirely legitimate (and accurate as at that time Hope Not Hate had not split from Searchlight) Wikicensors removed it.  By the way, things in bold italics are our censored Wikipedia entries.  The only way to find it (and hundreds more censored comments) is to click on the article history. How many users of Wikipedia are going to do that, or even know you can? Very few. I should have learnt my lesson, but, nonetheless, a recent return to Wikipedia was instructive, underlining why Wikipedia deserves utter contempt.

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS ARTICLE

Past dealings out of the way, three things will be looked at here:

  1. My recent (all totally censored) edits/contributions on Wikipedia.
  2. Some comments on the prize muppet censor ‘WikiDan61’ responsible.
  3. Reflections on Wikipedia generally: especially important here is Jaron Lanier’s 2006 essay on Digital Maoism.

MY RECENT CENSORED CONTRIBUTIONS

Worth stating, I did not attempt to alter the existing text on any article, just made additions.

The first was on this thread: 1999 London nail bombings – Wikipedia

After a sentence referring/linking to the Jewish Chronicle article on ‘Agent Arthur’ and plugging the Community Security Trust role, I added the following:

Also in 2021, and preceding the Jewish Chronicle article featuring Dave Rich, there was a Netflix documentary (Nail Bomber Manhunt) and a book by Nick Lowles (in 1999 he worked for Searchlight, now he is Hope Not Hate CEO).  In 2024 investigative magazine Notes From the Borderland (which has been looking into these events for 25 years) published a fact-based and fully-referenced pamphlet alleging that

  • Copeland was identified by one of the assets now called ‘Arthur’ the day before the Soho bombing.
  • This information was with-held from the Anti-Terrorist Branch until it was useless.
  • The last Soho bomb could therefore have been prevented: which is why the pamphlet’s full title is ‘The 1999 Soho Nail-Bombing Scandal Revisited’

This was deleted without any specific reason given: yet surely is relevant information, pointing Wikipedia users not just to our alternative perspective but also the documentary/book we criticised.

Next, came my entry on  Nail Bomber: Manhunt – Wikipedia

Following a mere one sentence referencing the Sydney Morning Herald’s view the documentary was “compelling”, I added the following to the ‘Reception’ section:

To describe this programme as a ‘true crime documentary’ is (to paraphrase failed PhD student Cato) ‘stretching the limits of credibility’. For a full explanation of exactly why this is so, follow the link to read this (free) 4-page PDF extract. This is taken from the 2024 Notes From the Borderland publication ‘The 1999 Soho Nail-Bombing Scandal Revisited’ which alleges (supported ironically enough, in part by evidence in the film itself) that:

  • Agent Arthur identified Copeland the day before the final fatal Soho bombing
  • This information was with-held from the Anti-Terrorist Squad till it was useless and in any event buried as an addition to a list of 261 names
  • The final bomb could therefore have been prevented but wasn’t.

Clearly, the film-makers Vernon and Barr were not around in 1999 but must take full responsibility for the Netflix documentary. As indeed must now Peter Fincham CEO of parent company Expectation Productions, who was contacted 22/4 about our serious concerns, so far without reply.

This too was deleted. Now admittedly the failed PhD student reference was obscure (Craig Fowlie in case you were wondering) but that wasn’t the reason for deletion. Rather, ‘WikiDan61’ offered this pearl of wisdom: “Notes From the Borderland appears to be a left-wing conspiracy website that does not meet the criteria for reliable sources at Wikipedia. I would recommend that you not rely on it for Wikipedia content in future”. What eludes this muppet, who clearly hasn’t perused (or cannot understand but more likely never looked)  is actual conspiracy theorists hate us: see CULTWATCHING: THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION OF OUR SITE – Notes From The Borderland.  Regarding the ‘reliable sources’ question, Wikipedia’s guidance on this states “Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. That is of course exactly what NFB is renowned for: extensive fact-checking. Which evidently ‘WikiDan61’ didn’t do himself or he would have found that out. The guidance further states “each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content”.  Again, there was no ‘careful weighing’ by this muppet, or any weighing at all.

My final contribution–probably what attracted the censor’s ire–was on a well-visited thread (unlike the other two) Baby Reindeer – Wikipedia, about a currently fashionable drama series where the author/star has been accused of twisting reality for dramatic effect.

There is a fundamental issue here, which goes to the heart of the Netflix way of doing things. While the BBC (for example) has the pretence of a mechanism whereby viewers can complain about factual inaccuracies, Netflix does not have even that, hence Fiona Harvey has from her perspective (rightly or wrongly) had to threaten legal action.  The lines between fact and fiction are not just blurred in shows such as this, but also in shows purporting to be factual. In this category comes the 2021 film ‘Nail-Bomber Manhunt’ about the Neo-Nazi David Copeland who planted three bombs in London. We at Notes From the Borderland noticed grave errors and omissions at the time (2021) and contacted the makers (Expectation Productions) to no avail. Subsequently, in 2024 we published the pamphlet ‘The 1999 Soho Nail-Bombing Scandal Revisited’ which contained a trenchant critique of the programme: available free to view here The Soho Scandal Revisted – April 24_SigSection 1_Front (borderland.co.uk). We contacted Expectation again, this time CEO Peter Fincham, with a copy (22/4/24) and so far, no reply received. He will have calculated he can just ignore us, and the Netflix model facilitates that. A related issue, as with Baby Reindeer showing a criminal conviction which it appears did not happen is that curse of the modern world ‘infotainment’—whereby facts do not matter, it is all about impressions. And until there is some accountability (and an OFCOM stuffed with BBC re-treads is not it) the situation will persist, and worsen.

Nobody could deny this intervention raises serious questions about Netflix, and puts them in the context of the Baby Reindeer programme in a serious way. Again though, not something Wikicensors believe their visitors are adult enough to understand. In this case, the censor alleged ‘conflict of interest’ as another reason for deletion. But given there was no subterfuge, and the link was to a free article, to have ruled out this contribution on those grounds is ludicrous.

THE WIKIMUPPET IN QUESTION: WIKIDAN61

Suspicion Wikipedia is some kind of cult is not dispelled by this guy’s profile page: and of course no prizes for guessing the vast majority of Wikicultists are men… Active since 2008 in 16 years he has contributed the grand total of three articles: one about a tear-jerking teenage singer with osteosarcoma, another about an obscure Scottish playwright Alan Wilkins and finally one on ‘Alloy Digital’, a defunct US digital company.  Close to home perhaps? Just like a Boy Scout or McDonalds employee WikiDan61’s profile lists 17 ‘Barnstars‘—mutual backslap awards from fellow Wikicultists. Allegedly he “helps new members” and “leaves positive but constructive comments which help develop a page”, on occasion “deferring to consensus, even when it goes against your views”.  He is a so-called ‘Grandmaster Editor’ entitled “to display the Lapis Philosophorum Editor Star with the Neutronium Superstar”—to which I can only respond, WTF, get a life! That WikiDan61 is a narrow-minded gimp is amply illustrated by the admission he “uses Wikipedia as a primary point of reference”.

The question must be asked: is there any indication (despite his ‘Barnstars’) that WikiDan61 possesses the requisite knowledge to adjudicate on my recent contributions? I think not. Two reasons (aside from his own anodyne Wikipedia offerings)—the first being his educational qualification: a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering.  Nothing wrong with that degree, but hardly relevant to our type of material.  The second is his blatant and overt political bias: the excising edit on my London Bombing intervention (17/5 1713) alleged “Notes From the Borderland appears to be a scandal-mongering and highly biased source”. Abusive pigswill like this raises questions—what evidence does he offer? None. How does he decide something is “highly biased”(as opposed say to just biased or slightly biased?)—again no evidence. And does this idiot understand uncovering a scandal (e.g. the Soho bombing) is not “mongering” but genuine investigation?  Something clearly beyond somebody who “uses Wikipedia as a primary point of reference”.

Even had WikiDan61 a relevant knowledge-base there is no evidence he properly examined our site before deciding to condemn us.  In a most insulting manner. No problem with insults as this article shows, but it sticks in my craw this creep, without evidence, has totally censored us with no recourse available.  This is our beef: he has pointedly refused to engage with the substance my contributions allude to, ruling them out a priori based on his own half-baked prejudices.  While Wikipedia postures about articles being ‘neutral’, censors such as he are blatantly partisan.

THE WIKIPEDIA PROBLEM

The vast majority of books and articles on Wikipedia are laudatory or ‘how to’ books such as Amy Bruckman ‘Should You Believe Wikipedia’ (2022). Even those who should know better (such as Evgeny Morozov) can write things like “The best explanation of Wikipedia is what its own insiders like to say: Wikipedia works in practice but not in theory” [‘To Save Everything Click Here’ Penguin 2013 p.30].  Very insightful: not. A rare exception being Chris Bateman ‘Wikipedia Knows Nothing’ (2016). In keeping with the pretence it is an open forum, Wikipedia appears to allow critics a voice (not us obviously). One article, entitled ‘Criticism of Wikipedia’ amusingly claims “Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopaedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational”.  Amusing, because WikiDan61 openly boasts of doing exactly that. Maybe he should delete himself?

Another article ‘Wikipedia Criticisms’ is unintentionally revealing. In the disembodied desiccated way characteristic of the internet this consists merely of quotes by critics selected by Wikipedia themselves (conflict of interest surely?): that from Jaron Lanier is followed (uniquely among the long list) by a dissenting view, which is given more lines (14 versus 11) than Lanier himself. Which amply illustrates Wikipedia fears him, rightly. Intriguingly, and make of this what you will, the Wikipedia link to his article is defunct: see here Page not found | Edge.org.  The actual link is DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism | Edge.org. Fancy That!

His article is complex and nuanced, taking aim at the collectivist nature of Wikipedia, stifling individuality and resulting in the domination of something called the ‘hive mind’.  As he puts it “a core belief of the wiki world is that whatever problems exist in the wiki will be incrementally corrected as the process unfolds”. An attempted rebuttal by Wikipedia’s High Priest Jimmy Wales states “this alleged ‘core belief’ is not one which is held by me, nor as far as I know by any important or prominent Wikipedians. Nor do we have any particular faith in collectives or collectivism as a mode of writing. Authoring at Wikipedia, as everywhere, is done by individuals exercising the judgement of their own minds”.  Contrast this hyperbole with something Morozov points out—“one estimate from 2006 posited that discussions about Wikipedia’s governance and editorial policies
constituted at least a quarter of the whole site (op. cit. p.30). So much for ‘individuals exercising the judgement of their own minds’—the cess-pit is knee-deep in bureaucracy. And as we have seen ‘authoring’ is only allowed for those individuals who do not incur the unaccountable wrath of ‘Grandmaster Editors’ like WikiDan61 and other Wikicult luminaries.  Wales knows all this full well: if you look at the history of contentious articles, far more is censored than present. What is left, as in the articles my contributions were excised from, is lowest common denominator banal sludge: hive-mind excrement.  Speaking of which, how about this 2007 quote from Wales which is presented almost as the last word–“I am unaware of any problems with the quality of discourse on the site. I don’t know of any higher-quality discourse anywhere”.  Is this geek for real? Sadly I think he is: what a deluded myopic fool (putting it charitably).

A crucial theme running through Lanier’s critique is the fact that Wikipedia (and the internet generally) does things at times with break-neck speed, not providing the time for cool reflection.  As he puts it, “what if a collective moves too readily and quickly, jittering instead of settling down to provide a single answer? This happens on the most active Wikipedia entries”.  The need to slow things down at times is essential for human happiness, but runs contrary to the likes of Twitter for example, with its swarms of attack-bees.

Lanier especially objects to the decontextualized assimilation of articles/data with authentic human voices and from external reputable sources that thereby lose their vibrancy and individuality. Wikipedia results in “a loss of insight and subtlety, a disregard for the nuances of considered opinions, and an increased tendency to enshrine the official or normative beliefs of an organization”. Which explains grunts like WikiDan61: an external critique of for example Nail-Bomber Manhunt is ruled out on the facile grounds we ourselves did not make the film. Lanier himself is a fascinating character, though certainly not quite as critical as we would be/are. He states “Wikipedia still has room to change and grow
the problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how its been elevated to such importance so quickly”.  It has certainly grown since 2006, but hardly changed for the better. Ever greater power has always been Wikipedia’s aim: like the fictional Borg in Star-Trek assimilating everything before them.  Tellingly, given Lanier’s essay was published in 2006, he already grasped that “there is a pedagogical connection between the culture of Artificial Intelligence and the strange allure of anonymous collectivism online. Google’s vast servers and the Wikipedia are both mentioned frequently as being the start-up memory for Artificial Intelligence to come”. Indeed: and AI is another curse of the modern world as my colleague Verona Silenda has articulated in NFB 12.  As an aside, while we agree with Lanier on the dangers of the hive mind, we are not at all averse to collective action of the most radical kind: revolution. Our vision though is not of a Leninist-style coup d’état but the development of semi-autonomous and ecologically sustainable centres of popular power. Not the space (or time) to develop that here, but it will be done in our Last Century Left web-site section at some point


WHAT TO DO ABOUT WIKIPEDIA NOW?

If there is one take-out from the above, it is Wikipedia is emphatically not at all the open and freely editable source of information it claims to be and more disturbingly many think it actually is. A simple truism that cannot be restated often enough. We would not say it should never be used but clearly, due to rigid censorship, the most interesting and original sources of Information and ideas will be found elsewhere: some on the internet, others in books (remember them?) or materials that have never been on the internet (internal documents for example) or produced before the internet.  When writing articles, we even have an internal code: NI means non-internet, PI means pre-internet.  An extensive off-line archive such as the one NFB possesses is crucial for serious research, not least because many things that were/are on the internet just disappear. Amplified in spades on Wikipedia. For example, one thing attracting Larry’s derision about the Wikipedia Combat 18 article for years was it used to erroneously attribute to him the view C18 was set up by MI5 as opposed to later influenced by it: see COMBAT 18 & MI5: SOME BACKGROUND NOTES – Notes From The Borderland. Now, whatever the rights and wrongs, even that interpretation has vanished from Wikipedia.  And so on: Wikipedia especially, and the internet generally, is just too shallow and transient, which is why we at NFB still believe in the printed word having primacy.

If somebody was to come along and permanently obliterate the monstrosity that is Wikipedia, we at NFB wouldn’t shed any tears. Realistically, that prospect isn’t imminent so how to proceed? When investigating a subject, once legitimate sources have been utilised, as a tertiary back-up glancing at Wikipedia to see if they link to/reference external verifiable sources is certainly a valid course of action as is using Google, which itself has many limitations. Just to show the deranged workings of the hive mind, I received in my Wikipedia inbox a message congratulating me for my tenth edit—yet every single contribution I have made to this digital cess-pit has been censored. The Wikicult bot even earnestly asked do I want to learn how to become an editor or ‘volunteer’! No thanks, I’d rather swallow scorpion pie. For WikiDan61, a special NFB Barnstar Award, #18 for your collection, a Latin appellation pseudo-intellectuals like you favour: you are henceforth ‘Stultus Stultus’—Enjoy!

 

About The Author

See author's posts