Technology

59148 readers

2006 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

865

Darkness reigns over Wikipedia as official dark mode comes to pass (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

121 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

the ridiculously detailed

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

reads almost like it's talking about the situation at hand having been extensively and thoroughly documented to the point of it being impossible to "be wrong" to me

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 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.