There are topics where generally there is a lot of POV pushing (not
necessarily fake news, just people adding unreferenced or poorly referenced
POV material), for example see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea
which contains a lot of both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian pushing.
However, when it aggravates, it is easily stopped by applying a protection.
There are few administrators watching these topics (I used to be one of
them), but the protection requests rarely get rejected if the disruption is
ongoing.
An example of more difficult situation is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017
where two groups of editors, pro-independence and anti-independence, are
operating with two groups of sources (Catalan and Spanish central
government) which often contradict each other. Most of the editors seem to
be good-faith, but at the talk page they do not seem to be able to agree
with each other, and the article generally can not be trusted. I am afraid
the community does not have any capacity to go into details of the sources
and to mediate the conflict.
And articles like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe
can contain all kind of bullshit, nobody cares. I do not think we
currently have enough bandwidth to clean all these articles up, and the POV
pushers know this.
Cheers
Yaroslav
Post by Devouard (gmail)Thanks for the first answers, both online and private.
(the WikiData one is good and the List of Hoax should come handy.
http://wikiworkshop.org/2018/papers/wikiworkshop2018_paper_1.pdf)
Let me be more specific... I am in particular interested in cases where it
involves systematic actions involving automated systems or very large (and
rich) networks against which the community would have difficulties to deal
with.
For example, the issue with BDB and binary options.
Flo
Post by Yaroslav BlanterHi Florence,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
It is of course very different to create a complete hoax on Wikipedia on a
topic which is heavily watched. It is much easier to create a hoax on an
obscure subject very few people know about, then it has a chance to stay
undiscovered for a long time.
Cheers
Yaroslav
Hi
Post by Devouard (gmail)I have been proposed to give a conference about wikipedia and fake news
and to focus on very specific examples rather than general concepts. I
already have a few ideas but any pointers to particularly interesting cases
or discussions will be welcome.
Thanks for your help.
Florence
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Wikimedia-l
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Wikimedia-l
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,