LunarArchivist 2 points ago +2 / -0

In his latest article about the goings on at Wikipedia, former site editor and GamerGate supporter T.D. Adler describes how the Wikimedia Foundation's attempts to impose a leftist/progressive "code of conduct" promoting "diversity", "inclusion", pronouns, etc. on its affiliated sites in order to "make them more welcoming" and combat "rising violence [...] against marginalized groups" is receiving a mixed reception:

  • The Wikipedia community in general isn't happy that their autonomy is being impinged upon by this move and their reactions range from proceeding with caution to expressions of hostility.
  • Concerns have arisen about transparency when it comes to the Wikimedia Foundation's enforcement of these rules.
  • Arabic-speaking Wikipedia contributors acknowledged the transparency concerns and suggested their community should become more involved in the code of conduct's implemention to increase user confidence.
  • Korean-speaking Wikipedia contributors were more open to the idea of Foundation interference in matters.
  • Polish-speaking Wikipedia contributors weren't having any of it and attempted to reject the code of conduct outright with a vote, only to be frustrated to discover that implementing it had already been decided upon by the Foundation.
  • One outspoken Polish editor, Zezen, pointed out many of the shenanigans observed on English language Wikipedia that could be exacerbated by the code and lead to widespread political bias on all Foundation-affiliated sites, such as the banning of profile pages promoting traditional marriage, preventing "undesirables" like Nazis from contributing while giving Stalinists and left-wing extremists free reign (as opposed to allowing anyone to participate as long as they follow the rules), etc.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/10/wikipedia-foundation-approves-leftist-code-of-conduct/

LunarArchivist 5 points ago +5 / -0

Well, thanks to "numerous efforts by left-wing feminist groups to increase participation" on Wikipedia such as "edit-a-thons" due to "claims of a gender gap in contributors to Wikipedia and a resulting bias in content towards men", we now have the following problems according to a new study from the Journal of Management Information Systems entitled "The Gender Bias Tug-of-War in a Co-creation Community: Core-Periphery Tension on Wikipedia":

  • According to a comparison of the treatment of 50 female Fortune 1000 CEOs to four sample groups of male CEOs, men were 22% less likely to have articles and the ones they did have were generally inferior in nature than those of women, with fewer high quality sources and edits but also less embellishment.

  • There was a marked shift in editorial influence between 2003 and 2016, with less active "peripheral editors" that were biased towards men slowly being replaced by more active "core editors" who were biased towards women, resulting in an overcorrection where the male majority in the Wikipedia editing community actually demonstrated gendered bias against itself.

  • The aforementioned was the result of a significant amount of negative attention being raised due to allegations of gender-biased content on Wikipedia, something which was directly tied into the false narrative about GamerGate.

  • The study's authors suggested that this gendered bias towards women could bleed over into information-focused communities, not only in the open-source community and with bloggers, but also in general society and politics, and recommended regular monitoring and automatic bias detection methods to raise awareness of this.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/12/04/study-wikipedia-holds-pro-woman-gender-bias-after-feminist-activist-campaigns/

LunarArchivist 4 points ago +4 / -0

With the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election upon on, the latest article by GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate) takes the opportunity to go over how the Wikipedia's community of editors have been systemically purging conservative media outlets from their list of reliable sources while Silicon Valley, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the mainstream media have been propping them up the best way of dealing with fake news ever since the upset of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

Starting with "The Daily Mail" - whose reliable status was revoked by 2 to 1 margin by editors, with the individual who started the debacle having added insult to injury by allegedly conspiring with "The Guardian" to have a story published about the decision to further damage the media outlet's reputation - it was quickly followed by "Breitbart News", "The Sun", and "The Daily Caller" soon followed. This left-wing "popularity contest" quickly expanded to bestowing "deprecated" status to outlets such as "The Epoch Times" and "Gateway Pundit" for publishing "fabricated information", i.e. being critical of such sacred cows as Russiagate. Fortunately, an attempt to discredit "The New York Post" in a similar manner thus far has failed, though not for a lack of trying, as many sites reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, including Fox News, have been accused of peddling "conspiracy theories". They have also resorted to making use of Wikipedia's spam list to selectively block edits which link to sites appearing on it, a tactic that was used on the article on GamerGate to keep it in its dismal state.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/11/01/wikipedia-editors-have-been-purging-conservative-media-since-trumps-election/

LunarArchivist 5 points ago +5 / -0

In what will come as a surprise to absolutely no one on this subreddit, according to the latest article by GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate), it seems like we can add the online encyclopedia to the list of left wing institutions running interference for Joe Biden's presidential campaign by trying to memory hole the recent "New York Post" article about a high level adviser from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma using Hunter Biden to gain access to his father, who was Vice President at the time. Here's what we've seen so far:

  • One edtor, Soibangla, removing material directly referring to the article by claiming that the newspaper is an "unreliable source".
  • Another editor trying to remove material referring to the article despite said information having been reprinted in sources still considered reliable.
  • Still another editor, Valjean - an anti-Trump conspiracy theorist and the primary author of Wikipedia's entry on the Steele Dossier - claiming that the article was "likely Russian disinformation".
  • Keeping mentions of the article's revelations from appearing in Hunter Biden's Wikipedia entry.
  • Administrator Guy Chapman claiming that Rudy Giuliani has associates that are known Russian intelligence agents and "that the source of the purported (and unverified) e-mails is very likely the Kremlin", which was using "data stolen by the GRU".
  • Yet another editor, "Snooganssnoogans", trying to smear Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, the head of a committee that issued a report about the Burisma controversy, by linking him to "Russian disinformation campaigns".

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/15/wikipedia-editors-censor-hunter-biden-bombshell-call-new-york-post-unreliable-source/

LunarArchivist 3 points ago +3 / -0

After how the GamerGate debacle went down, have you ever wondered how far biased Wikipedia editors would go to protect the individuals, causes, and groups they support? Well, wonder no longer! Thanks to GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (a.k.a. The Devil's Advocate), we now know that it extends to censoring murder, as the Antifia-sympathetic have attached wheels to the goalposts when it comes the killing of Aaron Danielson by Antifa member Michael Reinoehl and tried to keep the incident out of pages pertaining to the organization using a variety of tactics, including:

  • defaming the victim, Danielson, as a "fascist"
  • arguing that the killer was unidentified and that mere suspects and their alleged actions didn't merit inclusion unless they were formally charged
  • after he was formally charged, claiming that Reinoehl wasn't a member of any Antifa-affilated organization because he denied being one in the Vice News interview, so it was not significant enough to merit inclusion because he was merely a "Antifa supporter" or "antifacist activist" rather than a full-fledged Antifa member
  • making the ridiculous argument that mentioning an Antifa supporter's crimes would be akin to listing killer by name on their affiliated political parties' pages
  • falling back on claims that Wikipedia being careful about making controversial claims about living people also extended to the recently deceased
  • creating an article on Reinoehl's death that initially barely mentioned his victim at all

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/17/wikipedia-editors-censor-portland-murder-from-antifa-page/

LunarArchivist 3 points ago +3 / -0

Apparently, the Wikimedia Foundation's first major step towards creating a "universal code of conduct" for their websites - one drafted by proponents of Critical Race Theory, abolishing the police, and anti-capitalism - complete with provisions on preferred pronouns, harassment, and "expected" and "unacceptable" behavior - has raised eyebrows in the community due to its broad nature and deleterious effect on freedom of speech, expression, debate, and the integrity of the Wikipedia editing process. Of particular interest to GamerGate supporters is the provision where the left-wing extremist mask officially slips completely due to its proposal to "[manipulate] content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view" and the removal of objectional material without discussion.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/09/wikipedia-bosses-propose-code-of-conduct-advancing-left-wing-identity-politics/

CORRECTION: Several people have pointed out that I misread the section on "'manipulating content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view'" and the removal of objectional material without discussion" and that the proposal was the exact opposite of what I stated it was, i.e. they're trying to discourage this, not encourage it. That's 100% a major, major bad on my part. The rest of what I said is accurate, however.

LunarArchivist 4 points ago +4 / -0

In this too-ridiculous-to-believe-even-for-2020 story, T.D. Adler (a.k.a. The Devil's Advocate) recounts how the Scots language version of Wikipedia recently became embroiled in controversy after it was revealed that AmaryllisGardener - an administrator who authored half of the 27000 articles on the site and made more than 160000 edits over the course of seven years - was actually an American teenager who started authoring and editing when he was 12 years old and didn't even speak the language. The result was a debate where, among other things, the damage to the Scots language's reputation and whether or not the entire site or just AmaryllisGardener's contributions should be deleted were discussed.

Unfortunately, as GamerGate supporters probably know, these kinds of shenanigans aren't limited to just the "lesser" Wikimedia sites, as poor, agenda-driven, and politically-motivated editing have been observed on Wikidata, WikiQuote, and especially the English language version of Wikipedia.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/03/scots-wikipedia-mostly-written-by-american-teen-who-doesnt-speak-the-language/

LunarArchivist 2 points ago +2 / -0

In his most recent article about the goings-on at the online encyclopedia, GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate) chronicles the attempts of left-wing, pro-Antifa editors to smear Andy Ngo and "The Post Millennial" by accusing them of spreading hoaxes and misinformation and how one editor in particular, BeZet, was integral in getting publication bumped down to "Unreliable" status but failed to get it banned outright due to the inherent dishonesty of his arguments. This development is consistent with the ongoing silencing of right-wing or conservative media outlets on Wikipedia and the protection of left-wing ones no matter how biased they may be.

LunarArchivist 3 points ago +3 / -0

What role do digital games and their shared spaces play in radicalization?

Within the framework of the new radical right-wing movements, the radicalization processes are often designated the "Alt-Right Pipeline". The affected go through three phases: normalization, acclimatization, and dehumanization. For gaming culture, the first phase is especially relevant. If users on Steam can spread right-wing extremist symbols and slogans undisturbed or even openly demand the killing of all Jews, even if only for "fun", this at the very least normalizes a specific type of radical speech. Once right-wing extremist identifiers and phrases belong to the "normal" conversational tone, clear cut examples of Nazis appearing out in the open won't even attract attention anymore. The boundaries become blurred. This, in turn, makes allowance for the step of acclimatization: Nazis and their ideology are something that one has now gotten used to. This can be very well observed on much more extreme platforms like 4Chan and 8Chan. Then it comes very easy to join up with a right-wing extremist clan, the Steam Group of the identitarian movement, or the Telegram group of Oliver Janich. Eventually, none of this arouses suspicion anymore. Then, in the last step, dehumanization follows: in the newly founded peer group, an enemy image is conveyed and internalized. Women, Jews, refugees - someone is to blame for everything, and, in case of doubt, can only be stopped with violence.

And the games themselves?

It's much harder to say what role digital games themselves occupy. There's no simple causality here from playing a game to right-wing extremist positions. However, it can be said that some games are very well suited for the appropriation of right-wing extremist propaganda due to their frantic attempts to appear politically neutral. "Hearts of Iron IV" may not be openly advertising National Socialism, but though the omission of the Shoah and the depoliticization of the Nazi regime, the game easily makes the relativization of National Socialist crimes possible: "Hitler did nothing wrong!", as the oft-echoed meme in right-wing networks goes. If you look at the - since discontinued - Neo-Nazi forum "Iron March", users there were even able to get something out of the new "Wolfenstein" games. The Nazis in the game admittedly get a proper punch in the face, but their modern, high-tech, and pop culturally appealing alternate history regime is also popular with real fascists. However, these are only superficial. A structural problem can perhaps most easily be identified by falling back on the performance focus of many games mentioned in the introduction. A phenomenon like "GamerGate" has impressively shown how the arbitrary performance requirements of computer games can be instrumentalized to marginalize entire groups of users and justify violence. Here, Breitbart and The Daily Stormer only had to pick up the bruised egos of those who felt robbed of the interpretational sovereignty they had gained through gaming skills. Computer games are a paradise for such meritocratic power structures, which are also very popular with fascists. The (allegedly) better and more useful ones should rule.

What measures can we take to counter this? And which actors do you see as responsible?

Platforms like Steam would definitely have an obligation to more strictly enforce their own community standards. Because, according to them, hate messages are also forbidden even if they're only meant as a joke. In addition, everywhere that gaming communities are made possible, moderation must also take place. They must additionally be up to date when it comes to right-wing language codes and propaganda strategies and must not allow themselves to be led around by the nose with feigned satire or alleged ambiguity. Everywhere that a clear violation of German law takes place, such as denial of the Holocaust for example, there should also be unbureaucratic and uncomplicated reporting mechanisms with the relevant authorities. But the forums must also not be allowed to become zones devoid of fun: right-wing extremists are waging a culture war today and this can only be countered with creative and involving strategies. It requires attractive and authentic counteroffers to the unfortunately very effective, ironic posturing of the Nazis. Here, game developers also have a responsibility to no longer allow their creations to remain compatible with the farther reaches of the right-wing spectrum due to misconstrued neutrality and thereby relinquish it as a playground for right-wing propaganda. It's time to, at the very least, take a clear position against the right wing and also clearly make this position visible to the outside world. For this to happen, broad alliances in civil society are still required. Fascism's also a problem of gaming culture, but, above all, it's a problem in society as a whole that extends beyond national borders.

Where can one get more information about these topics?

Andrea Nagle's 2017 book "Kill All Normies" is somewhat older and should be enjoyed with caution. She agrees a little too uncritically with right-wing narrative patterns about left-wing politics for my tastes, but delivers an analysis of the culture war from the right wing that's worth reading. In the past few months, some new books on online radicalization have been published, all of which I can very highly recommend: Schwarz's "Hasskrieger" ("Hate Warriors") (2020), Stegemann and Musyal's "Die rechte Mobilmachung" ("The Right-Wing Mobilization") (2020), Ebner's "Radikalisierungsmachinen" ("Radicalization Machines") (2019), Quent's "Deutschland rechts außen" ("Germany on the Extreme Right") (2019). The latter two are currently also very cheap to order from the Federal Agency for Civic Education. Innuendo Studios is offering a good introduction to right-wing radicalization strategies with the YouTube video series "The Alt-Right Playbook", e.g. how to radicalize a "normie". In addition, the Amadeu Antonio Foundation is working on the project "Good Gaming - Well Played Democracy" and regularly provides information on belltower.news about right-wing machinations on the net.

(TRANSLATOR'S NOTE #4: The term which I've translated as "machinations" here, "Umtriebe" is what the German-English dictionary Dict.cc refers to a "pejorative [poltical term] for secret, forbidden, or subversive activities". How politically loaded is it? Well, let's just say that the "Komitee für unamerikanische Umtriebe" ("Committee for Unamercan Machinations") is the German name for the McCarthy era "House Un-American Activities Committee".)

UPDATE: Changed "Translator's Note #1" to clarify that "Praxis" only has potential Marxist connotations when being used as a philosophical term but not otherwise.

LunarArchivist 2 points ago +2 / -0

Anyone who even remotely cares about the welfare of his nation should be nationalistic.

Definitely. Nationalism is just large scale social cohesion and is required to maintain order and a sense of belonging.

LunarArchivist 4 points ago +4 / -0

As I said in my introduction, these people engage in IMAX level projection.

LunarArchivist 4 points ago +4 / -0

In his latest article, GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate) outlines how Wikipedia editors have been busy editing articles about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to remove or downplay exculpatory evidence, to the point of trying to label any facts which portray him favorably as "conspiracy theories" despite their being mentioned by normally "reliable" sources such as the "Washington Post" and National Public Radio and rejecting the Department of Justice's findings exonerating Flynn as biased, "fringe", or part of an elaborate cover-up. Unsurprisingly, an established cabal of leftist and anti-conservative editor figure prominently into these efforts, including infamous anti-GamerGate editor NorthBySouthBaranof.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/08/10/wikipedia-editors-censor-evidence-exonerating-michael-flynn/

LunarArchivist 2 points ago +2 / -0

In his latest article, GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate) demonstrates how easily a certain online encyclopedia and its affiliated websites can not only fall prey to citogenesis (circular sourcing), fake news, and hoaxes, but how such misinformation can become widespread and persist for months or even years after it has been discredited or debunked (an especially problematic development considering that many of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" are seen doing the spreading). Examples of this run the gamut from the benign to the embarrassing to the deliberately malicious, the last of which includes the attribution of false quotes to Rush Limbaugh (including one adopted from a statement made by Adolf Hitler) and Melania Trump being labelled as a "sex worker" on Wikidata for a week.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/05/where-fake-news-is-born-how-wikipedia-spreads-hoaxes/

LunarArchivist 3 points ago +4 / -1

In a recent article, GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate) provided a play-by-play description of how biased Wikipedia editors can, over the course of time, use a combination of fake news and selective editing to engage in protracted smear campaigns designed to slowly whittle away at the credibility of websites they dislike and eventually accumulate enough "evidence" to provide a pretense for their blacklisting. In this case, he went over how an NBC hit piece claiming that articles critical of Black Lives Matter and the George Floyd riots published on "Zero Hedge" and "The Federalist" were racist led Google to temporarily demonitize one, issue a warning to the other, and ended with the former being banned as a source on the online encyclopedia. It seems that a small cabal of Wikipedians are allowed to run rampant on the site completely unchecked with the help of ideologically like-minded indivduals such as the notoriously anti-GamerGate administrator Gamaliel, who made a cameo in these proceedings

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/20/wikipedia-blacklists-zero-hedge-smears-federalist-following-nbc-hit-piece/

LunarArchivist 6 points ago +6 / -0

In his latest article on the goings on at the Free Online Encyclopedia That Anyone On The Left Can Edit, GamerGate supporter (and former Wikipedia editor) T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate) helpfully informs that, after a monthlong discussion involving 150 of the site's editors, Fox News has been deemed to no longer be a "generally reliably" source on contentious political and scientific topics. And just in time for 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, too. This is considered a downgrade from its previous status, where it was considered generally reliable on all topics.

In what should come as a surprise to absolutely no one, the charge to get Fox Newd deemed unreliable is being led by ideologically-motivated editors who, in the past, were responsible for such things as getting "Breitbart", "The Daily Mail", "The Epoch Times", "Gateway Pundit", "Zero Hedge", and "FrontPage Magazine" removed or banned as reliable sources and smearing not only those publications but also individuals they disagreed with such as Candace Owens, Mark Levin, and Tucker Carlson through selective editing and cherrypicking sources. Some of the lone voices of sanity included Ad Orientem and Atsme, the latter of whom stated that the left-wing editors seemed to be initiating votes on Fox News' reliability at every available opportunity with the intention of continuing to do so until they achieved their desired result.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/22/wikipedia-discourages-editors-from-using-fox-news-as-a-source-on-contentious-content/

LunarArchivist 8 points ago +8 / -0

According to GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate), a company known as Wikiprofessionals and its associated editors were banned from the site last week due to undisclosed paid editing and a dozen articles seemingly created for the sole purpose of advertising its clients were deleted after an editor, The creeper2007, produced evidence that prompted an investigation. This incident may be of particular relevance to gamers, as the deleted articles included ones on various video game-related figures, such as a former CEO of THQ, mobile game developer Neil Youn, various Zynga executives, and the creators of "Words With Friends" and "Farmville".

Adler notes that, while paid editing is a widespread, accepted reality on Wikipedia that remains extremely controversial due to its getting dangerously close to violating the site's content policies, it is paid editing of the undisclosed variety that actually crosses the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use due to the lack of transparency. Even so, conflicts of interest and lack of disclosure remain a common problem.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/21/wikipedia-bans-paid-editing-firm-mass-deletes-articles/

LunarArchivist 4 points ago +4 / -0

In his latest article, GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate) outlines how radio show host Mark Levin, after making statements critical of the Obama Administration's abuse of intercepts and FISA warrants in 2017, became the target of a protracted smear campaign by the online encyclopedia. Despite him citing sources considered "reliable" by Wikipedia - such as the "The New York Times" and "The Guardian" - and the stricter rules surrounding reliable sources when it comes to articles about living people, two controversial editors with histories of smearing conservatives and other unethical behavior, Snooganssnoogans and Localemediamonitor, have successfully managed to incorporate cherrypicked statements and defamatory claims into Levin's encyclopedia entry and keep them there, which has resulted in these falsehoods weaseling their way into mainstream media coverage via citogenesis.

Levin, who has been critical of Wikipedia because of their behavior and warning people about them for years, actually tweeted a thank you to Adler and Breitbart for reporting on the matter after the article was published.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/13/wikipedia-editors-smeared-mark-levin-in-multiyear-campaign/

LunarArchivist 5 points ago +5 / -0

One might think that, as opposed to ones on politics and history, medical articles might be immune from Wikipedia's usual ideological shenanigans and drama because of their elevated standards for sources.

Well, unfortunately, GamerGate supporter and former Wikipedia editor T.D. Adler (The Devil's Advocate) is here to disabuse you of that notion with his latest article, where he describes how a member of the Board of Trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation, Dr. James Heilman, was recently sanctioned by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee for disruptive edit warring and incivility arising from his insistence that drug prices be included in articles due to his claims that pharmaceutical companies were purposely trying to conceal such information and "censor" Wikipedia with the help of paid editing. He's also taken note of how medical textbooks plagiarized Wikipedia in much the same way that mainstream media outlets "liberally borrowed" from the website's hopelessly biased GamerGate article.

His significant opposition has countered by accusing him of cherrypicking sources to support his view, the irresponsibility of including such information without careful and extensive sourcing, and a potential conflict of his interest due to his founding of and continuing advisory role with the Wiki Project Med Foundation, an organization responsible for developing medical content on websites owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/06/wikimedia-trustee-wikipedia-censors-medical-articles-for-drug-industry/