Given Wikipedia's influence on society I think I agree. Misinformation can reach at least as many people as on Facebook, and cause injury and death to real people. It's only a matter of time before Wikipedia's Myanmar genocide comes.
We can't bring that threat under control while remaining completely ignorant of the people involved.
I think Hacker News users should too. After all, HN is an influential website read by many important people in the tech industry and beyond. It’s concerning how anonymous HN users could spread misinformation that impacts our critical technological infrastructure.
The situation was dealt with within 24 hours by mostly pseudonymous people. How much faster do you believe the response would have been if people had fully revealed their identities?
As a counter, I knew a rather active en.wikipedia admin[1] who -on joining google+ - had to reveal her real name at the time. Immediately she got doxed and people harassed her boss, her grandparents, and her family. This was somewhat to be expected, because there will always be a contingent of people who are unhappy with authority, especially those who are are subject to it. Would you argue that the harassment allowed her to keep a clear judgement, improved her understanding of policy, or otherwise made her a better admin?
Looks like a non-story really. Anyone can review the page history [1]:
Page was of interest, got vandalized [5] , got reverted [4] several times, particularly problematic edits were oversighted [2] , eventually page got semi-protected [3] so editor workload was reduced. Libelous edits were removed. All this in < 24 hours.
Possibly some bored (teenagers) during lunch break?
This is exactly how the system is supposed to work by the way. People should be aware that there can be a short window between when vandalism appears and when it gets caught.
10 comments
[ 12.8 ms ] story [ 816 ms ] threadWe can't bring that threat under control while remaining completely ignorant of the people involved.
You first.
As a counter, I knew a rather active en.wikipedia admin[1] who -on joining google+ - had to reveal her real name at the time. Immediately she got doxed and people harassed her boss, her grandparents, and her family. This was somewhat to be expected, because there will always be a contingent of people who are unhappy with authority, especially those who are are subject to it. Would you argue that the harassment allowed her to keep a clear judgement, improved her understanding of policy, or otherwise made her a better admin?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators
Page was of interest, got vandalized [5] , got reverted [4] several times, particularly problematic edits were oversighted [2] , eventually page got semi-protected [3] so editor workload was reduced. Libelous edits were removed. All this in < 24 hours.
Possibly some bored (teenagers) during lunch break?
This is exactly how the system is supposed to work by the way. People should be aware that there can be a short window between when vandalism appears and when it gets caught.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arshdeep_Singh_(c...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Se...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism