Wikipedia already has a policy in place that, if it doesn't already address the majority of concerns about AI-assisted or entirely AI-created content, would still be an excellent starting place: Wikipedia:Bot policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bryan Dunsheng" guy in the comments of the SPLC article seems to have a... um... problematic history. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at the depth of the SPLC story. Wikipedia criticism stories are usually more hyperbole than substance, but this author seems to have done their homework and it was a legitimately insightful article. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed the Wired article on the how the photograph that appears in the Human infobox came to be. Thank you for sharing – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As Captain Obvious might point out if only he were here, if search engines wouldn't give so much weight to Wikipedia, there wouldn't be as much motivation to game it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading SPLC's article, what I found most disconcerting 🚩🚩 was their comment about WP's perceived vulnerability "to manipulation by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racist academics seeking a wider audience for extreme views" and its juxtaposition to the comment by our own Doug Weller: "its presence has grown with the emergence of the alt-right and the surge in rightwing populism". I'm of the mind that any extremist view, regardless of one's political or religious affiliation, can be problematic but our 3 core content policies serve as a preventative. What exactly is rightwing populism, and why was it singled out? I've also noticed that any RS that tends to lean right, even a little, is automatically considered by some to be unreliable whereas left-leaning sources are automatically considered reliable, regardless of context or bias; and yes, there is clearly a double standard. I also saw nothing in the SPLC article about alt-left vandalism and bias, so are we to assume the left can do no wrong and the only bias that exists in WP is "right-wing bias"? 🚩🚩

WP doesn't "police" it's content, and SPLC's assumption of an "ever-present threat that an organized faction or a group of single-purpose editors working in concert can exploit Wikipedia’s mechanisms to tilt its point of view in favor of a fringe perspective" works both ways, so why does that article target only the right? Who exactly determines what constitutes a "fringe perspective"? That sounds more like what happens in "censored police states"...NOT in an encyclopedia that rejects censorship and is dedicated to freely sharing knowledge from a WP:NPOV. We review articles and collaborate to achieve NPOV, we don't "police" anything. WP must never lose sight of its mission, which is NOT to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:SOAPBOX, or WP:ADVOCACY. In fact, our BLP, NPOV, OR and V policies are forthright, and while there may be a few ambiguities here and there, we've always managed to work through them. On the other hand, SPLC is a social justice advocacy that uses "litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy" to achieve their goals of "equal justice and equal opportunity"; a worthy cause indeed, but I wonder why SPLC decided to target WP? Was there a particular article that got their attention? Isn't it ironic that they would express their concerns over outside influences on WP content while they attempt to influence WP content?

WP is not about promoting worthy causes, so I'm a bit confused over what SPLC hopes to accomplish by revealing some of the pitfalls we encounter as editors. I doubt many will deny that litigation is a scary and expensive process that is best avoided, (hell, just the thought of being drug to AN/I, AE or ArbCom has a chilling effect), so I can only imagine how it must feel to find oneself hounded by or confronted by a large pool of lawyers with seemingly unlimited resources, who have all of a sudden determined for whatever reason that you're a racist, or you support a fringe ideology, or the church you once attended is a hate group, or you're pushing a view they've determined to be harmful to society. SPLC has become a formidable power, and as history has demonstrated time and again, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Let's hope that isn't the case here. When I read statements like "ideologically skewed content", and "manipulation by the alt-right and others", I usually step back and try to figure out exactly what such terminology means. Without diffs for support, how can one know the intended context? What on earth does "manipulation by the alt-right and others" actually mean? Who are others, and how does one come to know it's manipulation when we AFG? Whose POV determines that it's manipulation? Is it simply a matter of a liberal POV vs a conservative POV? Who says one is right and the other is wrong?

SPLC itself has not been free of controversy, especially considering some of the individuals/groups on their list of "Hate and Extremism"...like Ben Carson for example, which they eventually retracted. While I believe that advocating love for all humanity is a commendable and worthy cause, it is neither WP's obligation nor responsibility to advocate for or against it. Above all, I draw the line when hate and separatism are used as the means to justify the end. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" I've also noticed that any RS that tends to lean right, even a little, is automatically considered by some to be unreliable whereas left-leaning sources are automatically considered reliable, regardless of context or bias" - this is simply not true. It's not even true if one accepts your extremely skewed view of what "lean right" and what "left-leaning" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^^There you have it - predictable denial with a measure of snark. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No snark. 100% serious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, as a wise man once said, that which is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. If you don't feel compelled to provide evidence for your sweeping assertions, then it's not fair to criticize people who fail to agree with them. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, it isn't I who needs to provide evidence as I actually did provide links with regards to SPLC; therefore, I'm not quite sure as to what evidence you feel is needed. Please be more specific, and I will provide whatever is necessary to satisfy your hunger. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here we go - I've included a few diffs that support my "sweeping assertions" - no sense in inundating you with more than that, unless you request it. You can also look at the Reference section of any Trump-related article to see how many right-leaning sources are cited. Racial views of Donald Trump is a good place to start (Fox was cited 4 times for 4 separate sentences). Following are 3 examples of how right-leaning (conservative) sources are thought of by some:

1. RS/N FoxNews discussion,
2. "fake news" list,
3. The Daily Caller, discussion involves an article they published about Senator Menendez.

MastCell, You declared Daily Caller to be an unreliable source in that discussion. Based on what I gleaned after a quick review, TDC published unsupported allegations about Senator Menendez and his alleged involvement with prostitutes. WaPo provided a timeline. At the time you declared The Daily Caller unreliable you didn't think any reputable media would touch it "with a ten-foot pole because it was so obviously dubious and lacking credibility." If that's the basis for declaring a source unreliable, then do you consider Newsweek and WaPo unreliable because they published unsupported allegations about the infamous golden shower and Trump being with prostitutes in Russia? WP also published an entire article based on the unverified allegations in Trump-Russia dossier whereas Bob_Menendez#Attempted implication in prostitution scandal has one short paragraph, and it blames conservatives and the Daily Caller...quite a difference from the way the Trump allegations are being handled. I wonder...is the party that preaches "equal justice and equal opportunity" the same party that denies it to those they judge in their court of public opinion as undeserving? ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The problem, for you, is that sources such as the Daily Caller are unreliable NOT because they're "right-wing". They're unreliable because they're simply garbage. Same goes for various fake news websites (and I have no idea how the link to Bull Rangifier's comment is suppose to show what you claim it shows - you're doing that thing again. The thing where you provide a diff, then claim it's something other than what it really is, and hope that no one actually checks). Likewise, there's plenty of trashy left leaning sources which are unreliable, such as the Intercept or Salon. There's stuff that's even comparable to Daily Caller, like AlterNet or whatever. And then there's stuff that's borderline like ThinkProgress. So you're completely wrong about your claim that "left-leaning sources are automatically considered reliable". That's just false, you're making stuff up. The thing is, left leaning editors don't whine about not being able to use their shitty left leaning sources as much as right leaning editors whine about not being able to use their shitty right wing sources. So it doesn't come up as much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem, VM. You cherrypicked one sentence from my initial post, and are obsessing over it with troll-like behavior, complete with profanities. While such nonsense is predictable coming from you, it's disruptive. Surely you have better things to do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)  [reply]

Edit break

It was investigative reporting, and quite spot on, when it comes to racialists and fringe science. It was not Wikipedia being "targeted by SPLC". The latter sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative reporting, K.e? Are you referring to this NYTimes article? Oh, wait...that piece in the NYTimes article wasn't included. Perhaps you're referring to the journalistic opinions that were cherrypicked from certain RS that best fit the Racial views of Donald Trump (which are actually the views of everyone else and how they perceive his racial views)? Are you referring to this Fox News article (forgive me for using what some consider profanity) and the 2005 Obama-Farrakhan photo? Oh, wait - that info wasn't included in the article, either. Hmmm...my apologies...what investigative reporting are you referring to? Let's see...should we go back in time to 1994? Interesting how that article doesn't quite corroborate with this article, or numerous other articles of late...but of course none of that matters as it pertains to the WP article about the Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump#Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucusarticle, right? Anyone who needs more RS, left or right leaning, can obtain them at the TP of that article, and form their own opinions. Oh, and please, if you get a chance, let me know how many center-right or even center RS are cited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Investigative reporting, K.e? Are you referring to this NYTimes article? (I'm referring to VM's comment in response to my comment about "lean right", but the topic has taken a sharp left turn regarding the inclusion of NPOV info in general as it relates to racism). Oh, wait...that piece in the NYTimes article wasn't included in a "racial topic" involving Trump in WP. Perhaps you're referring to the journalistic opinions that were cherrypicked from certain RS that best fit the Racial views of Donald Trump (which are actually the views of everyone else, including SPLC, and how others perceive his racial views and conflate them with uprisings), particularly the sections titled "Impact" and "Effects on students"? Are you referring to this Fox News article (forgive me for using what some consider profanity ^[FBDB]) and the 2005 Obama-Farrakhan photo? Oh, wait - that info wasn't included in the article, either. Hmmm...my apologies...what investigative reporting are you referring to? Let's see...should we go back in time to 1994? Interesting how that article doesn't quite corroborate with this article, or numerous other articles of late...but of course none of that matters as it pertains to the WP article about the Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump#Reactions by the Congressional Black Caucus, right? Anyone who needs more RS, left or right leaning, can obtain them at the TP of that article, and form their own opinions. Oh, and please, if you get a chance, let me know how many center-right or even center RS are cited, not that it matters because some of the information that brings "balance" in left leaning sources is also excluded. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I thought the topic of this discussion (i.e. SPLC targeting WP) was about this recent piece:"Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". That's what I described as investigative reporting. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the ec, K.e. - but while the title of the SPLC article implies one thing, the article delves into greater depth. For example (my bold underline): "...the free encyclopedia’s openness and anonymity leave it vulnerable to manipulation by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racist academics seeking a wider audience for extreme views. And there's also ...its presence has grown with the emergence of the alt-right and the surge in rightwing populism in Europe and North America... which were the key phrases that got my attention. I take issue to the SPLC labeling "racist academics" because it's obviously a label that originates from their mistaken belief of right-wing being racist when in fact, history to the present proves otherwise. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"History to the present proves otherwise"... Care to elaborate? 172.56.21.125 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't have time to elaborate on what history has already documented, so if I may suggest the following material to read: The Hill, the Chicago Tribune, and the Encyclopedia Britannica (not that the Britannica is any better than what WP offers, but they do have a commendable history). The aforementioned 3 articles speak volumes from which you can derive your own "elaboration". While I don't editorialize to fit any particular agenda, I have no problem deploying sound editorial judgement based on verifiable information derived from RS and statements of fact (much of which is influenced by common sense and hands-on experience). I do realize that while the "young and impressionable" editors are an asset to WP, I do not lose sight of the fact that veteran editors who have lived the various political experiences are equally as important. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I found what I expected to find from your sources (which are indeed HIGHLY editorialized). Brevity will do just fine here: "conservative" hasn't always meant Republican and "liberal" hasn't always referred to Democrats. To say so (ESPECIALLY in regards to race) displays a stunning lack of awareness about the history of American politics, but does proffer some interesting insight into your propensity for "alternative facts". 172.58.169.186 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A typical response in the absence of a supportive argument: blame the sources and attack the editor. True to form, IP. 😂 And what are you referencing with regards to your elementary comment about conservatives and liberals?^{Atsme📞📧} 19:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, their "supportive argument" is the following phrase in their comment: " "conservative" hasn't always meant Republican and "liberal" hasn't always referred to Democrats. To say so (ESPECIALLY in regards to race) displays a stunning lack of awareness about the history of American politics". I mean... that's sort of basic. It's stuff you learn in third grade social studies class. Just because you either don't know American history, or you pretend you don't know American history, doesn't make it ok for you to dismiss an actual argument.

(and yeah those opinion columns were pretty idiotic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I stop arguing and just let you be wrong. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are similar problems with leftwing political activists recruiting eachother offline to try to influence wikipedia content by tendentiously selecting and representing different areas of knowledge, then that would be a good topic for another article. I have yet to see that sort of thing. But SPLC specifically works with monitoring activity of groups that promote hatred and hateful and discriminatory discourse as part of their political project. This is why it makes sense to see how such groups operate on wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why TechCrunch pulled their article on the end of Wikipedia Zero, but it's archived here. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian J. Hunter:, Thanks for catching that. I added the archive link. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]