The Signpost

Special report

Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?

Contribute  —  
Share this
Related articles
Special report

Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
20 November 2023

Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under potential European legislation
4 February 2023

Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of an encyclopedia
4 February 2023

Missed and Dissed
28 November 2022

From Russia with WikiLove
31 October 2022

Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down
26 June 2022

A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?
30 September 2019

WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives
31 January 2019

Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018

Wales in China; #Edit2015
16 December 2015

Russia temporarily blocks Wikipedia
26 August 2015

Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015

Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014

China blocks secure version of Wikipedia
5 June 2013

French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer
8 April 2013

Lawsuit filed against two Wikipedians
10 September 2012

Russian Wikipedia shuts down to fight censorship threat; E3 team and new tools; Wikitravel proposal bogged down
9 July 2012

Censorship, social media in schools, and more
30 March 2009

More articles

In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

Why links to, a site that can disappear at any moment, instead of perfectly good Wikipedia's permalinks to itself? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always ask myself this when people link to or links for Wikipedia. The obvious assumption, of course, is that they just don't realize Wikipedia has publicly viewable page history. This is probably true in some cases. But eventually it occurred to me that, well, if I believed Wikipedia to be the subject of some sort of malicious coverup, why the heck would I link to its own records? jp×g🗯️ 03:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia permalinks are not always permanent. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Where is it documented that the sockpuppeteer Bugmenot123123123 was the creator of the Cyber Anakin article? It's clear that he targeted the page after it was created, but the article's original creator appears to be Tester beta 1298, who was never blocked. 2600:1004:B113:4D39:74E3:2A01:D84A:DF4E (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the page was imported to draftspace from test2wiki (parenthetically, an extremely bizarre thing I've never seen before). But yes, that page wasn't created by the Bugmenot123123123 account. That account created the previous version of the page (which was deleted at its AfD in 2016); you can see this at the Xtools page that lists their created pages. jp×g🗯️ 03:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Xtools link,

It seems that most of Justapedia's articles are imported straight from here through a bot called Wikipedia legacy. The few that are written by humans are pretty bad. For example, the lede for the Donald Trump article has this gem: Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, and reluctantly agreed to an orderly transition of power; oh totally, Jan. 6 was so orderly and they were just tourists, right? I think this is worse than Conservapedia, because at least Conservapedia doesn't play pretend with their biases. Curbon7 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and leadimage of their Fascism article has some interesting changes. They have a useraccount named LarrySanger commenting here:[2]. See also the Showcase feature on the mainpage [3], interesting changes there too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I am surprised about is - where is our Justapedia article? Or at least a list of Wikipedia forks and mirrors one? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of online encyclopedias seems to be sticking to items with WP-articles, and Justapedia may fail WP:GNG atm. Not that I've looked for sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having searched, I think it fails WP:NWEB at present. XOR'easter (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some Justapedia comment on, presumably, this Signpost article: [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns from IP

An IP appears to be concerned with the inclusion of this link to Quillette, saying that in an edit summary that it may have been made by a banned user. I think the link is contextually important, and I don't see a persuasive reason to remove it here—particularly over a month after publication. I've reverted to the stable version pending this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can wait for the discussion at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Removal_of_Quillette_quote, and the related post at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, to reach their conclusion before I remove the link from this article. But those discussions are clearly trending in the direction of the Quillette article being a WP:PROFRINGE source that should not be linked to on Wikipedia. (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PROFRINGE is about mainspace, which excludes among other things The Signpost. "not be linked to on Wikipedia." is not a correct reading, for example such sources will often be linked in talkpage discussions about if they should be used in articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0