[ad_1]
While Westminster remains stuck in an endless stalemate on Brexit, on Brexit's Wikipedia page, things are even less friendly. The editors negate death threats, doxxing attempts and accusations of bias, as the epic of the participatory crowd has become the focus of a bitter struggle to determine who will write the history of the Kingdom -United.
Originally published in January 2014, what began life as the "Proposed Referendum on the United Kingdom's Membership in the European Union" has turned into a gigantic giant of 11,757 words.
But the size of the article is the least of its problems. In private and on discussion pages, the editors tell stories of turf wars, sock puppet stories and anonymous personalities ready to rummage through the article with information that supports their point of view.
"I was very involved in the Brexit page, but I gave up over a year ago because it was impossible to correct the bias that it aroused and it was useless to try to solve this problem, "says EddieHugh, editor of Wikipedia. made 186 changes on the Brexit page, making it one of the most prolific contributors. Since leaving the page, EddieHugh now specializes in writing articles about mid-century obscure jazz musicians.
For the dedicated cabal of Wikipedians who continue to publish the page, the fight against prejudice is endless. "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view," reads in the second "five pillars" of Wikipedia, fundamental principles that guide the editing on the site. But who decides what counts as neutrality?
"Brexiteer types often complain that the page has an anti-Brexit bias, because it simply covers what credible economic research indicates about the likely impact of Brexit," says Snoogans Snoogans, who made 12% of total changes to the page. . As with all the publishers I've talked to for this piece, Snoogans has asked to be referenced by its Wikipedia nickname.
"I have published a lot of controversial political pages and I have been threatened with death and attempted resignation against me," they say. On the Brexit page, Snoogans mainly adds information to the section detailing the potential impact of Brexit on the UK and Europe, one of the most controversial aspects of the page.
"The big problem of this page is that vandals and good-faith writers who defend strong points of view regularly seek to remove content generated by peer-reviewed studies and expertise, particularly from the database. [opening paragraphs], "they say." They do it either because they personally reject the findings of these studies, or because of a feeling of "false balance". "
A sentence added by Snoogans in the first paragraphs of the page is particularly controversial. At the beginning of the article, there is reference to a "broad consensus" among economists that Brexit would hurt the UK economy. Shortly after adding the sentence, other editors attempted to delete the text, saying economists were not reliable enough to appear in Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia rules do not contain specific guidelines for economists, but recommend that "academic publications and peer-reviewed journals, monographs and textbooks" be used as much as possible.
Others have asked that the entire section detailing the impact of Brexit be transferred to a separate article, arguing that the article had become too lengthy and too cumbersome. With 72,900 characters, the article clearly falls into the "probably should be split" category of Wikipedia, according to its article size guidelines.
Other debates revolve around the Brexit jargon and the glossary of the page, consisting of 19 words. Is Leaver the best way to refer to Brexit fans or is Brexiteer more common? And is "Remoaner" the version of "Brextremist" that continues to support or is it more nasty? A recent question on the Brexit discussion page, where editors discuss changes to the article, raises another question about the term Quitlings. Is this something to do with quislings, and if so, should not the glossary mention it? For the moment, it is agreed that it is a reference to the sympathetic Norwegian nazi Vidkun Quisling – whose name has become synonymous with traitor – but that the term is not used enough to justify its inclusion in the article.
Of course, the article on Brexit is only the black hole at the center of the content galaxy on the Brexit on Wikipedia. In all, there are at least 79 Wikipedia pages that relate to Brexit in one way or another. There are pages on Brexitovka – a brand of vodka created to commemorate (or plead) the vote on Brexit – and another on Breunion Boys, a Dutch band that has released a song called "Britain Come Back," pleading with the British for Try to stop Brexit.
Other publishers are more interested in correcting errors than in contributing to the ever-increasing stack of Brexit-related Wikipedia content. Tlhslobus, a retired former software developer from Dublin, said he was intervening when he saw something that needed to be corrected, but he was trying to avoid major changes on the Brexit page. .
When he noticed that the page contained erroneous information about the decision of the European Court of Justice that the United Kingdom could unilaterally repeal Article 50, Tlhslobus quietly made some corrections. But he is particularly interested in the pruning of the article and the responsibility of the editors who have the energy to cope with the stress resulting from significant changes.
"As editor of many controversial policy pages, a lot of time is spent on" patrolling "the page, Snoogans says. "It means that I check all the new changes, and if they are bad, I cancel them."
But what may seem like diligence for some publishers may seem bloody to others. On newsgroups and subgroups, Wikipedia's review groups – some angry former editors and others who question Wikipedia's mission – are coming together to criticize the website.
A long time observer from Wikipedia, who asked not to be named, warned that some editors were setting up multiple accounts to try to strengthen their point of view on the page. One of the accounts modifying the Brexit page, he warned, could actually be an account for socks-puppets for Tarc, a now-banned account that was infamous for having run into trouble with other people. other publishers on the website.
To prove such an accusation, however, is delicate. The editors of Wikipedia are anonymous and the community is almost entirely self-regulated. Although English Wikipedia has nearly six million articles, 77% of them were written by only 1% of the editors. One publisher, Embad100, said that the rules for publishing were obscure and hard to penetrate for newcomers, a fact that deters new people from contributing to articles already dominated by renowned publishers.
"There is an innate hostility to any new content," says Embad100, a Canadian student who started publishing Wikipedia while he was doing a university project on Chinese politicians.
On the Brexit page, there is no such big space. Each montage is disputed, then defended viciously. On a page where motives are constantly questioned and where no one really knows who is behind, suspicions are legion. "The main challenge is the conduct of other editors," says an editor who did not want to be interviewed for this article. "You may be one of the publishers," he said.
More beautiful stories from WIRED
– The WIRED guide to the best science fiction movies ever made
– Why Tim Cook is a better CEO of Apple than Steve Jobs
– British MPs are on the verge of depression
– WIRED recommends the best backpacks
[ad_2]
Source link
