Skip to main content
A one woman campaign to stop Wikipedia from glorifying Nazis. https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/

One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia

Ksenia Coffman’s fellow editors have called her a vandal and a McCarthyist. She just wants them to stop glorifying fascists—and start citing better sources.
Noam Cohen (WIRED)
grin
grin  
•
without actually reading the article the question arise: will she stop historians, too?
grin
grin  
•
nope, it's experience. Some people feel that an emotionless description without bashing and name calling is "glorifying". Some people feel that describing the technics of a fight (be that middle age or not) is "glorifying" the winner, especially when their country was involved at the loser side. I've seen that too many times. Those citicise historians too for not "properly" desribing events (eg. not using required negative opinion).
Saying as a pacifist but engineer.
grin
grin  
•
I read the article, and it's ambivalent. It is good that she's out to fix unsourced claims and move niche details into sub-articles (she wasn't, as it seems, though, but tried to delete 'em all) but it's (probably) bad idea to start to go out and trying to delete stuff which does exists. Wikipedia is not a book, it does not have size limits, so there is no reason why "The Minor Order Of Lenin Of The Upper Siberian Region Heroes" shouldn't be there, if it existed. #IMHO
#IMHO
grin
grin  
•
Ideed, the Right Thing To Do™ is do handle everything according to the guidelines and not picking up topics, like nazis or lefties or specific colored flowers.
These articles shall be deleted not because they are about nazis but because they are generally not #notable. Or of they are, they should be kept, regardless of the #nazis.
#Nazis #notable
grin
grin  
•
I have seen cases where people were [trying to] delete data due to "unacceptable topic", like nazi military or strategic success.
There are countless of such topics, usually related to one's national pride or what you were taught is school versus historical facts. Like accepting where evil people killed our people but rejecting cases where we ruthlessly have killed others. That is history like.
grin
grin  
•
Yes, after my first reply, and my second reply contained comments related to the article. 🙂
This is a "normal" case, I'd say not even notable, it's just newsworthy because the nazis. But happens everywhere from sports[wo]men (non-English people are less worthy) to famous historical figur(in)es (look at my recent comment on Elisabeth Bathory) to, basically, whatever. There are single people trying to fix up topics, but it's better without an agenda behind...
grin
grin  
•
I disagree that everyone edits Wikipedia does it with an agenda, or the word has a meaning I am not subscribed to.
I also believe it is not more newsworthy than thousands of simlar cases with similar people, apart from the "newsworthy topic".
Therefore I agree with your last sentence: it works so well due to the nazis; it won't be there if it was about mistreating various beetle species and one-handedly fixing the injustice.
grin
grin  
I beg your pardon? Have you actually read the article? There were no such event as "found in accordance", neither straw poll or voting, and actually the only "found" was ArbCom saying they are not satisfying.
You try to deliberately ignore that it does matter what the specific topic was, which was my exact point to raise about the notability of the article, so it is well within scope.
grin
grin  
In fact something similar: they follow recent changes. It is called "deletionism", and it's a popular pastime on EnWP; people act as a general police force to "keep it clean", and generating countless debates in due time.

It is true thatmany people work on/follow various topics.

However telling that they have an "[secret] agenda", or a "specific hidden greater goal to be reached by walking through all the checkmarks" is greatly misleading. Normal editors don't work that way; it's the attribute of those either lack the cooperative skills or having sinister plots to follow.

What you describe is not a "hidden agenda", it is the method of work of patrolling edits, and people with experience usually work this way (in every field of work, not just Wikipedia): if you find a problem, check other creations of the same person, and articles in the same topic.

I am not sure what do you think how Wikipedia is edited and reviewed?
grin
grin  
Now, this is nonsensical and outside the scope. Please let us first define the meaning of the expressions we're debating over.

Merriam Webster: 'agenda' - 2. a plan or goal that guides someone's behavior and that is often kept secret.
Or in the very general sense: 1. a list of things to be considered or done

It is not about general motives, ethics, or working methods.
grin
grin  
I do not think she has any hidden goal to reach ("agenda"). Do you?
If it is so, you're debating with yourself, not me. It was me who said most editors does not have a [hidden] agenda, and many people are non one-topic editors.
grin
grin  
Is it possible that your non-specific phrasing ("the edits were found") causes a great misunderstanding? WHICH edits did you mean?

I thought you were talking about the nazi-friendly edits "being found in accordance with guidelines", and responded accordingly.
grin
grin  
That's a pity. I believe I may have a bit longer and deeper experience with Wikipedia than you, so I possibly cannot help questions raised by ignorance. There is no point sharing informations with someone clearly not interested.

You seem to be triggered by the word "nazis" and what I say is unacceptable since I do not concentrate on "fighting nazis" but to show that keeping "natural point of view" means being objective regardless of the opinions of the society. You fight for a social problem while I describe an enciclopedic work, which is very dissimilar to, say, debating topics on social networks.
⇧