• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    5 months ago

    Banned user Russavia edited two of the oligarch articles. He was a very active administrator on Wikimedia Commons, who specialized in promoting the Russian aviation industry, and in disrupting the English-language Wikipedia.

    After finally being banned on the English Wikipedia, he created dozens of sockpuppets. Russavia, by almost all accounts, is not a citizen or resident of Russia, but his edits raise some concern and show some patterns.

    In 2010, he boasted, on his userpage at Commons, that he had obtained permission from the official Kremlin.ru site for all photos there to be uploaded to Commons under Creative Commons licenses. He also made 148 edits at Russo-Georgian War, and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

    Idk, when you’re using Wikipedia as a tool to push Russian propaganda, it seems fair that you’d be banned. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. He’s free to start russopedia.ru or whatever if he wants to do that.

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      the ridiculously detailed

      An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is… interesting.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Kinda burying the lede on that complaint…

        and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

        Wikipedia cares more about bias than* ridiculous details, especially when the ridiculous detail is there to put bias into the article

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            What is the difference between including ridiculous amounts of detail to bias the article, and superfluous biased details that still end up with a biased article?

            Seems like a distinction without a difference.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think their point was that since he got Russian government permission to use Russian gov media, and he wrote a very detailed (although very biased in favour of Russia) article, then they think he is receiving assistance from the russian government to push Russian propaganda.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        reads almost like it’s talking about the situation at hand having been extensively and thoroughly documented to the point of it being impossible to “be wrong” to me