The Philip Cross Affair 772


UPDATE “Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing.

133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing is astonishing if it is one individual:

The operation runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, without significant variation. If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual, there is no denying he is morbidly obsessed. I am no psychiatrist, but to my entirely inexpert eyes this looks like the behaviour of a deranged psychotic with no regular social activities outside the home, no job (or an incredibly tolerant boss), living his life through a screen. I run what is arguably the most widely read single person political blog in the UK, and I do not spend nearly as much time on the internet as “Philip Cross”. My “timecard” would show where I watch football on Saturdays, go drinking on Fridays, go to the supermarket and for a walk or out with the family on Sundays, and generally relax much more and read books in the evenings. Cross does not have the patterns of activity of a normal and properly rounded human being.

There are three options here. “Philip Cross” is either a very strange person indeed, or is a false persona disguising a paid operation to control wikipedia content, or is a real front person for such an operation in his name.

Why does this – to take the official explanation – sad obsessive no friends nutter, matter?

Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel.

This matters because, an ordinary reader who comes across an article questioning (say) the official narrative on the Skripals, is very likely to turn to Wikipedia to get information on the author of the article. Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy, whereas if they look up a right wing MSM journalist, they will conclude they are a paragon of virtue and entirely to be trusted.

The “Philip Cross” treatment is meted out not just to left wingers, but to all sceptical of neo-conservatism and who oppose “wars of intervention”. A list of Cross’s victims includes Alex Salmond, Peter Oborne, John Pilger, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Hayward, Diane Abbott, Neil Clark, Lindsey German, Vanessa Beeley, and George Galloway. As you would expect “Philip Cross” is particularly active in making amendments to the Wikipedia articles of alternative media, and of MSM critique sites. “Philip Cross” has made 36 edits to the Wikipedia entry of The Canary and, staggeringly, over 800 edits on Media Lens. George Galloway remains the “Philip Cross” operation’s favourite target with a quite incredible 1,800 edits.

Just as revealing are the people who “Philip Cross” seeks to protect and promote. Sarah Smith, BBC Scotland’s uber-unionist, has had “Philip Cross” kindly delete references from her Wikipedia entry to family ties that (ahem) may have helped her career. Labour Friends of Israel’s Ruth Smeeth MP has had reference to the Wikileaks released US diplomatic cable that showed she was an informer to the US Embassy on the secrets of the Labour Party, deleted by “Philip Cross”. Right wing columnist Melanie Phillips had her embarrassing climate change denial excised by Cross.

“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper four square into the neo-con camp, Philip Cross actually wrote the original hagiographic entry. The Guardian’s MI6 contact, Luke Harding, is particularly looked after by Cross, as are their anti-Corbyn obsessives Nick Cohen and Jonathon Freedland. So are Murdoch hacks David Aaronovitch and Oliver Kamm.

There is no doubt that Kamm, leader wirter of Murdoch’s Times, is close the the “Philip Cross” operation. Many people believe that Kamm and Cross are the same person, or that Kamm is part of a multiple persona. Six times I have personally had hostile edits to my Wikipedia page by “Philip Cross” made in precise conjunction with attacks on me by Kamm, either on Twitter, in a Times editorial or in Prospect magazine. Altogether “Philip Cross” has made 275 edits to my Wikipedia page. These include calling my wife a stripper, deleting my photo, removing my reply to attacks made on me by Kamm and Harding among others, and deleting my refusal of all honours while a British diplomat.

Neil Clark and Peter Oborne are among many others who have suffered attacks on them by Philip Cross on Wikipedia simultaneously with attacks by Kamm on other media. Clark is taking Kamm to court for stalking – and “Philip Cross” has deleted all reference to that fact from Kamm’s Wikipedia page.

What is plain is that Kamm and Cross have extremely similar political views, and that the dividing line of those they attack and those they defend is based squarely on the principles of the Euston Manifesto. This may be obscure, but is in fact an important Blairite declaration of support for Israel and for neo-con wars of intervention, and was linked to the foundation of the Henry Jackson Society. Who do we find editing the Wikipedia entry for the Euston Manifesto? “Philip Cross”.

What is particularly interesting is that “Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.

The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation is very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.

In response many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.

Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?

I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.

“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.

I have in the past exchanged messages with “Philip Cross”. He says he is a person, and that he edits in conjunction with Oliver Kamm tweets because he follows Kamm and his tweets inspire him to edit. He says he has met Kamm and admits to being in electronic communication with him. That excjange I had with Cross was some years ago. More recent communication with Cross (who has now changed his twitter ID to “Julian”

has been less forthcoming and he has not replied:

George Galloway has offered a reward of £1,000 for the name and address of “Cross” so he may also take legal action.

My view is that Philip Cross probably is a real person, but that he fronts for a group acting under his name. It is undeniably true, in fact the government has boasted, that both the MOD and GCHQ have “cyber-war” ops aiming to defend the “official” narrative against alternative news media, and that is precisely the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation on Wikipedia. The extreme regularity of output argues against “Philip Cross” being either a one man or volunteer operation. I do not rule out however the possibility he genuinely is just a single extremely obsessed right wing fanatic.

Finally, it is worth noting that on Wikipedia, an operation to boost the mainstream media narrative and denigrate alternative sources has the massive advantage that only information from mainstream media sources is permitted in political articles.

In conclusion, some images from the edit pages of Wikipedia articles to give just a little flavour of what I am talking about:

I am slightly concerned lest I am myself getting obsessed. Do you find this as fascinating as I do?


772 thoughts on “The Philip Cross Affair

1 2 3 4 5 6 10
  • John Spencer-Davis

    George Galloway just tweeted that he has forensic scientists working on Philip Cross’s output and he can’t tell us about Philip Cross yet, but he soon will and from the rooftops.

    • Charles Bostock

      I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, Spencer-Davies. There are promises, promised promises and Galloways.

  • Kenny

    Two points.

    1. Just because there is a person called “Philip Cross” does not mean that it is a PERSON who is editing. A whole team can hide behind a name. It may be pointless trying to identify any particular “person” here.

    2. The overall gist of Wikipedia (and the sensation of some hidden agenda it oozes) mirrors the BBC, in my opinion. I think, then, that it is likely to be an organisation that is behind the persona of “Philip Cross” (who may, of course, be its conscious figurehead).

    It is interesting that Sarah Smith is covered. To my mind, she is not worthy of attention and is a rather uninteresting parochial journalist. Her only role is really in working against her own country (Scotland), the type who is actually secretly despised by her English friends. But Scottish independence is not really so big in the grand scheme of things. So does this suggest a sort of octopus with its tentacles everywhere?? Or is there a certain British bent to this whole thing? It might be interesting to locate any other “local” issues. For example, what about Catalonia? Or something further removed, like Balochistan… or Iran (for example, anything which promotes the same values as the NIAC or Mujahadeen or BBC Persian).

  • Kenny

    Forgot to add that surely Wikipedia OWNS all the content on Wikipedia.

    So the person to sue is the owner of Wikipedia.

    If a journalist prints an untrue article about you in the Herald, you surely sue the Herald, not the journalist.

    • Neil

      No it doesn’t. Read the copyright/licensing small print at the bottom of any Wikipedia article.

      • Kenny

        Wikipedia is the platform.

        It does not matter what is written in the small print by Wikipedia itself.

        The law overrides everything. Including what anyone chooses to unilateraly write.

        Wikipedia is the publisher and the platform for this content.

        Hence, any legal issues should be addressed to Wikipedia. And only Wikipedia.

        Otherwise, Wikipedia could just be one big scheme that PRETENDS that it has “kindly individuals” working night and day for free. A sort of overblown Huffington Post. Just to avoid ultimate responsibility, it PRETENDS to delegate “ownership” to a (fortunately anonymous) army of altruistic individuals…

        Now, that’s a conspiracy theory and a half, eh?!

        • Clark

          No, the license which contributions are made under is legally valid (see my comment below). However, libel law permits publishers to be sued. Wikipedia is legally entitled to remove material, and will do so to avoid libel suits.

    • Clark

      Neil is correct. When you edit Wikipedia, you contribute under a Creative Commons license and the GNU Free Documentation License. The terms are that your own work is attributed to you, but others are permitted to copy it or make derivative works, which then must be released under the same license. This “locking in” of the right to copy or modify is called “copyleft”. Without it Wikipedia couldn’t be modified; the whole project would grind to a standstill.

  • Kay

    Legal claims of harassment against the person, or persons, behind the Philip Cross account would seem to be a good way forward.

    To what degree were their actions directed and/or facilitated by others?

    I would welcome the opportunity to contribute to legal action of this type.

  • shugsrug

    I now have proof that Charles Bostock is a type of Philip Cross known only to have been manufactured at Porton Down.

  • Tatyana

    As to me, I wouldn’t bother much about is it a person or organisation, does it follow Wiki rules or not –
    there are facts, you can get a printscreen and verify it with a lawyer

    Some Philip Cross deleted the whole list of rewards of the certain person in a public library
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=841094669
    screenshot https://drive.google.com/open?id=1x3puL-rumj9pm-6OKQVam9npugHrCa_v
    (I’ve taken the first screenshot by Craig’s in the blog-topic and tested it with Wiki)

    It is dignity and reputation humiliation, Police should take care about it.
    ——–
    I sell on-line. If a person would clear the list of my 5-star reviews from my buyers…. be sure, I would file a clame!

    • Sharp Ears

      Why are you still advertising Tatyana? And why are the moderators allowing it?

      • Tatyana

        Sharp Ears, you have no trust in people 🙂 Who would advertise women’s stuff at a politics blog? You’ve asked me once and I explained – my link is intended to back up I’m a real person.
        Nevermind, I’m not here to annoy people. I have 2 newer links.

        Proof 1. Not a russian bot, but a very real person
        https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-incredible-bias-of-the-bbc/comment-page-6/#comment-748165

        Proof 2. Suspiciously good language skills and other
        https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/comment-page-2/#comment-749756

        Which one do you prefer? Or should I switch them from time to time to please everyone?

        • glenn_nl

          Take no notice, Tatyana. “Sharp Ears” has no business questioning you, and zero say in the running of this blog.

          • glenn_nl

            Tatyana: The moderators are quite capable of kicking out fakes, and would have said if they had objections to your linking to your products.

            Take no notice of mean-spirited old busy-bodies, who feel entitled to tell people what’s what on this blog, despite having no business doing so, and having received a suspension or two herself for bad behaviour. (She didn’t like that one bit, btw, and went off in a massive huff, promising never to return.)

            Best that criticism only comes in the one direction too. Our imperious “Sharp Ears” is outraged at the slightest criticism, or even at any questioning of her rather pointed assertions. Basically, she’s not a very nice person, and best ignored.

          • Tatyana

            Thank you Glenn, nevermind, it is OK, I’m an adult and healthy person and I can stand for myself. But I’m nevertheless appreciate your support and I’m grateful!
            Adressing SE as ‘her’ you gave me insight about a puzzle I was thinking of recently 🙂

          • glenn_nl

            Tanyana: You’re welcome. Which is more than SE (or many other monikers she’s had over the years) gives to newcomers. In fact, she pretends to be an authority around here, and demands that the mods delete this post or ban than person, despite this being a clear violation of the posting rules. Rules don’t apply to Her Majesty “Sharp Ears”, apparently.

            I had the temerity to question one of her more sweeping assertions a few years back, which resulted in my designation of an “Enemy of the People” in her rather intolerant mind. Your only real danger is treating her as seriously as she likes to consider herself.

            Having said all that, she is a rather good researcher, which makes it quite a shame that she lets herself down so badly with this Thatcherite persona of she-who-must-not-be-questioned.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Another editor is strongly arguing that Philip Cross should recuse himself from editing Galloway’s page and others due to COI. Cross himself and others are disputing this.

    “Preparatory to filing a COI Noticeboard report, I seek Talk page consensus that Philip Cross should be topic banned from editing George Galloway and related BLPs such as the other “goons” with whom he is at war—@mwgbanks, @CraigMurrayOrg, @NafeezAhmed, @Tim_Hayward_, @PiersRobinson1, and @medialens—all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. KalHolmann (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Galloway (scroll to bottom).

    The discussion has been closed and direction given to Administrators noticeboard/Incidents if people want to continue it.

    “Goons” are what Philip Cross called all those people on Twitter.

  • laguerre

    I suspect Wiki is something we have to live with. It’s good for non-controversial information, but will have been written or re-written for political interests. Israel has taken the lead, as usual, in writing the articles relevant to them, in the way that they want. Others just follow. It’s impossible to impose rules that are going to prevent undesirable posters from saying what they want. Better to let their views die, through lack of support.

  • Chef

    Wikipedia is about as factual as fucking Snopes lol. If thats your Go-To source for knowledge, you are already fucked. 😄😄😄

  • Tom Smythe

    133,612 edits to Wikpedia by one person? That must be the all time record by a huge margin. How many edits does 2nd place have? Top contributors would be well-known to management.

    What shocks me is the extreme rudeness and unprofessional demeanor of Jimmy Wales. Sheesh, I had no idea. I was expecting a relentlessly upbeat cheerleader persona optimistically focused on the positive side of human nature.

    I like wikipedia for starter material and make minor science edits myself. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that a lot of decent people have put a lot of excellent information into wikipedia (depending on topic). Some of the article are super, better than you find in paywalled peer-reviewed scientific journals. For example, some unknown from Brazil wrote an incredibly lucid account of the Glen’s Law (second invariant of the stress deviator tensor, glacier flow). That’s what wikipedia is really about.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      Actually that’s chicken feed. Cross is at number 308 in the number of edits records. Top editor has two million plus, I understand.

    • lysias

      When I was an undergraduate at Princeton University, I used to enjoy looking at bound volumes of periodicals in the library. One of the periodicals I liked to look at was Das Reich, Goebbels’s prestige weekly. It was full of extremely high-quality journalism. It also carried far more sinister stuff, including a weekly column by Goebbels himself, justifying Nazi policies, inluding those against Jews.

  • Juan

    “Participation is prized more than competence. When a prominent Wikipedian who claimed to be a tenured professor of divinity was revealed instead to be a young college dropout, the site’s founder Jimmy Wales responded that he was unconcerned. The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia’s culture.”
    Oliver Kamm – August 16, 2007

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160905131644/http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/wisdom-more-lik.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Commandeering_or_sanitizing_articles

  • N_

    @N_ “In other news, an Italian government appears to be about to be formed that will seek to deport half a million immigrants.

    @Steve R “Hopefully they will deport them to the countries whose governments are responsible for their plight – in the case of the regime-changers that would be France UK US Australia.

    @laguerre “Perhaps what’s in the manifesto won’t actually be done. I would have thought you would have learnt from the british experience.

    Who would have learnt what, from what British experience? Politicians often make promises they don’t keep. No major party or campaign in Britain has promised to deport anywhere near that number of immigrants, so I don’t know what you are referring to. I’m referring to the joint plan agreed in Italy by Five Star and the League.

    In Italy, the promise prior to mass deportation is to confine the immigrants in “temporary stay facilities” first – presumably meaning camps. Are you saying it’s wise to think the new government won’t or can’t deliver?

  • Ken

    No, it is not fascinating, it is actually very tiresome, but the people behind the Phillip Cross persona need to be outed and undergo a dose of maximum humiliation just for jollies.

    I have never crossed swords with Cross, but Neil Clark is a mate of mine and more than a few people think that Cross and Oliver “Gimlet” Kamm are one and the same. (I call him Gimlet ‘cos a gimlet is a small device used to make holes in wood. It’s a small boring tool, in other words…)

    Gimlet certainly has some weird friends, with at least one of them being real. Over a decade ago I crossed swords with Gimlet online and his friends, both real and imaginary began to follow me around the web. One of them seemed to be arriving at my site from Napier “University” here in Scotland, but I was unsure if it was definitely him or a couple of other candidates.

    Luckily I had a mate who was a main man at a site called Harry’s Place. In public we were enemies, but actually, we got on rather well in private and it amused him to help me since this fellow was also leaving comments about me at HP. Sure enough, it turned out that my suspicions about Napier turned out to be confirmed.

    The fellow was very active, leaving comments from the Arts Faculty at that former technical college, as well as from his home in the evening, so I would not rule out Cross being one person since Gimlet’s stooges are very loyal little doggies. I managed to track him down to a particular area, but then I spilt the beans one night when drunk and he did a runner, never to be seen again. So not that loyal come to think about it.

    Gimlet was at Oxford in the early 1980s, but what not particularly well known since nobody ever invited him to anything. The Napier stooge and the Cross figure are probably males who were even more socially crippled than Gimlet, which is why they latched onto him.

    I suggest that you investigate Oxford in the early 1980s if you want to find out who Cross is.

  • Dave Lawton

    It has been well known for many years Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the latrines.

  • oldyella

    @craig; In light of comments added by users on comment page 2 relating to Philip Cross’ self declaration on wikipedia –

    “This user has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome” and “This user is a psychiatric survivor”

    I would suggest you DM George, Neil and all others affected by Mr Cross odd behaviour requesting that they all desist from their (very legitimate) attempts to hold Mr Cross accountable for his petty and systematic actions, as if something tragic and self inflicted was to happen to Mr Cross (while spooks were present obv) it could possible be a stick to beat you and your fellow anti war, human rights campaigners with in the future and reflect badly for ever more on all your hard work to date, no?

    Lori Love and Mr Kinneck, both AS suffers, fragile state of mind under US duress comes to mind, not to mention the depressed women door stepped by Sky News years ago, about her online comments directed toward the McCann family, who went on to kill herself days later.

    If this was to end badly, the establishment you seek to hold to account would have a field day. Box smart. Could be another set up.

  • Juan

    Some tips from an ex-wikipedia editor: don’t take the easy way and simply read what ‘they’ want you to read! Go to the “View History” tab at the top of the Wikipedia article to see what has been contested/edited out. Also check out the “Talk” tab. Not everything that has been removed is necessarily true, but it might give you a good idea of where might be interesting to look.

    • Neil

      Agreed. On contentious topics, the talk pages can often be more enlightening than the articles.

  • Bruce

    Yes I think its most likely that “Philip Cross” is the handle for a group of (taxpayer?) funded analysts working full-time to support official narratives. As they’ve been exposed now, they’ll probably switch to a more dynamic method of assigning usernames etc, so that edits appear to have been done by lots of different people. The nature of the edits remaining unchanged of course.

  • Godfree Roberts

    I publish and comment positively about China and have noticed this phenomenon, manicuring information from mainstream to academic media. I attribute it to panic. The ancien regime is terrified and, thank God, deeply clueless.

  • giyane

    I suppose if you had a large office in Maidenhead quite close to the pulse of Sonning , Northolt, and the nuclear bomb shelters under the Chiltern Hills, and you wanted to appear as a one-man outfit, you could get your computer to evenly space your combined office timed output to look like you were an individual.

    Apparently power eventually dries up your ability to feel empathy. Your emotional intelligence ceases to exist.. Hence as an employee of the 1984 deep state you would not register that human beings were reading your output. The output of your office is a mere rectification of incorrect information for the Party’s own sake.

    The dalek malfunctions when asked to recognise wrongly formatted human tripe. There is no doubt at all that Philip cross does not exist, any more than a shop dummy’s bulges contain breasts or pelvises. Some people apparently get companionship from AI pets. Just saying.. Not calling you sad or anything like that.

  • Goatboy

    So here is an article from the 20th of April by Chris York of the Huffington Post. It’s basically a character assassination of Vanessa Beeley who many here will know if they have read much about Syria beyond the MM. This article is one of many surfacing since she posted several video eyewitness accounts of Syrians talking about how the White Helmet’s are aligned with ISIS/terrorists in places like Eastern Ghouta.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/vanessa-beeley-syria-white-helmets_uk_5ad9b6cae4b03c426dad48a9

    What is interesting is that I was doing my research….so, and I’m not proud of it (now) I went to wikipedia. Which opens with…..

    ‘Beeley began her blog, “The Wall will fall”, at the end of 2012 following her first visit to Palestine.[6] …….blah, blah, blah,….. She has also written articles including 9/11 conspiracy theories.[8] and believes the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January 2015 was a false flag operation and that “Zionists rule France”.[1][2]

    What got my attention was that the last sentence, the most derogatory, was EXACTLY the same as Mr York’s opening sentence. Upon further inspection I notice that links [1] and [2] referenced his article! When checking the links for these claims on York’s piece we find re-tweets taken totally out of context i.e. NOTHING. It’s total BS.

    The wiki page was written 3 days after the article. This raised no alarm bells at all with those I am arguing with online. What we have is an online encyclopedia referencing a junk online news article and folks are lapping it up. LAPPING IT UP LIKE IT IS CREAM!!!

    Obviously Chris York or someone tasked with following him has mirrored his views on this wiki page. Wow, just wow. Bottom feeding journalism of the worst kind. I’m almost tempted to contact this MF as a concerned citizen and rip him a new one.

    I am seeing the effect of this, lets call it what is, information warfare online. People unwilling in ANY context at all to engage with what Vanessa is reporting because she is a Russian stooge!!! I have posted videos of many Syrian families giving heart rending testimony and nobody EVEN WATCHES IT. Not even a single comment. Speak to the hand.

    What is terrible is when you watch these people speak, not in our language, but alongside the subtitles, the body language, the tense gestures, the dirty children playing in the background, the silent wife reflecting as the enraged Father speaks of atrocities witnessed and raw in his memory. You see something we never see on our news media. Truth. Un-edited, un-altered, un-spun truth. And the reality of war hits home.

    They say the truth will set you free…ha!! That’s an ironic joke of gargantuan proportions. The truth is what they make it. The truth is what THEY put on wikipedia. Look no further. It’ll hurt too much.

    But the truth is loud. It just needs an opeing. Like the first ray of sun that lights up the entire horizon. The dark is weak, its only strength is in its numbers, but not enough.

    So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

  • Hieroglyph

    I’m now imagining a fight club scenario, where Kamm writes all night as Kamm, and edits Wiki all day as Phillip Cross. Before he sues anyone, I know this isn’t true. For one, Kamm is a bad writer, and he’s no Tyler Durden.

    I had been unaware of the role of Jimmy Wales here. Nobody is accusing Wales of being involved, but a certain amount of turning a blind eye appears to be ocurring. Why is this? I do not know. Maybe he’s been warned off? To me, Phillip Cross\Julian is a PR collective, made up of a small circle of trusted PR types all spreading ‘the message’. And PR wants to get paid. So the question becomes: who is paying? Ah, there’s the rub. PR circles have, in their midst, some pretty terrifying people , connected to even more terrifying people. Were I a cynical man – and I am when it comes to Blair-ites – I’d be looking very closely at Peter Mandy Mandelson, The Prince of Darkness himself. Just an evidence-free hunch, before anyone sues me again.

    And anyway, if one wants to learn about a topic, one has to study hard, Wikipedia won’t help. That’s how it works for us mere mortals. I’m sure Elon Musk reads a few books and is pretty much an expert, not so much the rest of us.

    • Andrew H

      I doubt any of the prolific editors on Wikipedia are anyone other than who they claim to be – nor do they likely have an intentional agenda to distort information. (Those are the people that have their edits reversed and ultimately get shut down.) So the fact that Philip Cross isn’t constantly having edits reversed and hasn’t been banned after over a decade speaks for itself that the edits are consistent with those of a wider editorial team. (not simply of Jimmy Wales). I don’t buy into some conspiracy that he has figured out how to push an agenda whilst at the same time appearing to other editors to be motivated by fact. (I don’t say he doesn’t have a bias, because we all do – just that isn’t his motivation)

  • Mochyn69

    Everyone knows Wikipedia is not a reliable source, even Wikipedia itself!

    An internet search reveals 183,000,000 results on the subject, including this from Wikipedia itself:

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time may not be accurate and may indeed be vandalism.

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source – Wikipedia, the …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

    So this alleged guy ‘Philip Cross’ is just nuts, wasting ‘his’ time like this! Actually, ‘he’ is a vandal and Wikipedia should hold him to account accordingly.

    **

    • Andrew H

      There being mistakes and inaccuracies and even deliberate vandalism, doesn’t mean Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source of information. All books including encyclopedias made by paid staff invariably have many mistakes as well as dubious claims portrayed as fact. [The claim by expensive encyclopedias that because Wikipedia is open to editing by all makes it less accurate than say encyclopedia britannica is probably not true – all sources of factual information have errors (including major scientific journals) – the open nature of Wikipedia means some of those errors get corrected]. Readers should always use their own heads and verify stuff that is important. Nevertheless Wikipedia is a good first stop for factual information on a wide variety of topics.

      • zoot

        the prolific and unihibited activities of the warmonger cross suggest otherwise. please do not insult the intelligence of people who have just read craig’s blog.

  • M R Rutter-DaCosta

    I am amazed that an organised effort to undermine left wing journalists and politicians doesn’t use multiple persona to disguise the activity.

    • bj

      You do not need that, if Wikipedia’s reassuring hand is on your shoulder.

      That is, the hand of Mister Wikipedia, Jimmy ‘Jimbo’ Wales himself.

      There are ample examples where that appears to be the case.

  • SA

    The issue is far more important than any individual ‘wikipedian’ Wikipedia or the internet, it is about who commands the narrative. In these days of fake news and alternative facts it is not only important to try and establish ‘facts’ quickly but to follow that with an overwhelming coordinated reinforcement from many sides. Having established these false facts you then move on to a seemingly different topic with the same tools. This has the effect of relegating the first ‘fact’ which then, not having been proven, but having had major exposure, as a historical fact which no longer needs to be discussed.
    A masterful demonstration of all this was the recent Skripal case with an apparently unified response from the west and having put Russia on the defensive, another front was opened against Corbyn and this was quickly followed by the Douma CW episode. I think these are very carefully coordinated seemingly unrelated events.
    Wikipedia is one of the tools in consolidating these myths. Whereas history books, which take years of research, are still full of bias and major flaws, in the case of Wikipedia, history can be written and made up as we go along.

    • Goatboy

      Wikipedia is really Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’. Flexible, ever changing to reflect desired narratives. Literally the writing and (critically) re-writing of history. See my post re: the Chris York’s Huffington article on Vanessa Beeley. Between two way screen (mobile phones) and wikipedia we really are living in Orewell’s 1984 more than ever. When all opposition voices fall silent his vision will be realised. So SPEAK UP everyone. Call them out wherever they hide and give them no rest. For they are few and we are many!

1 2 3 4 5 6 10

Comments are closed.