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?
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.
**
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.
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.
I am amazed that an organised effort to undermine left wing journalists and politicians doesn’t use multiple persona to disguise the activity.
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.
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.
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!
Two members of LFOI (Catherine West and Tulip Siddiq) have left the set up. Asa Winstanley calls out the hypocrisy and gives an insight into what goes on behind the scenes including the contribution of the Israeli Embassy.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/supporters-desert-labour-friends-israel
Gaza: UN to launch war crimes investigation into Israeli forces’ shooting of protesters
UN human rights chief slams Israel’s ‘wholly disproportionate response’
18 May 2018
‘The council voted through the resolution with 29 in favour and two opposed, while 14 states abstained.
The resolution also condemned “the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians”.
Israel condemned the resolution, which was put forward by a group of countries including Pakistan. The United States decried it as an example of a biased focus on Israel by the council.’
The names of the countries who opposed the motion and who abstained are not listed.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-killings-israel-hamas-un-war-crimes-investigate-border-deaths-sniper-a8357981.html
A good time to bury the last act of the Skripal play?
If Novichok was used, Skripal would have died on the spot (Putin)
Ex-double agent leaves hospital
https://www.rt.com/news/427160-novichok-skripal-putin-uk/
And –not insignificant– he said it in the near presence of Angela Merkel herself.
It’s obvious that someone is trying to rewrite history, and they will continue to do so. Endless money protects itself.
We are entering a brave new world of Orwellian proportion.
Good luck & keep the truth alive!
That is defeatism. We oughta fight this ‘guy’.
I wonder if “Philip Cross”, as s/he is so tireless, also used to do shifts as a moderator on the Guardian’s CIF until the paper started to close many of its articles to comment?
I think we should be told, Jimmy…
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/27/baroness-rebuck-jimmy-wales-guardian-media-group-board
A quick look at relevant breaking news takes us first to a related information-war article, reporting on a most senior Donkey at RUSI, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/winning-propaganda-war-important-beating-12558348
The suggestion seems to be that Craig’s blog might urgently need to be bombed? (the top oxymoron wonk at the RAF doesn’t mention Craig – but insists that Britain needs to urgently deceive and counter-deceive ‘our enemies’ i.e. “the British people” before they…)
Great news however from the USA, an American state senate has just voted to deprive all their National Security Agency (N.S.A.) spy bases of water and electricity power feeds! Oxygen deprivation next for GCHQ from a Gloucester County Council vote?
Strangely this US posturing is a bit limited as we are not talking about Virginia or Maryland but Michigan – and they haven’t yet found a secret spy base in their state to cut off!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/on-5th-anniversary-of-snowden-leak-michigan-effectively-bans-the-nsa
Seems perhaps ‘the people’ are mildly annoyed by the warriors leading the information-war, and it seems that accurate and timely Blogs are having some ripples
“We need to have a convincing justification and narrative for our actions while countering opposition disinformation and lies with our own lies,” he told the Royal United Services Institute military think tank.
“The fight for the narrative is arguably as important as the actual fight and we must use all means fair or foul to achieve this.”
Sorry tweaked to bring out the true meaning of the statement.
Hypocrisy alert: Eric Pickles just elevated to the House of Lords, wants to carry out the will of the people by being a lord.
Craig – I don’t find this fascinating: I find it deeply concerning but wonder how on earth it is to be tackled effectively since the problem is now so endemic in our society? Presumably whoever is delivering this big brother overview of the rest of us (since it very obviously can’t only be the handful of names you’ve offered as examples) is being paid to spend their time so corrosively, so who are his/her/their employers? What you have identified is up there with the activities of Cambridge Analytica and needs serious forensic investigation to cut through the digital barriers that are being used to hide and protect the perpetrators. It would be interesting if an operation like Wikileaks were to have a good hard look at Wikipedia and Wikimedia and release the evidence for us all to see and judge for ourselves!
Another endemic societal issue from Daily Mail Australia, they report here a US expert opinion, via the DT, who decrypted/discovered that the total information awareness tracking of Australian citizens costs $AUS 580,000,000 – and is paid for directly by the citizens being tracked (probably costs $50/year per trackee)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5723709/Google-caught-using-580-million-worth-Australians-phone-data-spy.html
Experts from technology corporation Oracle believe Google is taking an estimated one gigabyte of mobile data each month from Android phone accounts.
It is believed the information keeps an eye on user’s whereabouts, and relays the details back to … badvertisers, Government interior-ministries, local council dog wardens etc
The best way to investigate willful malicious pernicious distortions of our societal matrix, is to shine a bright light into the corners, either by open-blogs whilst these are still permitted or by accurate journalists, wherever they might be found.
1GB per person, I assume…
Mmmm.
Perhaps I’ll cancel my direct debit to Wikipedia and start one for Craig Murray.
I don’t have a direct debit, but I do chip in to wikimedia. I’ve cancelled my £5 p.m. supporters sub to The Guardian, and, maybe next month [tight this month] was thinking of transferring to Craig and Jonathan Cook ~ as they are a better source of news for Russia and Palestine/Israel.
No individual could ever be so consistent, those with a higher number of edits likely modify grammar not specific salient points that fit into some sort of narrative curve.
My guess is state actors and I’d bet a lot on it, however nobody should be in the least surprised, a team/teams over years, replaced as required, churning away.
That it was sloppily done demonstrates little, as the Snowden leaks showed that much of what they do (GCHQ) really was quite disorganized in its overall structure, this has their little paws all over it.
Q. Who is the new Duke of Sussex, the Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel? Why have one title when four will do? Emphasizing the rule over England, Scotland and N Ireland. Wales a given?
‘Dumbarton is a town in West Dunbartonshire, Scotland, on the north bank of the River Clyde where the River Leven flows into the Clyde estuary.’
‘Kilkeel is a small town, civil parish and townland (of 554 acres and 6521inh) in County Down, Northern Ireland. It lies within the historic barony of Mourne.’
The previous Duke of Sussex – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Augustus_Frederick,_Duke_of_Sussex
What nonsense. Yet we are continually told that the monarchy has modernized. The BBC coverage is excruciating and unwatchable. So many forelocks are being doffed it’s a wonder that the very many presenters have any hair left. They have also been togged out in patriotic colours. The state broadcaster’s budget for the occasion???
Donating platelets just now, right beside a TV, so can’t avoid it for the next hour.
I could understand the fuss if they were pandas or an important species.
Good on you. Is the donation a regular occurrence like a blood donation?
Once a month.
The difference functionally is that you only lose a maximum of 200ml of whole blood, in the tubing to stop bubbles in the bloodstream. Your blood is taken, spun, the platelets taken off then returned with a little citrate to discourage clotting.
You sit in a large comfortable chair with one arm held straight on a pillow with a LARGE needle in it for about an hour to an hour and a half depending on your platelet concentration on the day.
I moved to it from whole blood donation as platelets don’t impact my running training, I could really feel whole blood donations when running.
So predictable.
The Royal Family is essentially a lightening rod totem or talisman. The Queen’s relationship with PM is that of a priest to a confessor. My only concern is not with the family but with the fact that the PM usurps the Royal Prerrogative.
There are many good people in Dumbarton, I’m related to several of them but from the days when it built the Cutty Sark and supplied a substantial number of ship workers it has become sadly much depressed, so much so that there’s no shortage of evidence that even the dogs there are tempted by suicide (mostly successful).
I somewhat doubt that the ‘Duke’ has ever set foot in the town and would be very surprised if there was a single string of bunting out today celebrating his earldom.
I wonder why they chose Dumbarton? Hen Gogledd, the old kingdom has some significance if you’ve taken to using Wales as a surname.
It’s close to Faslane, the nuclear submarine base. Laying claim, in case we uppity Scots vote Yes soon. The problem is I see that support for the monarchy has fallen as low as 41% here in Scotland. We may keep them for a while (don’t want to scare too many horses, or wake the Orange Order) but our status as a Republic will surely not be long following Independence.
In 2006, Time Magazine listed Jimmy Wales as being in the top 100 most influential people in the world.
I wouldn’t necessarily dispute that but the question is: Is Jimbo among those with a good influence or those with a bad influence?
Absolutely fascinating. It is a narrative that is becoming quite confusing to the general public. Recently read a book called “Alternative War” by J.J. Patrick which blurred the edges of my understanding of delivered information.
I see Mr Skripal was discharged from hospital yesterday. Just had a look at the hospital FoI requests for March & April to see if there was anything of interest. But, as one would expect, only stone walling.
http://www.salisbury.nhs.uk/AboutUs/FreedomOfInformation/PrevFOI/Pages/default.aspx
There were three very similar requsts for info about the Skripals (perhaps from folk on here, apologies if I missed it on previous posts). Eg: http://www.salisbury.nhs.uk/AboutUs/FreedomOfInformation/PrevFOI/Pages/FOI_4306.aspx
And one about who’s paying for the Skripals:
http://www.salisbury.nhs.uk/AboutUs/FreedomOfInformation/PrevFOI/Pages/FOI_4324.aspx
I was myself tempted to put in an FoI request such as “how many cases of novichok poisoning have you treated in 2018” (ref Dr Davis letter to The Times) or “please list the poisons for which A&E treated patients in the first week of March 2018”. But I’m afraid I wimped out.
Imagine being so dangerous that you’re not even allowed a Wikipedia entry!
Dr Judy Wood is not allowed although there is currently a mention of her name in an entry about a “conspiracy theorist.” CTs abound but Dr Wood is the only person of note who is denied an entry to my knowledge.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=60
Remarkable!
Found a good article in ‘MR online’, which ends with this:
‘Oliver Kamm’s is the story of how a right-wing Internet Troll was able to use his wealth, his connections, and his fanatic defense of his favorite killers to gain acceptance at one of Murdoch’s polluted media properties in the U.K. This is a perfect marriage: The super-polluter of the press (Potter’s “Rupert”) embracing the little polluter (our very own “Oliver”), whose maniacal (“Left”!) neo-conservatism and unbridled smears of authentic leftists and opponents of imperialism add what he can to an already mountainous heap of lies and propaganda.’
David Peterson, Edward S Herman, The OK School of Falsification, Imperial Truth-Enforcement, British Branch, Jan 22nd, 2010
Definitely worth a read.
Minor clarification – ‘OK’ in the title of the article being Oliver Kamm.
Thanks Craig. That’s my last donation to Wikipedia. Let it rot.
I’m not very well read. Know a little about a lot and a lot about a little, and know very little about history and WW2. So when I heard there are potentially differing versions of the Soviet Union entering/invading Poland I was intrigued. One version is that USSR entered Poland to protect it, and therefore give itself a buffer between Germany and USSR, and halt the German advance. Another version is, and apparently taught to children in Poland now, that USSR was invading Poland with Germany, but Germany turned on USSR.
I looked on wikkipedia and their line matched the Soviet invasion/attack narrative. I think it said that USSR attacked Poland jointly with Germany while under a none aggression pact. Germany attacked USSR elsewhere, ending the none-aggression pact.
I asked my mother in law for her understanding on what happened to gather what her generation was taught (born 1945). She was under the impression that USSR was not in conflict with Poland, and certainly not working with the Germans. I told her what I had just read, and it was news to her, but she admitted she was hardly a history buff (but she is very well educated hence why I was asking her)
Are there any historians here who ‘know’ what happened, and is history being manipulated by the likes of Wikipedia? My concern is that Wikipedia isn’t just changing peoples perceptions regarding alternative view stances and those who speak them, but is actually rewriting history.
I am afraid you have been listening to utter garbage. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany entered a formal alliance to carve up Poland (much as it had been carved up for 150 odd years prior to 1918). Nazi Germany later attacked the Soviet Union.
half listened. Just wanted to check that wikipedia was reflecting the truth according to historians, and I was unable to distinguish garbage from this ‘truth’ given my complete lack of knowledge on the subject and an increasing lack of confidence in the impartiality of online sources.
Thank you for taking the time to answer. Saved me a lot of reading.
So at least they’re not that blatant… yet.
I first noticed suspicious revisions in Wikipedia during the 2008 US primaries and election. Both Wikipedia and Google ensured that disinformation was spread far and wide. CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, was subsequently hired by the Obama administration. His daughter is now influential in the data mining industry.
Searches for the bios of prominent MSM reporters omit most of the important details such as family background and connections.
Searches for famous quotes return doubt and uncertainty. Two examples: Wiki can find no confirmation for the Goebbels quote about telling the big lie nor for Mussolini’s quote that Fascism might be better called Corporatism.
When the Wikileaks panic broke, my bank suspended my credit card within an hour of me making a donation to Wikipedia. They asked me if I had donated to Wikileaks. Apparently, Wikipedia hosted some webites which Wikileaks could have used at the time.
I will not be making any further donations to Wikipedia. Except for very uncontroversial topics, you can no longer depend on it to provide objective information. Keep on digging!
Isn’t it time Wikipedia merged with Conservapedia?
Five Filters has set up a dedicated Cross page, with some excellent specifics on it.
https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/
The centralised giant internet silos need to be de-centralised, broken-up, and denoted from superpower status. TimBL thinks this.
Google frankly admit that one of their covert project-X ideas is controversial and scary, but is not being implemented, according to ‘Slurp,’ at least.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy
From the “things often aren’t happening by accident” department Slurp brings you big-Data-nudged Lamarckian epigenetics! (a mashup of Poindexter & Darwin & smartphones)
“All the data collected by your devices, the so-called ledger, is presented as a bundle of information that can be passed on to other users for the betterment of society” [for a particular planned version of society, perhaps one without Russia, Iran, Syria, the Skripals and a few billion other collateral people?]
The [secret Slurp] video, shared internally within Google, imagines a future of total data collection, where Google helps nudge users into alignment with their goals, custom-prints personalized devices to collect more data, and even guides the behavior of entire populations to solve global problems like poverty and disease.
These data-driven nudges can help us reach our own overt goals in life, is the evolutionary theory, however they are so open to covert attacks (like Phil Cross/Wackypedia) that our Ledger and nudges can/will be used to send us wherever the influencers wish. Scary.
Google were good at search engines, that’s about it,every other technical inovation they try is pretty lacklustre. Schmidt has an overinflated selfopinion and imagines himself another Jobbs. He is not.
Well spotted Craig!
They take us for fools but leave their own dirty fingerprints all over the place
The word ‘AUSTERITY’ is not on the agenda in Windsor today.
Full welly is being given to this diversion.
Lonely and bitter?
No with friends (Tory voters incidentally) and they too can see through the propaganda with it’s militaristic overlays.
What a junket. The milliners did very well for themselves and the clothes designers too.
Imagine the laden skips going off to the landfills next week with all the discarded tat from the onlookers, all in red, white and blue of course and mainly consisting of plastic goods imported from China.
Cheer up Anon 1.
Chase ’em into the North Sea, ‘s what I say.
Don’t be such a grump. It’s nice to see all those people out in the fresh air and sun instead of stuck in their one bedroom flats watching daytime television and waiting for a call from their case worker. Al fresco care in the community rocks.
Four or five people working two shifts?
Just been looking at what Cross did to Dr Nafeez Ahmed’s Wikipedia page, and when, and why.
You may recall Dr Ahmed as an environment writer for the Guardian who was unceremoniously sacked after writing an article “exposing the role of Palestinian resources, specifically Gaza’s off-shore natural gas reserves, in partly motivating Israel’s invasion of Gaza aka ‘Operation Protective Edge.’ Among the sources I referred to was a policy paper written by incumbent Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya’alon one year before Operation Cast Lead, underscoring that the Palestinians could never be allowed to develop their own energy resources as any revenues would go to supporting Palestinian terrorism.”
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/palestine-is-not-an-environment-story-921d9167ddef
The reference given above is Dr Ahmed’s view of the matter, published on 03/12/2014. The Guardian responded on 05/12/2014:
https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2014/dec/05/statement-in-response-to-a-blog-post-by-nafeez-ahmed
On that same day, 05/12/2014, Philip Cross suddenly started to interfere with Nafeez Ahmed’s Wikipedia entry. He had never taken the slightest interest in it before.
The article still contained the phrase: “He is an environment writer for the Guardian“. Fair enough, that needed to be changed, as at that time he had not been so for a few months. However, since that was probably the most notable part of his career to date, changing it to “He was formerly an environment writer for the Guardian” would have been the simplest thing to do. Does Cross do that? No. He changes the text to “He is a former environment blogger for the Guardian“, and boots it down to the bottom of the article introduction, with the editorial comment: “Guardian blog lasted 6 months, not especially notable”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nafeez_Mosaddeq_Ahmed&type=revision&diff=636802315&oldid=635693195
Cross removes the phrase “broken a number of exclusives over the years” from the page. That is actually arguable, on the grounds that it might be over-effusive. However, he then also removes documentation of examples of these “exclusives” from the page, apparently on grounds that they appeared in the Guardian! With the editorial comment: “rm list of Guardian articles, notability not established.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nafeez_Mosaddeq_Ahmed&diff=prev&oldid=636804283
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nafeez_Mosaddeq_Ahmed&diff=next&oldid=637207314
Other intervening editorial changes are either cosmetic or changes in wording. There is no doubt that the overall cumulative effect of them is to tone down favourable references to Dr Ahmed.
I believe, although I have not had time to carefully check, that the Guardian’s response to Ahmed’s blog post is on the site, but that his blog entry is not – probably on grounds that the Guardian is a reliable source and blog entries are not. Also, the Guardian’s response simply states that “He has never been on the staff of the Guardian”. That may well be so, but Ahmed certainly had a contract with the Guardian, because he actually quotes from it in his blog entry to show why his dismissal was not in accordance with it.
People are welcome to judge Cross’s changes for themselves, I have included them and you can see more by clicking “Next edit” or “Previous edit”.
You can see, from this, the amount of work that is actually needed to go through and document what this man has been doing. It’s no wonder that people find it difficult to show that his work is prejudicial.
Best. J
Check out the WP of Prof. Michael Rosen (who was on James Galloway’s show of May 18th), esp. the addition by Philip Cross in the section ‘Early Career’.
This is sickening, and Jimbo needs to be called to account.
Please could you attach a diff? Thanks, John
[ MOD: Caught in spam-filter, timestamp updated ]
—
Not only Jimmy Wales, but Doug Weller is acting like a censor of ideas that might threaten white supremacy. (Like the haplogroup of Ramses III being E1b1a. All of a sudden the British Medical Journal is not a good enough source.)
Something changed in their editorial policy. I would not be surprised if the censors (they call themselves ‘moderators’) felt free to act in a corrupt manner, because Jimmy Wales himself is involved in what is called Sockpuppetry – using false IDs to hide their identity.
Which is fine for actual editors – they only need to be judged on the quality of their edits. However it is literally against Wikipedia policy. Say one of their censors is engaged in sockpupppetry and you can get banned now.
Jimmy Wales needs to go and whoever was there before him has to be reinstated before Wikipedia is damaged irrevocably.
“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?”
This is the one-way nature of their censorship. They can enter any discussion they want, however if you start calling them on their opinions, you are just one step closer to getting banned. Jimmy Wales is a poison, the rot starts at the top.
If they cannot get rid of Doug Weller, that says everything about their management and the deep sense of corruption that oozes through from all of their actions, from their arrogance to them making up the rules as they go along.
42 Tribes (Youtube, Twitter) has also has his run-ins with Wikipedia censor Doug Weller – on the censoring of Tutankhamon’s dna ancestry results by Doug Weller. The data has been published in peer review publications like the Britism Medical Journal (BMJ) and probably the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Their first objections were that the BMJ ‘wasn’t peer review’. They just practice objectionism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8biyiyZenQ