[dinamic]

This story makes me wondering whether Wikipedia has any means to defend against possible malicious foreign campaigns carries out by non-democratic countries (Russia/China) to discredit western personalities, society and institutions.

[pydry]

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05...

^ Wikipedia gets uncharacteristically offended when you ask questions about this particular "person".

Whomever they want to defend themselves against, it's not him.

[disabled]

It does have power over what it allows to be published, although it does not have the staff to enforce violations. As a Croatian-American who speaks Croatian, it is best to avoid the Croatian language Wikipedia pages about wars, with some more recent than others. It is quite hateful, xenophobic, and nationalistic. The news source I provided is investigative journalism for Balkan countries funded via European Union.

> "Wikimedia Foundation Inc, the US-based non-profit charitable NGO, is the owner of the Croatian version of Wikipedia." [1]

> "However, the Wikimedia Foundation is not the founder of the Croatian version, nor does it accept that it is responsible for the accuracy of its articles. It insists that it does not have any power over Croatian-language Wikipedia entries." [1]

Other reads are provided for reference [2][3][4].

[1] Wikipedia Not Responding to Inquiries on Croatian Entries: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/04/23/wikipedia-not-replying-...

[2] Croatian Wikipedia Removes ‘Polish Genocide of Germans’ Claim: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/29/croatian-wikipedia-remo...

[3] How Croatian Wikipedia Made a Concentration Camp Disappear: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-...

[4] Croatia Wikipedia Alters Jasenovac Camp Entry Again: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/08/29/croatia-wikipedia-furth...

[Kbelicius]

I have good news. For years there were campaigns to remove croatia wiki moderators but all were unsuccessful until recently when, with the involvement of global community, some moderators and their sockpuppets were removed. Subsequently the rest of the controversial moderators were removed since without the others sockpupets they could not maintain their position.

[pjc50]

What, like George Galloway, Sputnik TV presenter (mentioned in the article?)

[pydry]

It's pretty normal for anti establishment politicians to go to "enemy" broadcasters even if they do not support them.

Establishment media are not super keen on giving anti establishment figures an unimpeded platform to promulgate their views for obvious reasons.

It would be easier for the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, etc. to ignore/misrepresent/attack George Galloway if he didn't also use competing media they had no control over.

It's very obvious that they do react to this media, too. If something gets big in social media because it's in RT then domestic media feel compelled to respond. This has happened with Galloway.

The same works in the reverse as well (Ai Weiwei, Navalny, etc). RT would like nothing more than to have us shut up about him but the Western media does insist on interviewing the traitor.

Obviously it comes with a risk and it will open you up to the usual cries of traitor, etc. from the serially ultranationalist who believe ardently that the freedom of their own press should be sufficient for traitors with traitorous views to get their hearing.

However, the alternative is, more realistically, being shut out of public discourse almost entirely as they try ardently to pretend you don't exist (hence why Putin famously never uses navalnys name).

[chakhs]

It goes the other way around too