[x0x0]

Nazis: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na...

Then there's this:

> Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki...

Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705

And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link.

This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.

[nextaccountic]

Those two are examples of lone individuals spreading misinformation, but not a concerted effort of Wikimedia itself or one of its chapters

[lelandfe]

And the first example isn’t even that - it’s an editor who is trying to reduce the usage of sources that stem from Nazi propaganda and to limit flowery unsourced language around the Nazis.

Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.

[x0x0]

Using wikipedia.

Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.

[dredmorbius]

The first is not an example of misinformation at all.

The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.

[x0x0]

Removing valorization of the Nazi cause implies that there was, well, valorization of the Nazi cause. Which is exactly

> actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics