@raucao Wikipedia also has another form of cancer, a cancer that keeps its controversial content in line with official narrative. A detailed example is revealed in the Philip Cross affair:
#Wikipedia #propaganda #psyop


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

In this case, is not a host of user-generated content like FB, Titter, Goggle search, or AWS. It is the *publisher* of a user-edited encyclopedia, and I'd wager it's legally responsible for libellous content on its pages. Galloway needs to launch a libel action against the , not shadowbox with this "" .

@aran in fact, the best strategy might be for Galloway and everyone else targeted by the sockpuppet to join a class action (or whatever the equivalent is in UK libel law).

In fact, if you click 'edit' on someone's Wikipedia page and look at all the protocols they wrap around the editing of "Biographies of living persons", it suggests they know very well that they are legally liable for their content.
@aran @raucao

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!