'Iranian cyber army' blamed as Wikipedia deletes atrocities | Hacker News Reader

'Iranian cyber army' blamed as Wikipedia deletes atrocities

theaustralian.com.au

63 pointsmostcallmeyt27 comments

Why is there not a single example? They know one can compare the page-versions right?

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_t...

Probably because the complaints are about the Persian-language version. And including links to other websites might cause people to actually click them and spend less time looking at ads.

Here's the removal discussion for the article about Vahid Beheshti https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80... (Google Translate: https://fa-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%... )

As usual it's about the notability bureaucracy and how being famous for that one thing you did once is not enough for a standalone article about you.

Hey thanks!

(recklessly simplified ramblings of an semi-old man below)

Remembering the "21 lessons for the 21st century" and how Harari described the arm-wrestling between the various ideologies/worlds, I see the the world is split in 3 (3.5) pieces.

1) The West (US-EU-satellites - writing first coz I'm in it)

2) The anti-west: Russia and satellites, Iran, NK, etc.)(they broke SO MANY EGGS but still - no omelette - well apart from the very few who rule via death)

3) The indifferent giants (they are planning their own world domination - soon)(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8)(China is next, then perhaps India(?))

0.5) The remaining 0.5 (e.g. some African countries that will just follow whoever gives them goodies/is the next global overlord).

In IT I use the phrase: the more you do, the more you need to do. I.e. you have 10 systems, you need to do 100 things (backups, encryption, training, etc.). When you go to 20 systems and 5 are talking to each other you also need job schedulers, and you add in the connected dots and complexity (thus more assets produce more effort)

You got a wikipedia? There is a new attack/manipulation opportunity (available to all the players). The more you got, the more you need to do.

Now, why I care.. (this is not about politics/religion)

I got some stocks and mutual funds. If the "West" is going "down", I want to make sure that my/the next generations will not receive a bunch of SP500 that is worth $0, so do I start NOW to buy "China", "India"? Also, should we be telling our kids to start learning Chinese? (as we were told to learn English)

What should we start doing NOW to be better positioned in the Future? (my favorite Future related drawing: https://puzzledpagan.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/doomfuture....)

The world is a bit more complicated I think.

The US is the leading power (west) - but I don't think you can call Iran and NK russian satellites. They do their own thing and they don't really like each other - they are just united against the US. And China is in the same boat.

And south america is a big factor on its own as well, etc. etc.

And learning chinese is likely not a bad investition, but no one knows how the future will unfold. (just read some old predictions and see how they all turned wrong)

Yes, that post is a great oversimplification. For instance, France presumably fits into "The West" but they have considerably more sovereignty than calling them a "US satellite" might lead you to believe.. They are more of a great power themselves than a satellite. And where do you put Brazil? Brazil and India are both in BRICS but neither really seems anti-west, and it seems like a stretch to put Brazil particularly into any of those other categories.

Not to nitpick, but it was US-EU-satellite, France falls into the second group not the satellite group. A better example might be Montenegro, or even Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine which have all chosen to head towards the EU (at varying speeds).

Australia, NZ, Japan, and South Korea are potentially better examples of direct US satellites. They still have plenty of sovereignty, and their own cultures, but would I suspect, end up in difficult place if US vanished in the blink of an Eye.

A lot, but not all, of it is shared values around democracy. In a lot of ways the US doesn't actually lead this at all. It's the biggest player on the block, sure, but not the best example.

I don't think English is going anywhere as a global language, even if the US/UK's power recedes. Go anywhere in the world (especially Europe or East Asia) and the default in-between language between two foreigners is English, even if it's not the native language of either person. E.g., when a Japanese person orders a coffee in Munich from a French barista, the conversation is in English, not German.

I think you mean Italian ;) And if the Japanese person is staying long-term and not a tourist, they'll likely quickly learn to embed their choice of {espresso, latte macchiato, cappuccino, ...} within the "Ein %s bitte." "Danke." template.

Ein Flat White bitte. Danke.

You can learn Chinese, but it is good to keep in mind that being fluent in German didn't save Jews for example. It might be smarter to be smarter.

> want to make sure that my/the next generations will not receive a bunch of SP500 that is worth $0, so do I start NOW to buy "China", "India"?

Neither country distributes spoils through public markets. In both, though China far more, what matters is political currency. In India, wealth is broadly held through politically-connected industries and real estate.

And here we see the problem with a global community of "volunteers". If some large group has a sufficient interest in manipulating things they can have enough "volunteers".

And while things are supposed to remain neutral that still leaves cherry picking to cause readers to draw incorrect conclusions. Didn't take me long to learn that--admittedly it was a controversial page but all I did was add what I thought was a missing link, exactly like the links behind the rest of the list in the sentence. Removed--and the only thing that makes sense is that it's a link one side would prefer you not actually check what it says.

Well, Wikipedia, with all their governance rules (good and/or bad), is one of the top places to watch when there are conflicts that are plaguing social media. It has more transparency and I am curious why social researchers and [investigative] journalists are extemely slow as a low motion snail analyzing it.

BTW, the Iranian Cyber Army [1] really exists! Like other cyber armies around the world.

You can now look at many articles referring to the Israel-Hamas-[Hezbollah] war [2][3][4][5].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Cyber_Army

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violen...

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Violati...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27im_music_festival_massacr...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_i...

This is the country that wiped Albania's government networks TWICE because they host some former political figures.

It's also the country that cut out power and send the army to kill people in their homes at night during the recent Masha Amini protests.

This is also the country sponsoring Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels.

Is it actually that hard for you to believe they're doing this?

IS IT?!?!?!?

"Marco, a Wikipedia editor, reported the changes to site administrators and alerted The Times because he believed insufficient action was taken."

That's not good.

You can never delete an atrocity, you can only set visibility to zero.

With the regular interface. The admin interface can delete entire revisions and make them go away.

Zero information in the article, why is this being upvoted?

The article contains specific details about the removal of facts from specific Wikipedia articles and/or the removal of the articles altogether.

How is that "zero information"?

We want a diff.

I'm unable to find any logs of an article called "Vahid Beheshti" ever having existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vahid_Beheshti (this would show history it has ever existed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns11=1...

Why are you searching the english wikipedia?

From the friendly article: "Manipulation now appears to have been carried out on the English-language Wikipedia."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com