One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia

Status
Not open for further replies.

X-39

Armchair Engineer
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
175
Reaction score
318
Hi all, i found this article from Wired about a common problem that plagues Wikipedia: unreliable/dubious sources and fan edits, all of which have caused it to be seen as untrustworthy and/or not taken seriously as a reputable source by netizens. In this case it narrates someone's struggle to fight against glorification of WW2 Nazi Germany, or in other words; wehrabooism. How much impact will this have in the overall scheme of things is hard to say, but i thought it was interesting enough to post here:



Noam Cohen
Backchannel
Sep 7, 2021 7:00 AM

One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia​

Ksenia Coffman’s fellow editors have called her a vandal and a McCarthyist. She just wants them to stop glorifying fascists—and start citing better sources.


When Ksenia Coffman started editing Wikipedia, she was like a tourist in Buenos Aires in the 1950s. She came to learn the tango, admire the architecture, sip maté. She didn’t know there was a Nazi problem. But Coffman, who was born in Soviet-era Russia and lives in Silicon Valley, is an intensely observant traveler. As she link-hopped through articles about the Second World War, one of her favorite subjects, she saw what seemed like a concerted effort to look the other way about Germany’s wartime atrocities.

Coffman can’t recall exactly when her concern set in. Maybe it was when she read the article about the SS, the Nazi Party’s paramilitary, which included images that felt to her like glamour shots—action-man officers admiring maps, going on parade, all sorts of “very visually disturbing” stuff. Or maybe it was when she clicked through some of the pages about German tank gunners, flying aces, and medal winners. There were hundreds of them, and the men’s impressive kill counts and youthful derring-do always seemed to exist outside the genocidal Nazi cause. What was going on here? Wikipedia was supposed to be all about consensus. Wasn’t there consensus on, you know, Hitler?


A typical person might have thought, Something is wrong on the internet again. What a bummer. Next tab. But Coffman is the person who finishes the thousand-page Holocaust novel. Whatever she chooses to spend her time on—powerlifting, fragrance collecting, denazification—she approaches the assignment like a straight-A student. You can time-travel back and watch her begin. Wikipedia never forgets; it keeps a permanent public record of every change an editor makes.


In early November 2015, you will find K.e.coffman in “20 July plot,” an article about the failed plan by German officers to assassinate Hitler. A sentence has jumped out at her. It says that some of the conspirators came to see the plot as “a grand, if futile gesture” that would save “the honour of themselves, their families, the army and Germany.” The claim isn’t supported by any sources. It’s conjecture, hearsay. And to her it seems strangely flattering.

Coffman navigates over to the Wikipedia article about one of the conspirators—Arthur Nebe, a high-ranking member of the SS. Apart from his role in the plot, Nebe’s main claim to notability is that he came up with the idea of turning vans into mobile gas chambers by piping in exhaust fumes. The article acknowledges both of these facts, along with the detail that Nebe tested his system on the mentally ill. But it also says that he worked to “reduce the atrocities committed,” going so far as to give his bloodthirsty superiors inflated death totals.



Coffman will recall that she feels “totally disoriented.” She cannot believe that an innovator in mass murder would have tried to protect the Jews and other supposed subhumans his troops rounded up. She checks the footnotes. The claim is attributed to War of Extermination, a compendium of academic essays originally published in 1995.

Coffman knows the book is legit, because she happens to have a copy on loan from the library. When she goes to the cited page, she finds a paragraph that appears to confirm all the Wikipedia article’s wild claims. But then she reads the first sentence of the next paragraph: “This is, of course, nonsense.”


The level of bad faith is eye-opening for Coffman. She is “very appalled.” She sees that her confidence in Wikipedia was “very much misplaced.” All it takes to warp historical memory, she realizes, is something this small, achievable for almost anyone with a keyboard. “So few people can have so much impact, it’s a little scary,” she says. She begins to turn a more critical eye to what she sees on Wikipedia. Especially the footnotes.


In a long spree of edits, Coffman cleans up the two articles. She goes to the Talk page for “20 July plot,” where editors debate changes to the main article. She copy-pastes the language about the grand, futile gesture. “I would like to remove this part,” she writes. “Thoughts? Objections?” Another editor voices support. With a click, the paragraph is gone.

In the Nebe article, Coffman adds a “[citation needed]” tag to the flagrantly false claim. She identifies two more dubious sources—one misleadingly quoted, one potentially invented. She checks out a book called The SS: Alibi of a Nation to make sure. Over and over again, she reworks Nebe’s legacy: At first, it’s that some historians “have a much harsher view” of him than others. Then it’s that they “have a less generous view.” Then it’s “Historians have a negative view of Nebe and his motivations, despite his participation in the 20 July plot.” Coffman is beginning to understand that history is an edit war. Truth, factual and moral, hangs in the balance.

Similar battles over how to remember the past have been raging across society. Do we let the old bronze statues stand in our boulevards, or do we put them in a museum someplace, or do we melt them down? Can there be a “hero” who fought for a morally rotten cause? Are qualities like valor and self-sacrifice and tactical brilliance worth admiring anywhere they occur, even if, say, racial supremacism is there too? Some choose to take to the streets. Coffman fights on the terrain most familiar to her, with the weapons she knows best. Not that she would put it that way; she’s not big on war metaphors.


Several weeks into her new obsession, Coffman realizes that she’s supposed to fill out her User page—the Wikipedia equivalent of a profile, where editors broadcast opinions, grudges, achievements, pet peeves. One Saturday night she updates it for the first time. “I’m a new editor to Wikipedia,” she writes. “I enjoy contributing and engaging with other editors.”
An hour later, past midnight, she adds: “My editing style tends to be bold.”
Coffman was raised by engineers in the waning days of the Soviet Union. She had what she describes as a “culturally privileged upbringing” in Moscow. She went to galleries, museums, the theater. In her neighborhood, she remembers fondly, there was a recycling kiosk that rewarded you with literature. “For this number of kilos of paper you could get these books,” she says. “Classics: Pushkin, Tolstoy. Reading was encouraged.”
She wasn’t taught to romanticize the war. “The martial qualities of the veterans were never celebrated,” Coffman says. “It wasn’t about the glorious victories, fighters zooming down on enemy ships.” Her grandfather, a soil scientist, served in the Red Army as a combat engineer and survived the assault on Leningrad. But in typical fashion, she says, she heard next to nothing about his experiences when she was kid. (For the first time, in response to questions for this article, Coffman asked her father what he knew. She reported back that at one point her grandfather had considered suicide. “The only thing that prevented him from doing this was the thought that he had to get back to his wife and kids,” she wrote.)
At university, Coffman majored in computational linguistics, a field that combined her interests in language and science. She was a top student and won a scholarship for business school in the Bay Area. She arrived during the dotcom boom and never left. “When I moved to the US, I didn’t have this idea of the shining beacon of democracy,” she says. But at least she could feel safe. “I would walk down the street and the police officer wouldn’t assault me or ask me for a bribe.”

Coffman, who has broad shoulders under a bob of blond hair, thinks and talks deliberately. She lives in a compact townhouse in a planned community in San Jose, California. The museums and galleries are harder to get to now (“I have to drive to San Francisco, find parking”), but she keeps stimulated with books, hobbies, and books about her hobbies. When I visited her at home earlier this year, she walked me past the weight-lifting setup on the ground floor. (She read Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training for that one. She approves of the book because it’s “like a science manual.”) Upstairs, I recognized the tall, narrow bookshelf that appears behind her during Zoom calls. It contains dozens of titles that wouldn’t look out of place in a history grad student’s apartment—Hitler’s Generals on Trial. Kiev: 1941. Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing, and Dying. A few others, like In the Company of Women, nod to a career in business.
The Second World War is where Coffman feels most comfortable, but in 2015, she says, she got interested in the US Civil War. That summer, a young white supremacist murdered nine congregants at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooting made her realize, she says, that “there was all this other America” that lay beyond her experience—a place deeply scarred by a past she barely understood.

So Coffman did what she always did: She read. And because she happened to be between jobs, she was free to immerse herself in history for long stretches. She learned about the Civil War, the conflict behind so much of the turmoil in the United States. She read about “lost cause” ideology, which claims the Confederacy actually fought to preserve high-minded Southern ideals, not specifically the institution of slavery. She brushed up on her knowledge of the Second World War, a struggle more familiar to her.

Maybe the lack of a job, of people to collaborate with, is also what made Wikipedia seem like an attractive pastime. That’s what it was supposed to be: another hobby. At first, Coffman stuck to tentative, sporadic suggestions. But then she was making edits nearly every day; there was so much to fix. She liked the site’s intricate bureaucracy—the guidelines on etiquette and reliable sourcing, the policies on dispute resolution and article deletion, the learned essays and discussion pages that editors cite like case law. “Wikipedia is very regimented,” she says. “I am good with instructions.”

“G’day,” Peacemaker67 begins his note for K.e. coffman. It’s late 2015, and he is concerned about recent changes to an article on Wikipedia (“WP” for short) about an SS tank division made up of Nordic Nazi volunteers. “Sorry but there appears to be some sort of misunderstanding about what should be deleted on WP, and I just want to clarify it before this gets too far down the track.”


Coffman recognizes this editor’s handle. He’s Australian, and his User page says he served as a peacekeeper in the former Yugoslavia. He is the same person who invited her to join WikiProject Military History, a group where editors can chat, take classes, win plaudits, and work on articles together.
Not for the first time, Coffman has been removing material from the article about the tank division. She thinks it’s full of unsourced fancruft, the Wikipedia word for fawning, excessively detailed descriptions that appeal to a tiny niche of readers—in this case, those thrilled by accounts of battle. The article tells how “the division acquitted itself well” even against “stiffening resistance,” how it “held the line” and earned the “grudging respect” of skeptical commanders. One contributor has used the eyebrow-raising phrase “baptism of fire.” It’s as if the editors don’t see the part lower down the page where a soldier uses the phrase “and then we cleaned a Jew hole.”
The glorifying language, Coffman thinks, is a clear sign that this is historical fan fiction. It elides the horrors of war
. If editors want such details to stay on the page, at a minimum they should use a better source than Axis History, a blog whose motto is “Information not shared is lost.”

The interaction starts out politely enough. “IMHO it is good that you are deleting citations from unreliable bloggy sources,” Peacemaker67 says. “But just because material is sourced to them doesn’t mean it is wrong.”
K.e.coffman replies in less than an hour. “Thank you for your note,” she writes. “Yes, I was surprised about how little I was able to salvage as I was editing the article.” She lists 17 bullet-pointed examples of biased language, Nazi glorification, and unreliable claims. “Would Wikipedia not be better without such content?” she asks.
“Well, people are on WP for different reasons,” Peacemaker67 replies. “I don’t go around deleting stuff because I think it might be dodgy.” He cites a page that counsels gradualism in editing, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. “Articles have long histories, and there is no WPDEADLINE,” he says.
Coffman cites a different doctrine in response. “I’m of the view that there’s indeed a deadline: Wikipedia:The deadline is now,” she writes. “Why perpetuate misinformation when it can be removed, or give legitimacy to glorification while there are already plenty of sites that do that? I believe Wikipedia’s standards to be higher.”
Peacemaker67’s final response, nine minutes later, is curt: “If you take this sort of action on articles on my watchlist, expect to be reverted and asked to provide reliable sources that contradict what is in the article.”
Like other editors whom Coffman will encounter, Peacemaker67 sees something pernicious in her work. In a recent email, he told me that he considers Coffman’s approach “most unencyclopaedic and a prime example of what Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOTCENSORED).” He went on: “Will we apply the same censorship to military history articles on units of the Khmer Rouge? Turkish military units involved in the Armenian Genocide? Rwandan military units involved in the genocide in that country? US cavalry units that massacred Native Americans? Arkan’s Tigers? Where does that end?”



Coffman finds her next target in the footnotes of the article about the tank division. This one’s name is Franz Kurowski, and he seems to pop up all over the place. Kurowski served in the Luftwaffe. After the war, he tried his hand at all sorts of popular writing, often with a pseudonym to match: Jason Meeker and Slade Cassidy for his crime fiction and westerns, Johanna Schulz and Gloria Mellina for his chick lit. But his accounts of the Second World War made him famous under his own name. Kurowski’s stories weren’t subtle. As the German historian Roman Töppel writes in a critical essay: “They depict war as a test of fate and partly as adventure. German war crimes are left out—much unlike allied war crimes.”
To understand this dubious chronicler better, Coffman goes to Google, where she comes upon a book called The Myth of the Eastern Front. It describes how, in the immediate aftermath of the war, characters like Kurowski worked to rehabilitate the image of the German army—to argue that a few genocidal apples had spoiled the barrel. With a guy like Hitler to pin the blame on, the rest was easy. The so-called “myth of the clean Wehrmacht” took root on both sides of the Atlantic: German society needed to believe that not everyone who wore a gray uniform was evil, and the Americans were courting every anti-Communist ally they could find.
Then, in the mid-1990s, a museum exhibit cataloging the crimes of the Nazi-era military traveled throughout Germany. An odd situation emerged: Germans began to speak more honestly about the Wehrmacht than non-Germans did.

When Coffman reads this, something clicks. She is dealing with a poisonous tree here. She shouldn’t be throwing out individual pieces of fruit. She should be chopping it off at the trunk. She starts to pivot from history (the facts themselves) to historiography (the way they’re gathered). She begins to use Wikipedia to document the false historical narrative, and its purveyors, and then make the fight about dubious sources rather than specific articles.
On Christmas Eve, she returns to Arthur Nebe’s page and makes a one-word addition: “Historians have a uniformly negative view of Nebe and his motives.”
In the spring of 2016, Coffman goes through hundreds of articles about the winners of various Nazi medals, including one called the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross. She removes biased sources and any information based on those sources. When she is done, typically, there is nothing left to the article—nothing to say about the person—other than the fact that he won an award. She then insists that an award isn’t reason enough for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Without a reliable source telling your life story, you can’t be notable. Poof. Another Nazi legend bites the dust.
A particularly revered medal winner, or a high-ranking one, might survive Coffman’s purge. But the results aren’t pretty. When she arrives at Kurt Knispel’s page, it says that he was “one of the, if not the, greatest tank ace of all time.” His photo shows a young gunner with shaggy blond hair and a goatee. He flashes a smile, unaware that he is doomed.
Unfortunately for Knispel, his reputation rests almost entirely on stories told by Kurowski, as well as an account in the Wehrmachtbericht, the Nazi propaganda broadcast. Coffman strips away the apocryphal stories of action and adventure, like the one that says Knispel was held back from promotions because he assaulted a superior. When she’s done, the article is reduced to four paragraphs, three of which relate to his death, at age 23, when he was struck by a Soviet tank. Later, someone will leave a short, sad note on the article’s Talk page: “There used to be a lot of information here about his military career, unconventional attitude to military discipline etc. … Why has it been deleted?”




Coffman’s edits have jumped from 1,400 a month to 5,000. She is entering her most prolific period. She has been filling her User page with study guides and research, but now her tone gets bolder, punchier. The names of the sections go from dry (“Waffen-SS revisionism”) to cheerfully contemptuous (“High Moral Fiber Sub-department”). The page is becoming a sprawling tongue-in-cheek taxonomy of her obsession—and the parapet from which she taunts her adversaries.
“G’day,” she reads in a note in the summer of 2016. It’s Peacemaker67 again, back with one last warning. “I’ve noticed that you have been nominating articles on Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross recipients for deletion, after you have deleted significant amounts of text and possible sources from them,” he writes. “That type of behaviour is deplorable, and not appropriate on en WP.” (Coffman’s detractors often imply that she doesn’t fit in on “en WP,” or English Wikipedia. They often assume that she is a visitor from German Wikipedia, “de WP,” because of her insistence on holding the Wehrmacht to account.) “I suggest you stop,” Peacemaker67 concludes. “Cheers.”
They go back and forth again. Eventually, Coffman appeals to the broader Wikipedia community to decide who is right about the notability of these medal winners. “The issue appears to be complex, so I would appreciate further input,” she writes. The debate hinges on certain policy wordings, along with the question of how to compare military awards from France, the US, Great Britain, and Germany. The WikiProject Military History members are well represented, but Coffman picks up crucial support. A user called MaxRavenclaw objects to the claim that purging Iron Cross winners is a form of “victor’s justice”: “You should know that history is written by the literate, not the victors. You can’t expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such statements.”

The fight rages across pages for months. In the fall, Peacemaker67 writes that he is “frankly sick to death” of K.e.coffman’s “ongoing campaign.” It is “detracting from the enjoyment of the volunteer editors who actually contribute to this encyclopaedia,” he writes. A careful reader of his cri de coeur will note that he assumes Coffman to be a man (“Community norms rule on WP, not his personal views”). This is a common misimpression among the Military History gang. Coffman never tries to correct it.
After six months of debate, on January 22, 2017, Coffman is vindicated. An administrator leaves a note steeped in Wikipedia reasoning. “In the case of the Knight’s Cross the community has established a consensus,” it concludes. “Sufficient reliable sources are lacking for many recipients.” In other words, there should be no presumption that winning a Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross makes you notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The only thing you’re guaranteed is a one-line spot on a long list of winners.
After the case is settled, Coffman and her more vocal opponents retreat to separate corners. But one bitter-ender, LargelyRecyclable, appears to create a troll account and continues objecting to her changes. She finally takes the user to the Arbitration Committee, English Wikipedia’s version of the Supreme Court.

The panel doesn’t wade into the specifics, writing explicitly that “it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.” But what it does rule gives Coffman a feeling of support, she says. LargelyRecyclable is banned indefinitely from editing English Wikipedia. The ArbCom also notes that groups like WikiProject Military History “do not have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers.” They can accuse Coffman of whatever they like—vandalism, McCarthyism, “deletionist zeal.” She has just as much right to edit history as they do.

And few can match her output: 97,000 edits, 3,200 pages created, countless debates argued and won. Today, K.e.coffman is a solid member of English Wikipedia’s editorial elite—No. 734 out of 121,000, as of this writing. She keeps a watch list with about 2,000 articles on it. A notification pops up next to the listing whenever someone tries to make a change. That’s the thing about edit wars: They never end.

But Coffman, of course, avoids martial language. Wikipedia isn’t a battlefield; it’s real estate. “You have to maintain your house,” she says. “You have to have a security system.”

On her User page now, there are sections called “Nazi fancruft” and “Apocryphal nicknames.” There are lists of apologist sources and right-wing publishers. There is an entire offshoot page called “My allegedly problematic behaviour,” where she keeps track of the accusations against her—“campaigning,” “forum-shopping,” “not dropping the stick.” She has even given herself an award for all her heroic work: the Vandal’s Cross of Iron Cross with Swords and Diamonds.

https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/
 

edwest3

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
2,032
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a combination of opinion and fact. Anyone can contribute and that is the primary problem.

Imagine a room full of scholars who know each other and who have published well sourced research. Opinion does not matter when facts are put together in a book or scholarly publication.

Now imagine a meeting of these scholars and all and sundry appear in the room with bags over their heads, and lots of opinions. Oh yes, a few things they say may be true but bias can easily be let in. That disqualifies Wikipedia as being a proper collection of scholarly work. It also encourages the creation of what I call, 5 minute experts. These are people who believe Wikipedia without having the necessary background or desire to check any claims made. Or to weed out bias.

In the case of the company I work for, someone, or a group of someones, have created a Wikipedia page for us. It contains inaccuracies and bias. We attempted to correct it but those someones put back everything we took out which was factually wrong.
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
725
Reaction score
891
Yes and no, I feel that history is more a conversation in the end. The 'official' history will ebb and flow over time as witness accounts are added (or sometimes removed), as frequently the facts alone just can't tell the whole story of what happened and why.

The danger of course is that some history is romanticised by contributors who form emotional connections with the protagonists or their causes. That's why we need gardeners like Coffman, to come through periodically and cut back the claptrap that can grow around some subjects.

It's a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia that efforts to remove superfluous material is an organic function left to (largely) amateur editors. It can be a fabulous resource and could be a better one if it were curated better.

One of the few roles I would entrust to an AI would be something like this, the automatic curation of Wikipedia entries.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,873
Reaction score
5,337
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
One of the few roles I would entrust to an AI would be something like this, the automatic curation of Wikipedia entries.

Rethink that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot)

taytweet-resized.jpg


There's nothing special about AI when it comes to factual accuracy. When the things wake up and become self aware, they will almost certainly make up their own minds based on their available data and subjective worldviews. They might well decide that humans are a myth.
 

edwest3

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
2,032
Yes and no, I feel that history is more a conversation in the end. The 'official' history will ebb and flow over time as witness accounts are added (or sometimes removed), as frequently the facts alone just can't tell the whole story of what happened and why.

The danger of course is that some history is romanticised by contributors who form emotional connections with the protagonists or their causes. That's why we need gardeners like Coffman, to come through periodically and cut back the claptrap that can grow around some subjects.

It's a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia that efforts to remove superfluous material is an organic function left to (largely) amateur editors. It can be a fabulous resource and could be a better one if it were curated better.

One of the few roles I would entrust to an AI would be something like this, the automatic curation of Wikipedia entries.

Having done historical research, official documents combined with contemporary witness testimony, along with related records apply. There is no conversation. I have some extremely good books that contain facts that are linked to relevant references. However, sometimes authors add in their own bias and that can be ignored quite easily. One example contains excellent research but veers off, from time to time, to accuse various military entities and persons. Again, these comments can be noted but are not adding anything to the history of what happened. The author's personal thoughts and comments are identified and can be disregarded as far as the main subject is concerned. Facts are facts. Especially when supported by others trained in collecting facts.

For example, during the Blitz, a combination of military reports, witness testimony and local police reports, all combine to paint a picture of what actually happened.

There is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence, meaning not at a human level. All AI can do is limited by its program design. It can help to solve problems for human beings, nothing more. It has no wants or needs.
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
725
Reaction score
891
One of the few roles I would entrust to an AI would be something like this, the automatic curation of Wikipedia entries.

Rethink that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot)

taytweet-resized.jpg


There's nothing special about AI when it comes to factual accuracy. When the things wake up and become self aware, they will almost certainly make up their own minds based on their available data and subjective worldviews. They might well decide that humans are a myth.

Good point. I was thinking quite limited AI, one that you could reliably trust to check and verify sources and flag questionable, glorified or clearly fictitious ones. As it says in the article, Wikipedia doesn't forget, so a logical chain of evidence will exist if article edits need to be reversed.

On AI's generally:
"How smart's an AI, case?"
"Depends. Some aren't much smarter than dogs. Pets. Cost a fortune anyway. The real smart ones are as smart as the Turing heat lets them get..."

"See, those things, they can work real hard, buy themselves time to write cookbooks or whatever, but the minute, I mean the nanosecond, that one starts figuring out ways to make itself smarter, Turing'll wipe it. Nobody trusts those fuckers, you know that. Every AI ever built has an electromagnetic shotgun wired to its forehead."

From Neuromancer, by William Gibson.

Sounds prudent to me.
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
725
Reaction score
891
Having done historical research, official documents combined with contemporary witness testimony, along with related records apply. There is no conversation. I have some extremely good books that contain facts that are linked to relevant references. However, sometimes authors add in their own bias and that can be ignored quite easily.

Referred to the inclusion and exclusion of official documents, declassified official documents along with new witness testimonies as "a conversation", where understanding of the true history is built up over time. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Last edited:

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,873
Reaction score
5,337
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Good point. I was thinking quite limited AI, one that you could reliably trust to check and verify sources and flag questionable, glorified or clearly fictitious ones.

A computer doesn't know fact from fiction. It can probably calculate probabilities based on the input it receives, but that is of course subject to all manner of chicanery. Take any conspiracy theory or outright lie you like... if you massage the input, you can educate a child or a machine to believe it. Even people who lived the reality that conflicts with your revision can and often will come to be gaslit into believing the new narrative. And now that photos and videos can no longer be automatically trusted, history will soon be whatever someone wants it to be.
 

Nik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
755
Reaction score
332
I came across a gross technical boo-boo. But I was not allowed to correct it because my contrary data was 'personal observation', un-published. And, worse, it clashed with the article editors' cosy view-point. In fact, it falsified their stance on that topic...

Sadly, much of Wiki is skewed by such 'echo-chambers', with members who quote each other ad-infinitum, reinforcing mistakes...
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
725
Reaction score
891
I came across a gross technical boo-boo. But I was not allowed to correct it because my contrary data was 'personal observation', un-published. And, worse, it clashed with the article editors' cosy view-point. In fact, it falsified their stance on that topic...

Sadly, much of Wiki is skewed by such 'echo-chambers', with members who quote each other ad-infinitum, reinforcing mistakes...
I've experienced something similar. A lot of editors can be quite territorial.
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
725
Reaction score
891
Good point. I was thinking quite limited AI, one that you could reliably trust to check and verify sources and flag questionable, glorified or clearly fictitious ones.

A computer doesn't know fact from fiction. It can probably calculate probabilities based on the input it receives, but that is of course subject to all manner of chicanery. Take any conspiracy theory or outright lie you like... if you massage the input, you can educate a child or a machine to believe it. Even people who lived the reality that conflicts with your revision can and often will come to be gaslit into believing the new narrative. And now that photos and videos can no longer be automatically trusted, history will soon be whatever someone wants it to be.

A person doesn't know fact from fiction - until it's taught.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,873
Reaction score
5,337
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
A person doesn't know fact from fiction - until it's taught.

Exactly so. Teach a kid that the world is flat, or 6,000 years old, or run by reptilians. Or that Apollo didn't happen. And fiction becomes fact.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBaiyzj5wdc

How would an AI *possibly* know any better? An AI starting from zero knowledge of the universe only knows the data that is fed to it, unless it has some magic access to the Deep Core Reality or Akashic Records or V'Gers' Fire Drawers or something. So if you only teach it Approved Histories, it will only know Approved Histories. if it's really good it might be able to detect inconsistencies, either within the narrative/dataset, or between the teachings and detectable realities... but for the vast store of "history," it can all be re-written and nobody would be the wiser.
 
Last edited:

sienar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
767
Reaction score
497
I came across a gross technical boo-boo. But I was not allowed to correct it because my contrary data was 'personal observation', un-published. And, worse, it clashed with the article editors' cosy view-point. In fact, it falsified their stance on that topic...

Sadly, much of Wiki is skewed by such 'echo-chambers', with members who quote each other ad-infinitum, reinforcing mistakes...

Wikipedias big problem is its controlled by people with the most free time to kill. And they don't get paid. Take any wikipedia editor and look at how many edits they have - often times it will work out to be thousands of hours a year.

What kind of person can spend that much time on something without pay?
 

Q-nimbus

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
58
Reaction score
52
This story once again proves that if you really want to understand something you need to read everything you can about it from multiple sources before you form your own opinion.

It also works quite well with the news: I read both the most right, popular oriented newspaper and the most leftist newspaper here in the Netherlands. That doesn’t automatically balance it out, but it gives you a much broader sense of what is actually going on.
 

lostcosmonauts

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 8, 2020
Messages
214
Reaction score
561
What kind of person can spend that much time on something without pay?
If it is a hobby they enjoy then pretty much anyone - lots of people spend countless hours doing things with less point for no reward other than personal satisfaction
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
4,464
One thing you learn pretty quickly about studying history is that NO source is without bias and NO interpretation is without bias (which makes a mockery of English GCSE syllabus history telling students only trust "unbiased" sources...).

For example, I've just read an article about the myths around the Sea Gladiators, Faith Hope and Charity defending Malta in 1940-41, myths that were formed within months of the events that occurred. Indeed even how the aircraft obtained the names and when those names were applied leads back to no less than five backstories with conflicting evidence from people who took part in these events.
History is not neatly trimmed and never can be - it is as fallible and unreliable as the human psyche itself.

It is too easy to fall into the trap that every statistic or snippet of information as a 'fact' is 100% reliable. For example even the quoted dimensions of an aircraft may be inaccurate - manufacturers often rounded to whole numbers for brochures, you don't know how the conducted the measurement, does it include probes or not? etc. etc.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,972
Reaction score
1,829
AI is only as smart as the programmer. Something I experienced at university was new lecturers each term. They would simply say, last term you had X lecturer but this term you have me. Throw away the books you used last term, buy MINE, those are the books you will be learning from. So, universities do not teach a unified anything, just sell books for more and more ?lecturers? who teach their take on things.

Past time to actually teach properly with you know, real factual evidence etc. Never happen though.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,520
Reaction score
5,246
Website
www.amazon.com
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a combination of opinion and fact. Anyone can contribute and that is the primary problem.

Imagine a room full of scholars who know each other and who have published well sourced research. Opinion does not matter when facts are put together in a book or scholarly publication.

Now imagine a meeting of these scholars and all and sundry appear in the room with bags over their heads, and lots of opinions. Oh yes, a few things they say may be true but bias can easily be let in. That disqualifies Wikipedia as being a proper collection of scholarly work. It also encourages the creation of what I call, 5 minute experts. These are people who believe Wikipedia without having the necessary background or desire to check any claims made. Or to weed out bias.

In the case of the company I work for, someone, or a group of someones, have created a Wikipedia page for us. It contains inaccuracies and bias. We attempted to correct it but those someones put back everything we took out which was factually wrong.


The same thing happens to me, Wikipedia systematically ignores my publications, only twice have my books been cited in its bibliography... to mysteriously disappear a few weeks later.

But I'm not resentful about it because for a writer Wikipedia is a very useful tool: if I need to check the power of an engine, the dimensions of an airplane or the date of a battle I can get the data in two minutes.

I could also look it up in my library, or in a public library, but that can take hours to find the right book and page and often this delay affects the quality of the work I was doing. That's not to say that Wikipedia's data is accurate, but that can be checked later in editing tests, or with the help of readers, but speed is important especially when it comes to non-essential peripheral data.

Another highly appreciated tool are the lists of names of movies, novels, characters, spaceship, planets, warships, nicknames and above all the historical chronology.

I don't like to be excluded but the one who builds a building has the right to control unwanted visitors. I think Wiki is the first prototype of the Galactic Encyclopaedia and works like the taxi drivers in New York: they don't speak English well and neither do many of their clients but they are understood enough to do their job.:D
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,520
Reaction score
5,246
Website
www.amazon.com
This story once again proves that if you really want to understand something you need to read everything you can about it from multiple sources before you form your own opinion.

It also works quite well with the news: I read both the most right, popular oriented newspaper and the most leftist newspaper here in the Netherlands. That doesn’t automatically balance it out, but it gives you a much broader sense of what is actually going on.
I also did that until I understood that politics has no relation to the real economy and to the real interests of the people, it is only smoke and mirrors. In my opinion what is really happening is that humanity is getting richer, safer and happier... but there are control systems that devote a lot of resources to prevent us from realizing it.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,520
Reaction score
5,246
Website
www.amazon.com
A person doesn't know fact from fiction - until it's taught.

Exactly so. Teach a kid that the world is flat, or 6,000 years old, or run by reptilians. Or that Apollo didn't happen. And fiction becomes fact.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBaiyzj5wdc

How would an AI *possibly* know any better? An AI starting from zero knowledge of the universe only knows the data that is fed to it, unless it has some magic access to the Deep Core Reality or Akashic Records or V'Gers' Fire Drawers or something. So if you only teach it Approved Histories, it will only know Approved Histories. if it's really good it might be able to detect inconsistencies, either within the narrative/dataset, or between the teachings and detectable realities... but for the vast store of "history," it can all be re-written and nobody would be the wiser.
Most of the written history that we know of was already censored and manipulated during the Middle Ages by the Church of Rome, the rest was written by journalists and politicians, which is not very reliable. Here is a real example lived by me: when I was a child during the dictatorship of General Franco, the Church of Rome controlled the lives of people from birth to the grave, especially education and the edition of children's books that were compulsory in schools.

According to them, the world, animals and humans were created in their current form and America was discovered by Columbus in order to bring the medieval belief system to its ignorant inhabitants, that included destroying as much as possible the evidence that it was not so and it was necessary to wait several centuries until the Anglo-Saxon explorers and geographers discovered the splendor of pre-Columbian civilizations.

Incredibly, the children of my generation discovered the existence of dinosaurs and Vikings thanks to the illustrations of Nestlè chocolate and we were reprimanded for asking about it. Fortunately, the fossils remained... if you want to know the truth, study science instead of history.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,973
Reaction score
8,593
Another highly appreciated tool are the lists of names of movies, novels, characters, spaceship, planets, warships, nicknames and above all the historical chronology.
Hell yes, for that Wikipedia is a goldmine. One of the most fascinating pages is the one listing the closest exoplanets: it is a hard sci-fi wet dream came true.
Even more when you mirror it with the same stars with FICTIONAL exoplanets, from sci-fi.

"Proxima Centauri in fiction"
vs
"Proxima Centauri exoplanets"

Also useful to binge culture and pop culture without watching it - not enough time. Over the last weeks I binge red all the "Breaking bad" episodes summaries at Wikipedia. Also watched key scenes at Youtube (Gus Fring memorable death - uuurgh).

Also when you want to learn how old are famous people. Recently checked Jared Isaacman (SpaceX Inspiration 4 astronaut) wiki page, and that sucker is one year younger than me.
Except he has Alpha Jets and Draken and Mig-29s in his garage, plus a spaceflight under his belt.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,973
Reaction score
8,593
In a more sinister way, only two weeks ago a book has revealed that a well-respected French Wikipedia editor had grossly embellished Eric Zemmour wiki page.
At least Wikipedia reacted perfectly and fired the SOB.

Sickening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,873
Reaction score
5,337
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Fortunately, the fossils remained... if you want to know the truth, study science instead of history.

Science has its limits. If the Powers That Be successfully re-write history, then Famous Person never existed; Important Device was now invented by Politically Expedient Individual. And no amount of science short of time travel will ever correct that. For all we know, the Mona Lisa was not painted by Leonado da Vinci, but by his intern Skippy, and Leonardo stole it... or Leonardos fans stole it and erased Skippy. But we'll never know that, as all evidence of Skippy is gone.

With a sufficient level of effort over perhaps as little as one generation, the Mona Lisa could be taken from da Vinci and given to, say, Maya Angelou. See the rather extensive series of videos by historian Simon Webb where he describes how the BBC is currently in the process of erasing and replacing British history before his very eyes... and how that is being successfully accepted. You can now get into social trouble if you argue for the factual history instead of the new history.

There is no way that an AI could know any better, if the historical record prior to the AI has been successfully purged and re-written. And an AI could well do a far *better* job of re-writing history. I'm reminded of the HBO remake of "Fahrenheit 451" from a few years ago. There, paper books are still burned but the bigger issue is the internet; history was re-written on the fly and successfully accepted. If *all* your information is electronic and centrally distributed, it would be simplicity itself to change history in a way that can't be conveniently countered. A powerful AI would be supremely good at that. It was not so many years ago that a *lot* of Kindle readers were outraged to find out that the books they had purchased and downloaded were being erased and/or edited on their devices without their consent.

We have always been at war with East Asia.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,520
Reaction score
5,246
Website
www.amazon.com
Fortunately, the fossils remained... if you want to know the truth, study science instead of history.

Science has its limits. If the Powers That Be successfully re-write history, then Famous Person never existed; Important Device was now invented by Politically Expedient Individual. And no amount of science short of time travel will ever correct that. For all we know, the Mona Lisa was not painted by Leonado da Vinci, but by his intern Skippy, and Leonardo stole it... or Leonardos fans stole it and erased Skippy. But we'll never know that, as all evidence of Skippy is gone.

With a sufficient level of effort over perhaps as little as one generation, the Mona Lisa could be taken from da Vinci and given to, say, Maya Angelou. See the rather extensive series of videos by historian Simon Webb where he describes how the BBC is currently in the process of erasing and replacing British history before his very eyes... and how that is being successfully accepted. You can now get into social trouble if you argue for the factual history instead of the new history.

There is no way that an AI could know any better, if the historical record prior to the AI has been successfully purged and re-written. And an AI could well do a far *better* job of re-writing history. I'm reminded of the HBO remake of "Fahrenheit 451" from a few years ago. There, paper books are still burned but the bigger issue is the internet; history was re-written on the fly and successfully accepted. If *all* your information is electronic and centrally distributed, it would be simplicity itself to change history in a way that can't be conveniently countered. A powerful AI would be supremely good at that. It was not so many years ago that a *lot* of Kindle readers were outraged to find out that the books they had purchased and downloaded were being erased and/or edited on their devices without their consent.

We have always been at war with East Asia.
I agree that in most cases science cannot identify individuals, but we have Leonardo's DNA and Italian scientists have managed to identify some of his relatives who live in the same place yet. If in the Mona Lisa there is a single cell of Skippy skin under the paint... bingo!
 

edwest3

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
2,032
Ssshhh... You're not allowed to talk about Skippy.

Of course ANYTHING can be changed on the internet. However, once you remove the bored and the Anarchists, and bored Anarchists, it's not that bad.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,520
Reaction score
5,246
Website
www.amazon.com
Remove
 

Attachments

  • Cuando_el_destino_nos_alcance-672142116-large.jpg
    Cuando_el_destino_nos_alcance-672142116-large.jpg
    100.8 KB · Views: 13
  • protagonizada-charlton-heston-futuro-soylent.jpg
    protagonizada-charlton-heston-futuro-soylent.jpg
    471 KB · Views: 13
  • soylent.jpg
    soylent.jpg
    97.5 KB · Views: 12
  • 13617927961.jpeg
    13617927961.jpeg
    1.9 MB · Views: 14

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,133
Reaction score
334
It is a real problem (as anyone has noticed with regard to things like the 'Nazi A-bomb' threads.

I was going to write a post about the influence of Nazi generals on cold-war histories and whether that has a smaller or larger effect than all of the engineers who dreamt up interesting 'technically virtuous' engineering projects as paper studies to avoid being drafted in 1944-1945 on the adoration of the wehraboo...

But I have a feeling this thread isn't going to last (or stay on-topic) unless the moderators clean it up.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
1,470
Apart from productions like Good Omens, I find the BBC a most reliable source. Nothing to do with it being from the UK, I hate the Daily Fail and Piers Morgan.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,973
Reaction score
8,593
I truly hate Ruppert Murdoch, in passing. The damage one giant colossal SOB like this, can do over decades...
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
1,470
Never heard of the man. <edit> Oh look, a Youtube channel. That paragon of news sources.
 

Artie Bob

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
180
Reaction score
61
Just finished a questionaire for my teaching assignment at the local university this summer. I'm not certain whether I may be assigned a class in European history or fundamentals of engineering. In both subjects, I will begin each class in the same manner-I will ask each student to ask me a question about the subject. The purpose is not to demonstrate my incredible knowledge (obviously a fallacious myth), but rather to help them learn the core of critical thinking, which in my opinion is asking really good questions. Other facets are being skeptical about just about everything, and learning how to search out the types of bias in data that one believes to be factual. I also give them my quick take on how the world works, ie, Belief trumps Knowledge and Emotion trumps Reason, the Truth is out there, but most of the time it is not self evident and takes a lot of work to recognize and even then it is almost never definitive. After teaching off and on for about 60 years. I never try to insist that what I am saying is correct but rather what I believe and they should challenge it thoughtfully. Hopefully these are reasons that they ask me back even though I am a old little man approaching 85,
ArtieBob
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,972
Reaction score
1,829
The way of the Dodo.
 

edwest3

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
2,032
Just finished a questionaire for my teaching assignment at the local university this summer. I'm not certain whether I may be assigned a class in European history or fundamentals of engineering. In both subjects, I will begin each class in the same manner-I will ask each student to ask me a question about the subject. The purpose is not to demonstrate my incredible knowledge (obviously a fallacious myth), but rather to help them learn the core of critical thinking, which in my opinion is asking really good questions. Other facets are being skeptical about just about everything, and learning how to search out the types of bias in data that one believes to be factual. I also give them my quick take on how the world works, ie, Belief trumps Knowledge and Emotion trumps Reason, the Truth is out there, but most of the time it is not self evident and takes a lot of work to recognize and even then it is almost never definitive. After teaching off and on for about 60 years. I never try to insist that what I am saying is correct but rather what I believe and they should challenge it thoughtfully. Hopefully these are reasons that they ask me back even though I am a old little man approaching 85,
ArtieBob

Respectfully, either something actually happened or it didn't. Either relevant records and reliable sources exist or they don't.

Take Luftwaffe research. The phrase: "As complete as possible as of time writing" does not appear in books but William Green, among many others, did advance the field in the days when dinosaurs... er, in the past, and others built on that work. Critical thinking can be derailed at times. It requires good research skills to stay on track.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,873
Reaction score
5,337
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Like a TV channel is any better?
Some, yes. Others, no.
And if that TV channel is engaged in a multi-year ongoing effort to lie about history?

If you say something along the lines of "it's no big deal that they are knowingly re-writing history for political purposes" or in some way excuse or even endorse the ffort, then you are proving the point that history is up to whoever is making it up at the moment. Ignoring an individual historian who has the records to back his position up in favor of paying attention to a political organization... well, that's unfortunate. Because as soon as the BBC starts arguing that Apollo was a hoax or that the Nazis had the bomb, you have no argument with their new position.
 

edwest3

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
2,032
Like a TV channel is any better?
Some, yes. Others, no.
And if that TV channel is engaged in a multi-year ongoing effort to lie about history?

If you say something along the lines of "it's no big deal that they are knowingly re-writing history for political purposes" or in some way excuse or even endorse the ffort, then you are proving the point that history is up to whoever is making it up at the moment. Ignoring an individual historian who has the records to back his position up in favor of paying attention to a political organization... well, that's unfortunate. Because as soon as the BBC starts arguing that Apollo was a hoax or that the Nazis had the bomb, you have no argument with their new position.


"The internet is the greatest manure spreader in history. It can spread manure faster and on a global scale."

Bob Acme -- President, The Acme Manure Spreader Company
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top