Update: The agenda-driven edits of Philip Cross and Wikipedia's response
It&#x27;s worth pointing out that one of the people mentioned in this article, @leftworks1, was banned from Wikipedia (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;User:Leftworks1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;User:Leftworks1</a>) for abusively using a <i>pile</i> of sockpuppet accounts (both anonymous IPs and actual accounts) to evade protection filters on the Oliver Kamm article (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;w&#x2F;index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&amp;action=history" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;w&#x2F;index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&amp;actio...</a>). His sockpuppets attempted to add information to the article that was clearly poorly sourced and designed specifically to attack a living person, in violation of the BLP policy. However, fivefilters paints this guy as a hero and uncritically reports on his views on things.<p>Furthermore, this article barely touches on the fact that WP is mulling a topic ban for Philip Cross (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Propose_topic_ban" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Administrators'_no...</a>) or is starting ArbCom proceedings (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Arbitration&#x2F;Requests&#x2F;Case#George_Galloway" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Arbitration&#x2F;Requests...</a>), WP&#x27;s equivalent of the Supreme Court. Both of these are standard dispute resolution steps, and they demonstrate that Wikipedia is in fact taking it seriously (in contravention of this article&#x27;s conclusion).<p>These kinds of articles are not helping. If fivefilters&#x2F;Media Lens&#x2F;Galloway&#x2F;et al. have problems with Philip Cross, they should stay out of &quot;off-wiki&quot; opinion-influencing and let Wikipedia&#x27;s process run its course.