Lies on Wikkipedia?

[merseymouth]

Hello all, On totally random basis does anyone have experience of getting things corrected on Wikkipedia?
I happened to desire correction over the file on "Operation Mincemeat", the code name for the deception plan involving a dead body off the Spanish coast in WW2. It was made into a film called "The Man Who Never Was".
The book by Ewen Montagu QC, RN, makes out that the donor body was that of Glyndwr Michael, a homeless person who died of rat poison.
The Government of the day and many afterwards kept the file closed, with the name likewise.
Subsequent investigations by John & Noreen Steele resulted in them publishing a book, "The Sinking of HMS Dasher", ISBN 978-9532637-1-4.
To cut it short in 2010 they managed to get the government of the day to confirm that the body used was that of a casualty from the sinking off the Dasher, specifically John Melville RN.
In 1943 during the fog of war the families of many of the Dasher victims where lied to, and specifically the Melville family were never allowed to view the body?
After the 2010 admission the family were able to understand the need for secrecy, both Montagu's book & another by Ben MacIntyre, "Operation Mincemeat", perpetuate the vagrant body story.
Well, I tried to correct the Wikkipedia posting, initially with success, then the tosh reappeared!
My point is why should untruths be allowed to continue even after real evidence is proved? A further case involves the libel trial against Count Nikolai Tolstoy. He published "Victims of Yalta, which tells of the forced transfer to Russia thousands of people who were subsequently killed by Stalin.
All British papers were destroyed, but a former army officer sued Tolstoy for libel, because he took a prominent role in the event.
But even now after the corresponding papers were found in US archives no corrections to the travesty of justice have been made?
I know enough of the truth of the facts because my late father was a participant as a crew member on HMS Campania, which escorted the convoy.
Why are correction of wrongs never pursued, wrongs righted?
Please comment. MM

[Psamathe]

Wikipedia is very strict about guarding against people/organisations/companies using it as a platform for their own personal beliefs/PR/propaganda. It also strived to ensure that balanced views of more controversial topics are presented (that does NOT mean equal space for each view as in both "The Earth is Flat" and "The Earth is Spherical" both get 2000 words).

The level of scrutiny your contributions receive can depend on your history of changes. There is a system of "patrolling" changes. If you make a change unregistered (logged by IP address) then your change will receive more scrutiny. If you are registered without a long contribution history your change will still be scrutinised. After you've made a lot of accepted contributions you are excluded from the "patrolling" system and changes are still subject to scrutiny but less so as you are a more proven reliable contributor.

As to you change, a lot depends on circumstances. Was you change "reverted out" or was the change overwritten by somebody else. It does happen that SPAM wars on topics can happen. What reasons were given for the change back. Others rejecting a change will normally give reasons in the "View History" tab. People spreading mis-information often wont (generally).

For a change to stick it needs to be phrased in non-personal non-emotive balanced language. e.g. if there is a controversial topic with conflicting sources it might be phrased as e.g. "Recent research and publications have identified strong evidence that ...". i.e. you don't obliterate alternative views that might still hold some credence or where there is published evidence supporting such views. Make sure you comply with layout and guidelines as sometimes somebody checking who is busy might revert rather than edit to compliance. But if the change is reverted for such reasons the "View Hostory" would say that.

If you think your edits have been unfairly reverted, re-make them AND add a detailed explanation, reasons and discussions to the "Talk" tab. You can ask for other opinions there, be modest, say things like "I'm trying to seek balance here in presenting ...". In your changes cite online sources (with likes through the citation system) as without such more controversial subjects are considered "personal opinion".

It is a far more complex system that "Why are correction of wrongs never pursued, wrongs righted?". The project has had significant problems with SPAM, politicians using at as a platform for their ideology, Government departments "adjusting" fact on their activity, etc. Hence safeguards are in place to try and ensure that information is verifiable.

If you still have problems getting your changes to stick progress through the "Community Portal" where there are systems for escalating disputes, for getting help, etc.

I am a great believer in the WikiMedia projects (and am no longer scrutinised as others and I've actually never had a Wikipedia change reverted - though have had a few on other WikiMedia projects "adjusted"). I hate that so much reference information is distributed by large corporates and we end-up getting "the world as Google want us to see it", etc. I believe that the WikiMedia projects are a big step in avoiding this "the world according to Google interests".

It is interesting how public contribution support for these projects avoids commercialisation of the information as very clearly demonstrated by the WikiTravel/WikiVoyage history. WikiTravel was an amateur run Wiki to create a work travel guide on the same basis and principles as the Wikipedia project. It developed well until the person running it sold it to commercial interests who started putting ads up and hotel booking ... And the contributor base rebelled and approached WikiMedia who voted and adopted a new project called WikiVoyage based on the original principles but under WikiMedia (hosted, etc. by WikiMedia). As WikiTravel content was provided under a WikiMedia licence the content was legally ported (despite legal threats from the corporate owners of WikiTravel) and since then WikiTravel has died and has become increasingly out of date without updates or contribution whilst WikiVoyage (under WikiMedia) as gone from strength to strength. All because the contributors rejected the principle of commercialisation "for profit". Many of the offline smartphone mapping tools include the WikiVoyage information (e.g.PocketEarth).

I keep meaning to start a thread encouraging people here to contribute to WikiVoyage as many here travel, have information and can make use of that information and are public spirited to spend a little time contributing to such projects to freely spread useful travel information. Interestingly, as WikiVoyage is a travel information Wiki it does not require the same level of verification as Wikipedia (and actually has far stricter rules about NOT adding external links other than in defined situations).

ps. Sorry about such a long response and also that I cannot comment on the information you have added or presented here as it is not something I have any knowledge of. My response is purely outlining information about Wikipedia and not directed as your particular information. And I hope I'm up to date as I've made relatively few contributions to either project over the last few months so things/policies might have developed.

Ian

[661-Pete]

Neither the book by Ewen Montagu (which I have read), nor the film starring Clifton Webb (which I have seen) actually name the deceased person whose body was used in the operation. In fact, Montagu goes on to state, he only got permission to use it on condition that his real name would never be revealed. I do not know how the name "Glyndwr Michael" actually emerged into the public domain.

Montagu, however, gave a strong hint as to "Major Martin"'s real identity, by having his fictitious father's name inscribed on his tombstone as "John Glyndwr Martin". Whether that gives credence to the Wiki entry, I don't know. I agree that it does seen improbable that a vagrant who died from eating rat poison, could be successfully disguised to resemble a Royal Marines officer.

So I suppose the issue is still open. Good luck with efforts to edit Wiki. I have seen a lot of nonsense on there, but it usually 'evens out' after a few days...

[Psamathe]

I've just checked on Wikipedia (which I assume is the article you are raising) and it seems your changes were reverted by patrolling pending further information/discussion i.e. not rejected but needing further discussion. And instruction was provided to tell you how to go about that

Revert good faith edits. Substantial change without discussion. Out of place text. Pls discuss on talk page.

I'm guessing the article but assuming it's the right one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat, best way forward is to discuss as has been requested. n.b. if you are not familiar with Wikipedia the "Pls discuss on talk page" refers to the article talk page NOT the reverting contributor's Talk page (though both are open, it's relevant to the article not the contributor).

I suspect there would need to be changes to the style of your additions as they come across as strong personal opinion where Wikipedia style is that of a reference source. You cite a book but just because something is written in a book does not make it "proven". My suggestion would be to discuss on the Talk page and maybe propose something more along the lines of

"In 20?? research bu John & Noreen Steele presented in The Sinking of HMS Dasher identified the individual as John Melville RN, who was one of the casualties in the loss of the escort carrier HMS Dasher. Their research showed that Glyndwr Michael had died from rat poison".

Suggesting a pathologist would have been well aware of something is personal opinion without evidence. If you are going to say the MOD was aware of something you would normally need need to cite a source. "Proven" and "were acknowledged" are strong words and thus require strong verifiable sources. also, spell/grammar check your contribution as that is regarded as important to the project. But discuss your changes DON'T just apply them back (or re-revert the reversion).

Ian

[thirdcrank]

... On totally random basis does anyone have experience of getting things corrected on Wikkipedia? ...

On this point only, I have only once edited a Wiki article. My addition was short, factual and linked to a reputable source. There was a bit of activity from the organization whose entry I had edited, but when the dust had settled, it was left with my addition in place with a very small alteration which didn't bother me at all.

[merseymouth]

Hello again, Is the fact that the British MoD actually wrote to confirm that the body used in "Operation Mincemeat" was assuredly that of John Melville classed as an unreliable source?
As has been said in his book Ewen Montagu never named the identity of "The Man Who Never Was", only later did he obliquely refer to "Glyndwr Martin, but Ben MacIntyre does assert in "Operation Mincemeat" that the deceased person was the named vagrant.
I place great reliance on the work of John Melville, who has done great work at addressing the wrong perpetrated over the loss of HMS Dasher!
HM Governments desire to shred many records has to be taken into account? Over "Operation Keelhaul", Russian subjects repatriation (sic), they declined US requests to release the relevant papers in both 1968 & 1974. Stating that review of the material led them to refuse release on the grounds of possible personal sensitivity?
One can but question as to how they could review the contents of the files in 1974 when the files had been physically destroyed in the 1960's????
The US authorities certainly have no interest in keeping such files under lock & key! (The US copies are just that, copies.)
Big issue over keeping so many secrets is that in the end nothing is accepted as to being worth keeping.
Don't forget that the number of toilet rolls used annually at the Palace of Westminster is classed as an "Official Secret"!
Fake news nothing. TTFN MM

[Psamathe]

Hello again, Is the fact that the British MoD actually wrote to confirm that the body used in "Operation Mincemeat" was assuredly that of John Melville classed as an unreliable source?...

You did not provide that source. Your word alone is not adequate.

....
As has been said in his book Ewen Montagu never named the identity of "The Man Who Never Was", only later did he obliquely refer to "Glyndwr Martin, but Ben MacIntyre does assert in "Operation Mincemeat" that the deceased person was the named vagrant.
I place great reliance on the work of John Melville, who has done great work at addressing the wrong perpetrated over the loss of HMS Dasher!....

You might place great reliance on the work but for an Encyclopeadia your reliance is not adequate. You need evidence others can assess.

....
HM Governments desire to shred many records has to be taken into account? Over "Operation Keelhaul", Russian subjects repatriation (sic), they declined US requests to release the relevant papers in both 1968 & 1974. Stating that review of the material led them to refuse release on the grounds of possible personal sensitivity?....

It's an Encyclopaedia and thus does not base entries on "absence of evidence". You could possibly add something along the lines of "some have suggested that the UK Government have destroyed crucial documents" but it does not really any anything factual beyond a conspiracy theory. Similarly, refusal to release information does not provide evidence of anything.

....
One can but question as to how they could review the contents of the files in 1974 when the files had been physically destroyed in the 1960's????....

An Encyclopeadia is not the place to question the procedures of the Government. Documents can be lost and then found, etc. Some documents might be destroyed and others kept. Remember, Wikipedia is an Encyclopeadia and thus has to be strict on presenting factual information and thus requires sources.

....
Big issue over keeping so many secrets is that in the end nothing is accepted as to being worth keeping.
Don't forget that the number of toilet rolls used annually at the Palace of Westminster is classed as an "Official Secret"!
Fake news nothing. TTFN MM

Not relevant to Wikipedia.

Ian

[merseymouth]

Hello Ian, Thank you for your comment about it possibly being under review, helpful.
But the comment about possible personal involvement sound puzzling?
My late father served it the Fleet Air Arm, including service on a sister ship of HMS Dasher, so maybe that is too close to be acceptable?
Knowledge of the loss of Dasher was widespread back then, but few people made use of the knowledge - "Careless Talk Costs Lives"!
Many also question subsequent opinions as to the cause of the loss, but DORA took first place.
Wikkipedia happily accepts that she went down due to an explosion of aviation fuel, yet that was initially denied.
So later facts are acceptable when it suits them?
With regards to "Operation Keelhaul", the existence of which was strongly denied for many, many years, one must surely give some credence to people directly involved? Again my father participated, serving on HMS Campania which was the escorting air craft carrier. She was chosen because she was the only available carrier with sufficient speed to keep up with the liners at flank speed.
But Count Nikolai Tolstoy was denied a fair libel trial because HMG had destroyed, then denied the existence of records proving events???
The paperwork is in the US archives, but HMG has repeatedly denied the US authorities the right to release them, FACT.
I have never had previous dealings with Wikkipedia, so I may be approaching thing in a way at variance to their preferred fashion, sorry.
I wonder who they say invented the pneumatic tyre or even television? Readily perpetuated untruths! MM

[Psamathe]

Hello Ian, Thank you for your comment about it possibly being under review, helpful.....

It is NOT under review. As I pointed out earlier, you have been invited to provide more justification for your changes on the article's "Talk" page. You made significant changes to a well established article without citing evidence. You need to discuss what you are intending with others through the "Talk" page as instructed when you changes were reverted i.e through the reason for reversion given as "Revert good faith edits. Substantial change without discussion. Out of place text. Pls discuss on talk page."

....But the comment about possible personal involvement sound puzzling?....

I did NOT say "personal involvement" I said "personal opinion" - it is a very big difference. Read what I write - I'm spending a lot of time trying to help you, do me the courtesy of reading it properly

....My late father served it the Fleet Air Arm, including service on a sister ship of HMS Dasher, so maybe that is too close to be acceptable?
Knowledge of the loss of Dasher was widespread back then, but few people made use of the knowledge - "Careless Talk Costs Lives"!....

Personal experience and/or "word of mouth" is not verifiable. It's not about being too "close" it's about having a source others can accept. I could quote my own father of many things but would you believe what I say he said.

....
Many also question subsequent opinions as to the cause of the loss, but DORA took first place.
Wikkipedia happily accepts that she went down due to an explosion of aviation fuel, yet that was initially denied.
So later facts are acceptable when it suits them?.....

Wikipedia is not about "what suits them" It is an Encyclopaedia that is open to everybody to make changes. They thus have to ensure that contributions are reliable. Not about "happily accepting", it's about source.

Wikipedia does take contributions on controversial matters that are not "settled" but they are phrased as "controversial" to make it clear to readers that the issue is not "resolved". Your changes where phrased as "fact" but without citing sources open to others to assess. In an earlier post I suggested one way to present the research which was less asserted as "proven fact". You need to remember you are contributing to an Encyclopaedia, not making a personal Blog post. There is a big big difference.

....
The paperwork is in the US archives, but HMG has repeatedly denied the US authorities the right to release them, FACT.
I have never had previous dealings with Wikkipedia, so I may be approaching thing in a way at variance to their preferred fashion, sorry.
I wonder who they say invented the pneumatic tyre or even television? Readily perpetuated untruths! MM

HMG repeatedly denying US authorities the right to release paperwork is not evidence of anything beyond the secrecy HMG places around whatever might have happened and thus probably not relevant to the article. It's like UFO's where the government refuse to release their documentation on an incident - that does not prove the existence of UFOs.

You need to remember Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia (for want of a better description) and thus takes steps to ensure that entries are accurate and verifiable. Word of mouth, "what my Dad told me", lack of evidence because HMG refuses to release reports means it is not relevant.

And your last sentence "I wonder who they say invented the pneumatic tyre or even television? Readily perpetuated untruths! MM" gives me the impression you are just letting off steam because the changes you made (without citation/references) were reverted. I've spent too long helping you understand why yet you decide to just be rude about Wikipedia. I've told you why your changes were reverted and what to do about it and you're just rude about the project. So I wont be providing any further help as you don't seem interested in the project, just for personal gripe (at least that is how your post comes across to me).

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

I once posted on wikipedia, described how a radio station used horrid jingles

It was changed back a couple of times so I gave up

Quite often one sees articles that have not been updated for years, "the museum will open in 2012" for example

[661-Pete]

I was once bemused by the Wiki article on my birthplace (which is firmly placed in Englandshire), suggesting the town was about to undergo a name-change to something very Gallic and exotic-sounding. For a few minutes - perhaps - I was taken in by the account: after all, "it's Wiki, so it must be true!" - eh? But it reverted a few days later.

There was a famous incident once where the article on Richard Dawkins (not a particularly devout Christian! ) was plastered all over with the words "JESUS SAVES" - but once again the reversion squad got busy to put things right...

And I once stumbled across some pretty derogatory remarks which some nutcase had inserted into the article about Marie Curie. I think it was I who actioned the reversion on that occasion.

All goes to show that Wiki is mostly reliable most of the time, but is a fluid thing. And all fluids can spill over if mishandled...

Oh - and please get the name right! I abhor mis-spelling, whether careless of deliberate (except of obnoxious politicos e.g. "Drumpf") - and the Wikimedia foundation don't deserve that extra "K"...

[RickH]

I abhor mis-spelling, whether careless of deliberate...

Shouldn't that read careless or deliberate?

[Cunobelin]

Accuracy of any source is never unequivocal.

Triangulation is the key

There is a book referred to in this Telegraph article that equally firmly puts the vagrant story as the truth:

Yet to this day, just whose body was used in "Operation Mincemeat" has remained a source of secrecy, confusion and conspiracy theory.
In a forthcoming book, a historian claims to have finally established beyond any reasonable doubt the identity of the person who 'played' the part of the dead man: a homeless Welshman called Glyndwr Michael.

It also disputes and "disproves" the HMS Dasher claims:

In 2003, a documentary based on 14 years of research by former police officer Colin Gibbon claimed that 'Major Martin' was Dasher sailor Tom Martin.
Then in 2004, official sanction appeared to be given to another candidate, Tom Martin's crewmate John Melville. At a memorial service on board the current HMS Dasher, a Royal Navy patrol vessel, off the coast of Cyprus, Lieutenant Commander Mark Hill named Mr Melville as Major Martin, describing him as "a man who most certainly was". Mr Melville's daughter, Isobel Mackay, later told The Scotsman newspaper: "I feel very honoured if my father saved 30,000 Allied lives."
However, Professor Denis Smyth, a historian at Toronto University, whose book Operation Mincemeat: Death, Deception and the Mediterranean D-Day is due to be published later this year, believes he has now finally laid to rest such "conspiracy theories".
During his research, he came across a "most secret" memo written by Commander Montagu, the significance of which appears to have been overlooked and which Professor Smyth says proves the body of Mr Michael, who was mentally ill and died after ingesting rat poison at the time the operation was being planned, was used. Mr Michael was first proposed as The Man Who Never Was by an amateur historian in 1996, but the evidence to support this failed to convince supporters of the Dasher theory.

Then we go back to the Dasher claims:

However John Steele, author of The Secrets of HMS Dasher, insisted Glyndwr Michael would not have passed muster as a Marine because he was an alcoholic – although Professor Smyth says there is no record of his illness – and said he remains convinced it was Melville.
"I've received a comprehensive report from a top dental expert regarding the teeth of Glyndwr Michael, what he would expect to find. There is no comparison whatsoever between the body of an alcoholic tramp and that of a Royal Marine," he said.
"I can tell you Montagu pinched a body. There's no way a brilliant barrister such as Montagu would take one slight risk that this operation would go haywire.
"Montagu was meticulous and would never have sent the body of a tramp.

The counter argument is that after exposure to water, and the obvious drowning conclusion, the body would not be closely enough examined for there to be a concern

To be honest there is no proof or definitive evidence for any of the claims..... perhaps one for the "controversies" section

[661-Pete]

I abhor mis-spelling, whether careless of deliberate...

Shouldn't that read careless or deliberate?

Typo.

[Cunobelin]

What does Wikipedia say.......

Speeling misteak or typo