this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
311 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

81026 readers
4749 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In September last year, Peter Mandelson was fighting to keep his job as British Ambassador to the US after the first raft of revelations about the extent of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Within hours of the details emerging, an anonymous Wikipedia editor had made changes to Mandelson’s page that distanced him from Epstein and cast him in a sympathetic light. That editor has since been blocked for making undisclosed paid changes.

New details about the relationship between the two – including that Mandelson recommended a villa where Epstein could host his “guests” – have sparked a national scandal in recent weeks and led to pressure on Keir Starmer to step down as prime minister.

But over the course of two days in September, while Mandelson was still in his government job, the mysterious account made a series of edits that either reflected more favourably on him or pushed details of the Epstein scandal under unrelated information.

And when Mandelson was eventually sacked on 11 September, it moved within hours to remove the reason given by the Foreign Office for his dismissal: that Mandelson had told Epstein his 2008 conviction for sex offences was wrong and encouraged him to clear his name.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hector@lemmy.today 28 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Paid editors are a scourge on wikipedia. Everyone with an axe to grind hires them. From revisionists trying to rehabilitate feudalism, or any of history's great monsters it appears, to any monied interests. Whether it's a polluting industry, and or a company exploiting workers in SE Asia in virtual slave labour, or a government official somewhere, there are dudes on wikipedia that are paid to do these things.

Wikipedia is only a good source on non controversial topics, at least unless you look at the actual sources submitted and can cut through the agendas, something most people can't seem to do well honestly.

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Very true, I've had whole cited paragraphs removed by non-registered users. Of course, IF you've got the time, you can look through the article history pages. For recently embarassed subjects, it's not hard to spot the deletions over the past month or two, as they're colored in red.

[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 7 points 15 hours ago

at least unless you look at the actual sources submitted

You can't check the source for information that's entirely been omitted. In any case, never assume Wikipedia provides the full story, or even a condensed and accurate one. What has been mentioned might be correct, but the devil is in what's been left out.