I spent years as a very active Wikipedia editor. My contributions there don’t reflect well the level of work that I did — some users accumulate large edit counts with brief reverts based on immediate appearances, it’s very quick, sometimes even computer-assisted, I once tracked the contributions of an administrator who obviously sat at his computer pressing Save several times a minute for simple edits suggested by a program. He did this for many hours.
You can see the total numbers of my contributions on all WMF wikis on the global account display. Because my “community ban” on Wikipedia has come up recently– the situation being misrepresented in the new RationalWiki article on me — I will cover this on a page here, Wikipedia/Bans/Abd (draft, not complete)
There is a theme, revenge. In theory, Wikipedia is not a battleground. In practice, it is.
This battleground is used to pursue personal agendas, and if the pursuer is an administrator, the wiki is often defenseless. This becomes more intense if an ideological faction is involved. If the point of view, the “ideology” being pushed is popular among Wikipedians, it may be thought of as neutral and not recognized as point-of-view, and synthesis from sources, following this ideology may be allowed, whereas if the point of view is minority or fringe, not. So “fringe” — which is not a synonym of “wrong” or “without evidence,” but only a rough kind of vote — comes to be excluded, or presented with heavy framing, even where covered in reliable source.
Speaking truth to power has been a long-term strong suit for me. It has taken me to some amazing places, and, as is predictable, sometimes power doesn’t like it! It would be much more convenient to speak truth to the powerless, but, practically by definition, it’s useless.
In my training, they said, “If they are not shooting at you, you are not doing anything worth wasting bullets on.”
And what is “truth”? Ancient question, eh? In this case, it can be as simple as documenting, organizing information that is public record, even without judgment or blame. The record itself, and honest testimony, may be seen as “attack,” by those who want it hidden, buried in the noise. This all came out in the Wikipedia process and quite the same has happened elsewhere, most recently on the so-called RationalWiki.
Behind this are some of the same persons and techniques, inlcuding the use of disruptive users for their own purposes, to give them cover.
Conspiracy theory? No, not exactly. This is from my experience and observation, and specific details will be given, supporting this idea, some of this recently became quite clear. So also see RationalWiki.
See also Pseudoskepticism.