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.

  • hector@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • VonReposti@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 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.