I find the writing style of pieces like this insufferable. Tell us the point you are trying to make!
I read the whole thing (albeit i did skim parts), and i really don't know what point that the author is trying to make. That it is possible to use sock puppets on wikipedia to try to manipulate wikipedia? Yes, to a certain extent, but also not as much as people often imagine it is.
Whatever the merits of the piece, the purpose of writing can be something beside the delivery of 'points'. It's perfectly fine if you don't like that but there's not much conversation to be had about the fact that you don't.
The thing is the title is making an argument, but then the reader is subjected to a long meandering personal discourse. OK if you're on a long journey and want to be diverted, deeply annoying if you are sufficiently interested by the headline to want to engage with the argument. I used to admire this style of writing but as I've gotten older I have less patience with it; I'd rather just read a novel.
It’s a very particular style of prose so I can see why you might have a strong negative reaction, but - honestly I have the opposite reaction.
The narrator doesn’t sound like a man whose morals I much respect - but the way the story is written is playful, all the little loops of foreshadowing and callback are fun; it reminds me a bit of Neal Stephenson, on the edge of trying too hard to be smart while also affecting mock humility - but winking at the audience the whole time. “you’re clever enough to be in on the joke,” it reassures you.
I think rather than seeing that style as an obstacle to the point being made, the style is part of the point. It’s a mode of storytelling to be enjoyed. (Or not, in your case.) The point is that the narrator is this wonderful character who is smarter than his surroundings and he gets up to mischief, the consequences of which echo farther than you might expect. Is one man truly responsible for shaping the way an entire generation thinks, by careful manipulation of Wikipedia? Could you well have done the same, if you were the right man, at the right time and place? Would you?
Perhaps my issue is i find the premise unbelievable and lose suspension of disbelief, which makes me annoyed with the rest of the story.
People try to manipulate wikipedia in this fashion every day. Many of those who do are much much more sophisticated than the protagonist in this story and the story doesn't take into account the checks & balances to prevent this sort of thing. (Edit - to be clear, not saying he couldn't have some success... just total mind control is a bit much) Perhaps that's just the conceit for the story and we are supposed to accept it so that the rest of the story can take place. However stories about individuals getting ultimate power and then struggling with the moral implications of that are a dime a dozen. The only unique thing about this story is the premise, which i find obnoxiously simplified.
The story is set in the early days of Wikipedia, when awareness of its power and restraints on manipulation were much weaker.
As a wiki admin myself, what I found unbelievable is the length to which they supposedly went to maintain the subterfuge. Most sock puppets and PR flacks are glaringly obvious.
Careful, you keep adding this sort of detail and maybe take out some of the bombast ('insufferable', 'obnoxiously') and next thing you know, you'd end up with a perfectly reasonable personal critique of this thing!
It's a piece of short fiction written like a straightforward account of one fellow's history manipulating Wikipedia, which I suppose is easy to miss if you aren't familiar with the sort of stuff that Harper's tends to put out (which admittedly is sometimes insufferable). I think anybody looking for practical or technical insights in the piece will probably come up short, but I was impressed by its thematic depth w/r/t truth, personal integrity, etc.
It is not actually 'short fiction' in the sense of 'nothing like that happened'. He did do much of the stuff described, and it's not even that hard to figure out who he was working for and some of his sock puppets: https://old.reddit.com/r/media_criticism/comments/17zqwgb/th...
>violation of multiple WP policies, repeat ban evasion, sockpuppeting, and IP hopping are all clearcut violation of the CFAA, which is a federal criminal act
Is there legal precedent that each and every one of these actions, individually, is a criminal violation of the CFAA? That seems like a bold claim.
The DC Circuit, at least, has specifically ruled violating TOS is not a CFAA violation.[1] So, it seems fairly inaccurate to say violating “WP policies” is a “clearcut violation of the CFAA”. I’m not sure about legal precedent for the other actions, but I’d be skeptical.
