Mediaboss Marketing

Napoleon Bonaparte did a lot, but he didnt quite do it all. He did not, for example, fire a bunch of cannons at the Egyptian pyramids. Does it matter that Ridley Scotts Napoleon includes a scene of French armies attacking million-ton, completely inanimate structures of stone? Or that the Battle of Austerlitz scene focuses on a frozen pond incident that, in reality, occurred long after the battle was won?

Ridley Scott admitted he doesnt know if Napoleons armies shot cannons at pyramids and that the scene was merely a fastand loose, I might addway of saying he took Egypt. His response to the critics was a swift Get a life. In another interview, he stated that fucking historians dont truly know about Napoleonic Europe because they werent there.

Scotts fact-agnostic attitude toward Napoleon, one of the most documented humans to ever walk the planet, hasnt gone unnoticed. History-minded reviewers have pointed out the inaccuracies littered throughout the 2-hour-and-38-minute flick. If youre looking to get a crystal-clear portrait of the French emperor, you may want to supplement your movie night with some additional readinglike one of the bazillion books about Napoleon, or more conveniently, the famed rulers sprawling Wikipedia page.

Napoleons main article is nearly 20,000 words, cleanly divided into sections such as Appearance and The Invasion of Russia (the latter will inform you that Napoleon almost certainly did not say I must begin my march to Moscow, like his character did in the film, since he didnt think hed have to go so far into Russia). Wikipedia has additional entries dedicated to his tomb, legacy, penchant for art looting, and more. Le petit caporal even has a stand-alone article on his genitals (only Jesus and Hitler can say the same).

When it comes to films that dance on the line between fantasy and reality, the post-movie Wikipedia dive is a sacred online ritual. You sit next to your partner or pal and simultaneously scroll through historical synopses, occasionally piercing the silence with new-to-you info like Napoleon was frenemies with Beethoven! or People think he had a body-odor fetish but he probably didnt! as you sort creative liberties from historical canon.

I know for a fact that Im not the only one fond of pairing entertainment with light research. When Sony Pictures released the Napoleon trailer on July 10, Wikipedia traffic for the long-dead leader skyrocketed to third place on the daily list of most-viewed articles, beating out popular entries like Sex and ChatGPT. And that was just the trailer!

Even from the grave, Napoleon is dominating new (online) worlds. As the release date approached, traffic to Napoleon topics climbed steadily, surpassing contemporary figures like Joe Biden, Elon Musk, and Beyoncall before it was even released. Even the article about bicorne hats, Bonapartes headwear of choice, is at its highest traffic in recorded history.

Unlike the encyclopedias of yore, Wikipedia shows which entries people are looking upand which ones nobody is reading (a tireless study by an admin named Colin Morris revealed that many of the least-trafficked articles are on obscure moth species). Without fail, the box office, particularly for based on true events flicks, drives hordes of Wikipedia traffic. J. Robert Oppenheimers article got 100 times more pageviews in July than Vagina, a shocking achievement considering Vaginas consistently strong performance on the Wikipedia charts (it averages more views than God).

During the week of July 23, 16 of the Top 25 articles in English Wikipedia were directly related to Barbenheimer. Last month, following Netflixs Beckham, David Beckham made the Top 5; during the heights of the Tinder Swindler, Simon Levievs article breached the Top 3; Blonde carried Marilyn Monroe to the Top 5; Pamela Anderson hogged the top charts after the Pam & Tommy miniseries. Whether or not film adaptations of history win over the Academy, they consistently clean up on Wikipedia. In the monthlong buildup to the Napoleon movies release, Napoleons penis alone got more traffic than articles like Electromagnetism and the list of Pacific islands.

No one knows film-driven Wikipedia traffic more keenly than Igor, a volunteer whose user page starts with Hello, Im Brazilian, have a lot of free time and a will to learn things. I adore his ardent write-ups of the encyclopedia charts, which are really thinly veiled cultural criticism. Each week since 2017, he has dutifully explained why each of the Top 25 articles are trending, answering the question no one was asking: How is the documentary du jour affecting the encyclopedia?

He recaps pageview trends with no less fervor than an NBA sportscaster during Game 7: In 2022, when Inventing Anna was dominating Netflix, he called fraudster Anna Sorokin the only thing preventing a top-ten monopoly of the ongoing Ukraine-Russia crisis. During Anna Sorokins second week in the charts, Igor criticized the salacious, tabloid-esque true story limited series that are all the rage these days and stated youd never catch me watching it (he caved just four write-ups later). Netflix has too much of a pull on people, he proclaimed in the second of five straight weeks that Jeffrey Dahmer occupied the No. 1 spot (Dahmer achieved Wikipedias second-highest all-time weekly viewership).

In a 2018 Nielsen poll, 45 percent of adults responded that they used a second screen very often or always when watching TV, and in a blog post, Wikipedia called itself a second-screen experience. In the five years since then, the line between encyclopedia and entertainment has only gotten blurrier. But its not invisible. Wikipedia shouldnt sacrifice its meticulousness for movie magic, nor should movie scripts adopt the dry, info dump-y quality of an encyclopediacommentators have made the latter point abundantly clear.

Film critics deride the dense dramas and documentaries with overly stiff adherence to the historical recordstorytelling thats more didactic than artful, more concerned with detail than drama. The New Yorker called Baz Luhrmanns Elvis movie a gaudily decorated Wikipedia article and IndieWire dubbed the Whitney Houston biopic a Wikipedia page set to song, panning the abject laziness of the films construction. The New York Times diminished Solo: A Star Wars Story to a filmed Wikipedia page. Netflixs Pel movie contains nothing you couldnt get from Wikipedia, and the doc on Joyce Carol Oates is just a glorified Wikipedia article. The critics are clear that an encyclopedia is no replacement for a movie: Films may prompt a Wikipedia binge but they should not be the Wikipedia binge.

Reviewers raise this comparison as a critique of moviemakers, but I cant help but interpret the sentiment as a sneaky salute to Wikipedia. What an achievement for a humble encyclopedia, written by literal randos, to bear any sort of resemblance to big-budget entertainment. Slowly but surely, the once scrappy Wikipedia project has graduated into the go-to metaphor for no-frills factfulness.

Richard Brody clearly spelled out his praise in the New Yorker review of Oppenheimer: Wikipedias simple fact-heavy article offered more complexity and more enticing detail than Nolans script, he wrote. Wikipedians everywhere blushed with pride.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Read more from the original source:
Watching the Napoleon Movie? Don't Forget to Read His Wikipedia Page. - Slate

As journalists and professional fact-checkers struggle to keep up with the deluge of misinformation online, fact-checking sites that rely on loosely coordinated contributions from volunteers, such as Wikipedia, can help fill the gaps, Cornell research finds.

In a new study, Andy Zhao, a doctoral candidate in information science based at Cornell Tech, compared professional fact-checking articles to posts on Cofacts, a community-sourced fact-checking platform in Taiwan. He found that the crowdsourced site often responded to queries more rapidly than professionals and handled a different range of issues across platforms.

Fact-checking is a core component of being able to use our information ecosystem in a way that supports trustworthy information, said senior author Mor Naaman, professor of information science at the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech and the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science. Places of knowledge production, like Wikipedia and Cofacts, have proved so far to be the most robust to misinformation campaigns.

The study, Insights from a Comparative Study on the Variety, Velocity, Veracity, and Viability of Crowdsourced and Professional Fact-Checking Services, published Sept. 21 in the Journal of Online Trust and Safety.

The researchers focused on Cofacts because it is a crowdsourced fact-checking model that had not been well-studied. The Taiwanese government, civil organizations and the tech community established Cofacts in 2017 to address the challenges of both malicious and innocent misinformation partially in response to efforts from the Chinese government to use disinformation to create a more pro-China public opinion in Taiwan. Much like Wikipedia, anyone on Cofacts can be an editor and post answers, submit questions and up or downvote responses. Cofacts also has a bot that fact-checks claims in a popular messaging app.

Starting with more than 60,000 crowdsourced fact-checks and 2,641 professional fact-checks, Zhao used natural language processing to match up responses posted on Cofacts with articles addressing the same questions on two professional fact-checking sites. He looked at how quickly the sites posted responses to queries, the accuracy and persuasiveness of the responses and the range of topics covered.

He found the Cofacts users often responded faster than journalists, but mostly because they could stand on the shoulders of giants and repurpose existing articles from professionals. In this way, Cofacts acts as a distributor for information. They carry those stories across language, across the nation, or across time, to this exact moment to answer people's questions, Zhao said.

Importantly, Zhao found that the Cofacts posts were just as accurate as the professional sources. And according to seven native Taiwanese graduate students who acted as raters, articles by journalists were more persuasive, but Cofacts posts often were clearer.

Further analysis showed the crowdsourced site covered a slightly different range of topics compared with those addressed by professionals. Posts on Cofacts were more likely to address recent and local issues such as regional politics and small-time scams while journalists were more likely to write about topics requiring expertise, including health claims and international affairs.

We can leverage the power of the crowds to counter misinformation, Zhao concluded. Misinformation comes from everywhere, and we need this battle to happen in all corners.

The need for fact-checking is likely to continue to grow. While its not yet clear how generative artificial intelligence (AI) models, such as ChatGPT or Midjourney, will impact the information landscape, Naaman and Zhao said it is possible that AI programs that generate text and fake images may make it even easier to create and spread misinformation online.

However, despite the success of Cofacts in Taiwan, Zhao and Naaman caution that the same approach may not transfer to other countries. Cofacts has built on the user habits, the cultures, the background, and political and social structures of Taiwan, which is how they succeed, Zhao said.

But understanding Cofacts success may assist in the design of other fact-checking systems, especially in regions that dont speak English, which have access to few, if any fact-checking resources.

Understanding how well that kind of model works in different settings could hopefully provide some inspiration and guidelines to people who want to execute similar endeavors in other places, Naaman said.

The study received partial support from the National Science Foundation.

Patricia Waldron is a writer for the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science.

More:
Crowdsourced fact-checking fights misinformation in Taiwan ... - Cornell Chronicle

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher

In early 2021, a Wikipedia editor peered into the future and saw what looked like a funnel cloud on the horizon: the rise of GPT-3, a precursor to the new chatbots from OpenAI. When this editor a prolific Wikipedian who goes by the handle Barkeep49 on the site gave the new technology a try, he could see that it was untrustworthy. The bot would readily mix fictional elements (a false name, a false academic citation) into otherwise factual and coherent answers. But he had no doubts about its potential. I think A.I.s day of writing a high-quality encyclopedia is coming sooner rather than later, he wrote in Death of Wikipedia, an essay that he posted under his handle on Wikipedia itself. He speculated that a computerized model could, in time, displace his beloved website and its human editors, just as Wikipedia had supplanted the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which in 2012 announced it was discontinuing its print publication.

Recently, when I asked this editor if he still worried about his encyclopedias fate, he told me that the newer versions made him more convinced that ChatGPT was a threat. It wouldnt surprise me if things are fine for the next three years, he said of Wikipedia, and then, all of a sudden, in Year 4 or 5, things drop off a cliff.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Heres how.

We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Follow Michael Barbaro on Twitter: @mikiebarb. And if youre interested in advertising with The Daily, write to us at thedaily-ads@nytimes.com.

Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Isabella Anderson, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Elena Hecht, Emma Kehlbeck, Tanya Prez and Krish Seenivasan.

Visit link:
The Sunday Read: 'Wikipedia's Moment of Truth' - The New York Times

Whenever we come across an unresolved question or are curious about a certain topic, most of us instinctively turn to Google. But after we type the requested query, we will most likely turn to the next information source - Wikipedia.

It is difficult to imagine our lives today without the platform that has become so obvious. Although it has been criticized time and time again over the years for not being reliable enough, or for controversies surrounding decisions of what should appear in it, or for the low female ratio among its editors - it is nevertheless difficult to underestimate its value. The pre-Wikipedia era, where homework was done with the help of massive, printed encyclopedia volumes, seems like a distant and unreal memory.

6 View gallery

(Illustration: Shutterstock)

These days, the Hebrew edition of Wikipedia celebrates its 20th anniversary. In honor of the occasion, we met Michal Wander Schwartz, executive director at the non-profit association Wikimedia Israel, a local Israeli branch of the international Wikimedia Foundation which is behind Wikipedia and other projects.

"Wikipedia to a great extent reflects the moods in society," she says. "People are searching for knowledge about topics that interest them. It's easy to guess which entry has been most viewed on Wikipedia in recent times - the Reasonableness standard - and about six months ago, when the whole issue of judicial reform started, these were entries like Yariv Levin and Judicial overhaul."

Wander Schwartz started leading Wikimedia Israel about six months ago. In her previous positions, she led the establishment of the cultural department for children and seniors in Zichron Ya'akov, as well as the Interdisciplinary Center for Studies of Children and Youth at Risk at the Tel Aviv University School of Social Work.

"When I saw the Wikimedia classified ad, it captivated me," she recalls. "I wanted to do something significant, and I think that Wikimedia has a global impact on the world, by making it better, more equal and just. The idea is to make free and equal content accessible - it belongs to everyone. Everyone can edit, change, contribute, which is an empowering experience, and on the other hand, can consume equally. The knowledge is not in the hands of a small group. There is still a lot to be done to realize this vision, and that is what motivates me in this work."

Did you have any prior experience in editing Wikipedia entries? "No, I knew nothing about this world, I only used it, like most people. Just before I started here, I translated my first entry on Social Thinking, because I wanted to further explore it. It was very interesting. The translation was done by AI software, which also retrieves sources of knowledge, but it is not an automatic translation - the human eye must go over the entry, make an adjustment to the language and culture."

6 View gallery

Michal Wander Schwartz

(Photo: Oded Wander)

The tool that Wander Schwartz mentions is nothing new, just like other AI tools that are being used in Wikipedia, for example, the error detecting tool; but we have been witnessing a growing tension between human creation and AI since the generative AI tools like ChatGPT entered our lives. The potential threat to Wikipedia for becoming irrelevant is imminent, because people might choose to rely on chatbots for information and abandon the old site.

Wander Schwartz refers to an experiment that global Wikimedia recently started running - a Wikipedia add-on for the beta version of ChatGPT that will allow you to search for answers and summarize information from Wikipedia, plus a reference to the relevant source and links to articles for further reading.

"This is progress because ChatGPT is unreliable - we don't know where the information came from and it also has mistakes; so such an add-on strengthens ChatGPT as well as Wikipedia. It was also claimed that Google takes advantage of Wikipedia, but this is not true because Wikipedia appears among the first results. We also know that the chatbot learns through sources of information that are available on the internet, and one of its major sources is Wikipedia, and it gets the credit. This is the right direction.

"Wikipedia's role today is more critical than ever because ChatGPT and the like are very trendy, it's the latest trend, but without human knowledge, they don't stand a chance, nor do the consumers. Consuming incorrect information can be really dangerous in terms of decision-making. It's true that you need to prepare for it and the foundation does that, but it also strengthens our educational agenda, encouraging people to consume information with a critical eye and active thinking."

You mentioned earlier that judicial reform has been a hot topic among users recently. Is the tense atmosphere in Israel today also reflected in disputes among the editors? "There is no doubt that the reality is very vibrant, and it is clearly reflected, but it does not affect the rules as such. The rules are very clear, Wikipedia is a fortified wall in this sense. Those who want to write an entry should maintain a neutral point of view, present reliable sources.

6 View gallery

Anti-judicial reform in Tel Aviv

(Photo: Moti Kimchi)

"You can see arguments and discussions on the Talk page of the entries, which means that there is no behind the scenes here, everything is transparent and exposed. If you enter a controversial entry such as the reasonableness standard, judicial reform, or Yariv Levin, you can read the entry but also enter the Talk page and see all the reality as you know it, as displayed in the newspaper. The Reasonableness clause was the topic with the most views last month, there is a lot of activity and opinions there, with about 24,000 views this month. This is a high figure."

Wander Schwartz says, "many times people tell me: 'Okay, I understand, Wikipedia receives contributions and contributors write for it, but who is the editor-in-chief?', and my answer is 'You are the editor-in-chief. There is no editor-in-chief, there is no one in charge. Anyone can write, edit, correct and influence'."

She describes the mechanism that takes into account a situation in which discussions can reach serious disputes; in that case, the discussions can be frozen - permission that is granted to particular senior editors.

"They can calm the spirits and allow voting on disputes. Those who have made a hundred edits in the last 90 days, that is, contributed enough, can vote. This is to prevent voting disruptions, and to avoid a situation in which people who still don't understand Wikipedia would skew things out of lack of knowledge." According to Wander Schwartz, since the beginning of the protests against the reform, there have been freezes on disputed entries, "and the freeze is often temporary."

We know that on social media and talkbacks, there are many fake users whose goal is to skew the discourse. Is it something you also experience? "Yes, that's why there are several dozen people whose job is to monitor the information, alongside bots. It's a 24/7 contributor job. They locate Sockpuppetry, trolls, biases. Sometimes it takes time, but in the end, these things are neutralized. Not long ago, someone from the Kohelet Policy Forum (which is credited with devising parts of the reform) wrote under several usernames. It took a while to discover it, but he was finally blocked.

6 View gallery

(Illustration: Shutterstock)

"Obviously, the more vibrant the society, the more actors seek to influence. Wikipedia is the largest infrastructure of human knowledge, and it is part of the DNA of knowledge consumption for each and every user across the globe, but we follow the same method, and it has been working for 20 years."

As part of its activities, Wikimedia Israel runs courses, trainings and tutorials for new editors - some in collaboration with the education system and the academy and some for the general public. In this way, the association hopes to make the editorial community more diverse. One of the loaded topics concerning Wikipedia in the world is the minority of women editors on the platform.

"There are approximately 20% women editors in Israel, and this corresponds with the global figures of 15-20%," says Wander Schwartz. "The figures in Israel are true for 2015, but in October this year we intend to conduct a new survey in honor of Wikipedia's 20th anniversary."

"There are 32 editors that are permitted to do more than the general editing, and only one of them is a woman; but as mentioned before, you need to edit enough to be granted the right to vote. Wikipedia has an entire entry that talks about the gender gaps on Wikipedia. It shows interesting data and talks about the history of women in the public sphere, women's exclusion and inequality.

"Look for example at the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In its first edition in 1771, the entry on horse diseases consisted of 39 pages, and the entry on woman consisted of only four words - 'The female of man'. Apart from history, there are also aspects related to women's self-confidence and lack of interest in dealing with conflicts, but I must say that there are women who write on Wikipedia and do not experience it in this way."

Why is this still happening? "I think it has to do with the society we live in, and the more it advances, the more change will occur. We in Wikimedia Israel are aware of this gap and are acting to reduce it. An editing course intended for women only will open in October, and we will accompany the contributors during and after the course. This way they will learn how to write an entry and to deal with the conflicts. These courses are often very successful - the entries are not deleted, and the editors do not escape editing."

6 View gallery

(Illustration: Shutterstock)

The activities offered to increase the diversity among the editors are also available for the Arab population. "We work also with the Arab society; they do not work within the Hebrew Wikipedia but contribute to the Arabic Wikipedia.

"We are engaged with the Arab educational system - the teachers are trained to write on Wikipedia, and at the same time teach their students. This is an innovative program that we started this year. We work with the Ministry of Education's superintendent for Arabic, Rawya Burbara, who is responsible for all Arabic studies in Israel.

"The results are amazing - the children wrote 250 entries in Arabic this school year alone. It is very challenging though because the Arab population is partly underprivileged, so the digital literacy is not yet developed enough, and the awareness of the ability to write on Wikipedia and have an impact is also not sufficiently developed."

According to Wander Schwartz, "Our role is to raise awareness and give tools to children and teachers, these are circles that influence each other. This will allow bringing up content that is specifically relevant to the local population. Someone who lives in Morocco does not know what to write about the Arab society in Israel. This year we intend to increase this program significantly; It creates change on every possible scale."

According to her, Wikimedia Israel is the only official branch of the global Wikimedia that is engaged in writing on the Arabic Wikipedia. "There are all kinds of unofficial groups, but there is no other regulated branch like this in the world."

There is no doubt that the reality is very vibrant, and clearly reflected, but those who want to write an entry should maintain a neutral point of view. There is no editor-in-chief, there is no one in charge"

In addition, the association is currently working on developing an editing course dedicated to people on the autistic spectrum. "This is a population with a very interesting point of view, with a lot of knowledge and the ability to contribute to Wikipedia. As far as I know, no one in the global movement has initiated a course like this. It is innovative and groundbreaking, and I hope others will follow us." We are also aiming at launching an editing course for Israelis living abroad, to strengthen the connection between Israel and the Diaspora through writing on Wikipedia."

Another focus is on increasing the contribution of academic institutions. "These are gold mines of knowledge," says Wander Schwartz.

"Imagine that all faculty members in all academic institutions would write only one entry once a year about their field of activity, let's say on 'Wikipedia Day', this would be a wonderful contribution to free knowledge. Imagine that every student would write one entry as part of their academic studies. There are more students than Faculty members - it will be fantastic for the entire society, for the institutions and for the students themselves. That's where we're heading."

Apart from increasing the number of editors and their diversity, the Israeli branch is aiming to promote the GLAM initiative to encourage cultural institutions to share their resources with the public through collaborative projects with Wikipedia editors.

"This issue in Israel is very sensitive and still in its early stages of development." It involves the transferring of media files in the possession of the institutions, such as photos, sculptures or films to Wikimedia Commons initiative, and then "we connect them to relevant entries on Wikipedia. We recently developed a chart that gives an indication of which content has been viewed and much more data."

6 View gallery

(Illustration: Shutterstock)

It is possible that the institutions' avoidance has to do with financial considerations the cultural institutions want the public to buy tickets and visit them? "This is old-fashioned thinking because we see the opposite at large institutions around the world - the more you disclose, the more they want to come to you." Another advantage is the preservation of the art in case of disasters such as fires," she adds.

But some people are afraid to edit. "A lot of people say, 'But what am I going to write about? I'm not an expert, it looks terribly scary.' The work itself is not complex, the tools available are very user-friendly, there is always someone to help, and you don't have to write a thousand-word entry. You can correct, add links, people who master a second language can translate entries. It's a small thing for the individual and a very big thing for Wikipedia, and it's almost addictive - this is what I do on the train on my way home, and I'm exposed to worlds that I wouldn't have been exposed to in my everyday life otherwise.

"We really need the collaboration of as many people as possible. In total, there are currently approximately a thousand editors on the Hebrew Wikipedia, of which several hundred are active, and dozens serve as Wikipedia's protective wall. The more we contribute, the more we can receive, and this is essential. We want to shift people from being passive, i.e. consuming knowledge, to active - creating knowledge. It's a process, but we have still got time."

See the rest here:
'The more vibrant the society, the more actors seek to influence Wikipedia' - Ynetnews

Former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright had a Title IX complaint against him in his former role as a professor at ASS Law (George Mason Universitys Antonin Scalia School of Law), hes been called out by another law professor for dangling a phony job opening in a bid to romantically proposition the applicant, two senior Biglaw attorneys went public to say that he started sleeping with them when they were 1Ls in his class and continued to carry on these affairs out of concern for their careers, and now hes suing those lawyers for defamation.

In his lawsuit, he admits to sleeping with the 1Ls and alludes to yet another student he was sleeping with at the same time! but somehow thinks the damage to his professional reputation turns on whether or not he actively coerced the women and not on creep professor set out to sleep with a bunch of first-years. Because hes admitting the second part in his own filing and methinks hes underestimating how toxic that sounds to potential clients.

But in keeping with the notion that the whole case revolves less around the facts than how one describes those facts, someone from an IP address near ASS Law is trying to spin the account of this conduct on Wrights Wikipedia page. And whoever it is has never attempted to edit any Wikipedia page other than Wrights and ASS Laws.

And the edits are bold.

You say sexual relationships, I say flirting, lets call the whole thing off. While its accurate to note that Wrights lawyers from Trumpland mainstay Binnall Law Group accuse the senior Biglaw lawyers of having a financial motive, its gratuitously jammed in there.

A few days later, the same user edited a reference to several women accusing Wright of misconduct to noting a single Title IX complaint.

Another couple days pass, and the user makes this change:

Sexual misconduct to hitting on them is a wild downgrade in any circumstance, but its especially wild when the professor admits to having sex with them. At some point hitting on them ceases to be the right descriptor.

Like, you wouldnt have a Wikipedia edit that says, The fusion of female and male gametes usually occurs following the act of sexual intercourse hitting on them.

Maybe on the page for Jesus, but nowhere else.

This particular edit included the justification:

If the post had said sexual abuse then that would be incorrect. Except it didnt. It said sexual misconduct which is both exactly the terminology used in the article interviewing Wrights accusers and what we colloquially would call professors sleeping with students.

As for the term predator, Wrights own complaint put in the day before this edit stated, Once again, Defendant Dorsey intends to portray Mr. Wright as a sexual predator, but in reality, this is about a love-triangle among consenting adults. Not to say the user making these edits is in reality Wright or someone on his defense team, but whoever it is has the same definitional hang-up over whether scheming on multiple students at once amounts to predator behavior.

Did we mention that its possible to isolate the users location from the IP address attached to the edits? No? Well, its possible to isolate the users location from the IP address attached to the edits.

How do people not know this? We only recently caught the Wisconsin Supreme Courts wingnuttiest member which is actually saying a LOT when it comes to that institution editing her own Wikipedia entry to spin her comparing COVID public health measures to Japanese internment in WWII. At least the person editing Wrights page didnt employ an easily decipherable username like the Wisconsin justice did.

Anyway,these Wright edits are coming from Arlington, Virginia. In fact, the Wikipedia editor was less than half a mile from ASS Law.

Curious!

Earlier: State Supreme Court Justice Caught Editing Own Wikipedia Entry Law Schools Restrictions On Professors Contact With Students During Sexual Harassment Probe Apparently Didnt Cover Auctioning Off A Date We Shouldnt Have To Say This, But Job Interviews Are Not Your Personal Dating App Sexual Harassment Allegations Mount Against Former FTC Commissioner & Law Professor Ex-Law Professor Sues Former Students For $108M Over Sexual Harassment Allegations

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

More:
SOMEONE Keeps Editing Joshua Wright's Wikipedia Page To Downplay The Whole 'Sleeping With 1Ls' Thing - Above the Law