Wikipedia’s TOS bans this kind of activity, and it’s pretty effective at detecting it. This has been going on elsewhere for over a decade, and I know of at least one reputation-laundering firm that has gone bust because of Wikipedia reverting everything they tried to plant.
It bans some versions of this, but it can’t ban all of it. The obvious way is fully banned and hard to get away with: pay someone to delete unflattering things about you on Wikipedia. But, you can do a much more costly, slower, but much more likely to be acceptable version: you can buy a newspaper and arrange for that newspaper to write flattering articles about you. Since those articles qualify as a primary source, you can then have someone update Wikipedia to include things from that article using the article as a primary source. That doesn’t delete the unflattering things, but it pushes them down the page and surrounds them by flattering things. If you’re a billionaire, you’ll find a way to get the articles edited in a way that is permitted by the Wikipedia rules.
They need to have a policy change… public figures like those calling for these edits need to be shown in the most realistic light imaginable… meaning the darkest possible.
The rich are the problem, something needs to be done about them. I’m hungry.
Edit- ugh, embarrassing misspelling left up too long.
What was the typo? “I’m horny?”
Two Tier Kier.
FYI, Two Tier Kier is a conspiracy theorist term pushed by people who say Kier is against white people and doesn’t punish non-whites for crime.
Let’s not adopt white supremacist slogans…
Better names are Queer Harmer or Kid Starver
Kid Starver doesn’t really make sense, he’s expanded free school meals, greatly raised minimum wages, increased free childcare, brought about the biggest increase in workers rights in a generation (parents tend to work), removed the two child benefit cap, etc.
Queer Harmer probably has more legitimacy to it, I suppose? The high court (not appointed by government or Starmer, btw) had a controversial ruling on gendered toilets, saying that premises are free to exclude trans women from women’s toilets if they so choose. So far the government has made no attempt to alter the law to amend that, so it can perhaps be taken as silent support of that ruling.
