This story makes me wondering whether Wikipedia has any means to defend against possible malicious foreign campaigns carries out by non-democratic countries (Russia/China) to discredit western personalities, society and institutions.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05...
^ Wikipedia gets uncharacteristically offended when you ask questions about this particular "person".
Whomever they want to defend themselves against, it's not him.
> "Wikimedia Foundation Inc, the US-based non-profit charitable NGO, is the owner of the Croatian version of Wikipedia." [1]
> "However, the Wikimedia Foundation is not the founder of the Croatian version, nor does it accept that it is responsible for the accuracy of its articles. It insists that it does not have any power over Croatian-language Wikipedia entries." [1]
Other reads are provided for reference [2][3][4].
[1] Wikipedia Not Responding to Inquiries on Croatian Entries: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/04/23/wikipedia-not-replying-...
[2] Croatian Wikipedia Removes ‘Polish Genocide of Germans’ Claim: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/29/croatian-wikipedia-remo...
[3] How Croatian Wikipedia Made a Concentration Camp Disappear: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-...
[4] Croatia Wikipedia Alters Jasenovac Camp Entry Again: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/08/29/croatia-wikipedia-furth...
Establishment media are not super keen on giving anti establishment figures an unimpeded platform to promulgate their views for obvious reasons.
It would be easier for the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, etc. to ignore/misrepresent/attack George Galloway if he didn't also use competing media they had no control over.
It's very obvious that they do react to this media, too. If something gets big in social media because it's in RT then domestic media feel compelled to respond. This has happened with Galloway.
The same works in the reverse as well (Ai Weiwei, Navalny, etc). RT would like nothing more than to have us shut up about him but the Western media does insist on interviewing the traitor.
Obviously it comes with a risk and it will open you up to the usual cries of traitor, etc. from the serially ultranationalist who believe ardently that the freedom of their own press should be sufficient for traitors with traitorous views to get their hearing.
However, the alternative is, more realistically, being shut out of public discourse almost entirely as they try ardently to pretend you don't exist (hence why Putin famously never uses navalnys name).