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.
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?
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.
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.
>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.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/sand...
This article should be entered in an Obfuscated Programming contest.
Why submit an article about a nasty break-up to HN?
You know what I find "insufferable"? That more and more people seem incapable of reading or writing beyond dot points.