Question for #Wikipedia nerds: I've found an article on Wikipedia about a techbro that very much reads like it's written by the dude himself to advertise him personally - I've already removed the in-body external link to his company, but the rest of the article still reads like a puff piece and conveniently omits any negative press coverage.
Where/how do I report this as something that needs to be looked at? I do not currently have the spoons to fix it myself.
@jacksonchen666 That's the thing, I don't actually know how to do that, I rarely edit Wikipedia
@joepie91 i'm not exactly sure either. wikipedia has mentors (on the wikipedia ""homepage"" (for logged in users) at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Homepage&source=userpagetab&namespace=2 (for english)), maybe you could let them know?
(i had a mentor handle a suspicious edit i noticed, not sure if that'll be the same for all)
if that doesn't help then... i have nothing
@joepie91 I think you're supposed to add a thing on the talk page explaining the issue, but if the page is astroturfed enough random nerds might not be enough
The Rheinmetall page until a few months ago was a total PR piece and was gonna give it as an example of an astroturfed page cause it skipped straight from 1933 to 1999, but seems like it's been revamped and now talks at least a bit about the Nazi era atrocities
@Gaelan Thanks. Looking at those pages, I get a pretty strong impression of "don't tag things unless you're willing to commit to following up", unfortunately, which I can't do (because spoons), so I guess I won't be reporting the issue...
For what it's worth, the article in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukas_Biewald which seems to be autobiographical, going off about his company (which the article is not actually supposed to be about), *and* leaves out stuff like his being featured (negatively) in the Ghost Workers documentary about labour exploitation.
@Gaelan (Tangential follow-up on this: https://social.pixie.town/@joepie91/112773573932929589)
@joepie91 @Gaelan I would ignore that
If you can fix the issue yourself, you don't need to add the banner anyway
if you can't fix it but can diagnose the issue, you need some way to signal it to other editors. That's were the banners are for.
I sometimes see banners that have been there since 2007, strong Mozilla bugtracker energy
@joepie91
Add that in the front. Something like "This appears to be an autobiography and lacks balance"
@joepie91 I added a tag. Hope someone can come along and help out.
@joepie91 i think one thing is putting a conflict of interest/written by who the article is about notice on the article