There has been many individual complaints to us about the culture of Wikipedia editors. There is a strong contingent of alt.right editors who haze pro Black contributions. These people appear to be well funded as they have endless time to revert edits and make snide comments at all times of day and night.
One contributor informed us that she had made over 50 edits/contributions and every single one was reverted without clear explanation. Sometimes the only comment was ‘controversial’ which is the just the same as ‘I don’t agree’ despite the fact that she listed many serious references. On the other hand the far right view was assumed to be ‘uncontroversial’!
Even Black authors as heavily funded and protected as any New York Times author, can be subject to the following edits:
‘Hannah-Jones’ claim that ‘one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery’ is a baseless assertion that has been ‘vigorously disputed’ by Northwestern University history professor Leslie M. Harris, …./
Since the author won a Pulitzer Prize and awards from the Society of American Historians, an edit that her claims were ‘baseless’ was monstrous. That particular edit has been since amended. But most people do not have the might of New York Times behind them. There have been many ridiculous neo-colonial entries that have been hard for decent scholarship to get past the hazers to correct.
We know the alt.right are well funded and they can exploit the wikipedia model. Some sort of oversight on matters that affect Black Lives Matter is required.