this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
326 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

81026 readers
7519 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In September last year, Peter Mandelson was fighting to keep his job as British Ambassador to the US after the first raft of revelations about the extent of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Within hours of the details emerging, an anonymous Wikipedia editor had made changes to Mandelson’s page that distanced him from Epstein and cast him in a sympathetic light. That editor has since been blocked for making undisclosed paid changes.

New details about the relationship between the two – including that Mandelson recommended a villa where Epstein could host his “guests” – have sparked a national scandal in recent weeks and led to pressure on Keir Starmer to step down as prime minister.

But over the course of two days in September, while Mandelson was still in his government job, the mysterious account made a series of edits that either reflected more favourably on him or pushed details of the Epstein scandal under unrelated information.

And when Mandelson was eventually sacked on 11 September, it moved within hours to remove the reason given by the Foreign Office for his dismissal: that Mandelson had told Epstein his 2008 conviction for sex offences was wrong and encouraged him to clear his name.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hector@lemmy.today 17 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Paid editors are a scourge on wikipedia. Everyone with an axe to grind hires them. From revisionists trying to rehabilitate feudalism, or any of history's great monsters it appears, to any monied interests. Whether it's a polluting industry, and or a company exploiting workers in SE Asia in virtual slave labour, or a government official somewhere, there are dudes on wikipedia that are paid to do these things.

Wikipedia is only a good source on non controversial topics, at least unless you look at the actual sources submitted and can cut through the agendas, something most people can't seem to do well honestly.

[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 4 points 4 hours ago

at least unless you look at the actual sources submitted

You can't check the source for information that's entirely been omitted. In any case, never assume Wikipedia provides the full story, or even a condensed and accurate one. What has been mentioned might be correct, but the devil is in what's been left out.

[–] MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip 31 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I guess it's fixed now... there are 61 mentions of Epstein on his page lol.

[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 8 hours ago

Good ol' Streisand, coming to save us from people's bullshit coverups.

[–] justsomeguy@lemmy.world 35 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I wonder what that person's answer was when as a kid they got asked what they want to be when they grow up. Fireman? Astronaut? Pedophile PR? Well congratulations.

[–] giantripdrop@piefed.social 5 points 6 hours ago

Coincidentally, when I was poking around https://jmail.world/ after the first tranche released, there was correspondence with the exact person talking about editing Wiki and Google seo for Epstein himself.

https://www.theverge.com/report/876081/jeffrey-epstein-files-seo-google-digital-footprint-emails

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I have wondered the same about scammers. Like, if their mother knew they were going to do that with their life, she'd probably regret all of that wasted effort raising them.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Or their mothers just did a terrible job of raising them. Look at J.D. Vance and his street urchin mother.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 hours ago

I haven’t heard. What’s the deal with Vance’s mom?

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 12 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Wait, so this editor made paid edits without disclosure and was not banned on the spot? And then it came back to add more edits? At least its banned now, right?

[–] stankmut@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't say when they told Wikipedia about the paid editing, but once Wikipedia investigated it they banned them and denied the appeal. The account never came back to make more edits after they were discovered.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 7 hours ago

That editor has since been blocked for making undisclosed paid changes.

Ok, I misunderstood this part. I tough it means they can't do more undisclosed paid edits.

[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Wonder what other pages they "edited"

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 8 hours ago

Hope all its edits get audited

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

It's a good thing that lots of people have full backups of wikipedia.
I saved a copy for myself at the start of 2025. It took about 23GB of space if I'm remembering right. Maybe I'll burn a blu-ray copy for long term storage