It's true that government request isn't a valid reason, but administrators lock articles for much shakier reasons _all_ the time. Usually this happens when news comes out which would challenge the prevailing narrative of the article. At this point, other members come in and update the article, but those still loyal to the original viewpoint are quick to revert. Thus, the resident admin can declare an "Edit War", and now the article will go protected and will largely still pander to the original view, regardless of what new reports or data may come out. Typically, the original editors will then get in Talk-fights and exhaust any dissenting opinions by nitpicking with rules (WP:___, etc.) and the article will remain locked.
I had some examples linked, but I worry their inclusion would derail the discussion. To be clear - I love Wikipedia, I use it every day. It's abundantly clear though that it doesn't represent anything close to a neutral perspective, it represents the exact politics of the kind of person who you would imagine would become a Wikipedia editor.
That is because there isn’t such thing as a “clear neutral” perspective, and to expect someone to deliver one to you and bitch about it when they don’t is irrational. Moderation is a balance of concerns and Wikipedia has struck about the best balance I’ve seen from a large org.
Considering "neutrality" is literally one of the three policies of Wikipedia, I don't think it's very irrational for one to expect that to be delivered. Its mention seems to have struck a nerve with you though, for that I apologize, I certainly didn't come here with the intention to "bitch" about your favorite large org :)
Neutrality is an ideal that i think wikipedia strives for, but is impossible to ever reach. Hopefully it tends ever more towards it as time goes on.
Like everything, wikipedia is certainly shaped, both consiously and unconciously by the people who write it.
Anyways, i think whether or not it is "neutral" is kind of the wrong question, because nothing really is in the absolute. The interesting question is how is it relative to other information sources. Ancedotally i think its pretty good, but this is a terrible question to answer ancedotally as that might just mean i agree with its biases or i just look at the right parts of wikipedia (wikipedia's quality is hardly uniform across all topics)
Chinese Wikipedia used to be like that until a WMF intervention happened -- over off-site canvassing and doxxing. Now important decisions like admin elections go in a special secret ballot system.
Not sure what's happening with the more usual discussions. Too tired to keep up with whatever's happening there.
I think what they’re suggesting is using Turk to perform an edit war causing the article to be locked.
I assume with the goal of the article being locked to before information you want to suppress got added, but that seems difficult to control. Unless you also identify and subvert moderators.
If there is a time-sensitivity component to the information (such as an election the next day or so) the slowdown from the talk page is likely sufficient, especially if you can move some of the mess over there.
Details are wrong, but the general point is: given design decisions in Wikipedia having article take specific form is a matter of making correct person/people make it so, meaning it is something one can buy (with some extra steps of buying access to those people yada yada, nowhere near limits of state actors powers).
... and? I'm really not sure what your point is. Bribing more than one person/group and dealing with probabilities is a normal state of affairs, what about it?
Bribing something like 500 people can get expensive, but more importantly its hard for 500 people to keep a secret. I don't think its a practical strategy or at least not an easy one.
Admittedly even with 5-10 accounts per employee that isn't general-purpose-small-PR-agency stuff, but on a state levels it's nothing. For reference, quick google says slightly over 1 million people in USA hold top security clearance.
Bribing 500 people is easy when you can choose your targets. Bribing a large specific group of diverse people with full secrecy, is a different story.
The moment someone leaks the jig is up, and at least some of the bribed group would probably be very ideologically opposed which makes them difficult to bribe.
This is true across the board. Our government seems unwilling to prosecute corruption cases that there is a risk of losing. It's no wonder corruption is flourishing and rule of law seems like a distant dream.
You have to be willing to be blocked every now and then if you want to win the larger anti-censorship game.