06·
2 days agoSure, except I would say that it’s a stochastic result of your brigading attempt.
- 10 Posts
- 20 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
Cake day: July 7th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
With all due respect, your pathetic brigading attempt has now resulted in a childish implicit death threat which was sent to my inbox. The mods here would likely not take it kindly after seeing the screenshot.
02·2 days agoUpdate: They’ve already “sold out” the editors.
https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2024/12/21/does-wikipedia-protect-your-privacy/
Anyone can take a look at what the Wikipedia editors themselves are saying about the matter.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:2024_open_letter_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI_vs._WMF_Delhi_court
The admins from India have only been accused of defamation. Now that the court has their identities, the actual statements will be examined to see if they do actually contain defamation. So anyone can go on a fishing expedition to get someone’s identity, and then say ‘oops, no laws were broken after all’, and now that we know who you are, it would be a shame if someone fell out of a window or something. And of course whatever is in the “sealed” document is now out, India is one of the biggest places for bribery there is. They are also saying the documents will be unsealed at the end of the court case, so it might be cheaper to just wait until they are published.
-
Wikipedia unfortunately has a policy of blocking so-called open proxies.
Fixed, thanks.
Warning: This thread has been brigaded.
For anyone who’s been brought on to here, especially mods, I’ll leave these links to some mainstream-ish news sources which explain why Wikipedia is not infalliable after all.
-
https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wikipedia-native-american-history-settler-colonialism.html
-
https://forward.com/opinion/550600/wikipedia-holocaust-disinformation/
-
https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wikipedia-road-highway-editors-wiki-railfans-roadgeeks.html
In 2014, there was an incident in the Netherlands where in 2014, two Wikipedia administrators went to a woman’s home to harass her.
-
Editing it and trying to get past some determined gatekeepers and powertrippers though, is a different story altogether…
You should take a look at what the Wikipedia editors themselves are saying about the matter.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:2024_open_letter_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI_vs._WMF_Delhi_court
This is like the Fram drama all over again; with many mulling editorial boycott or even quit the website altogether.
-
Theoretically Wikipedia could be held accountable under GDPR already since unbeknownst to many, the website has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.
If the foundation decides to share the details of the involved editors, a large group of contributors could quit their accounts and ask for removal of their contributions.
As seen here and below, the judge reportedly mentioned the word “addresses”. Others have said that in this case it could only mean email addresses, home addresses, or IP addresses. The shit has hit the fan.
Actually, the judge opened the sealed cover, perused the contents thoroughly, then asked WMF counsel “How can these addresses be verified?” to which the reply was “These are all we have, and the website does not conduct verification of its users”. The ANI counsel assisted his opponent by saying that service on the editors (D2-D4) is complete, they have not appeared, so can we please move on to my defamation takedowns. The judge then resealed the covers. So it can be safely inferred that WMF did not give ANI anything, and ANI never wanted the D2-D4 details at all, it was only a procedural formality so ANI can take on the “Wikimedia method/model” directly which is troubling all their SPAs/IPs. On a procedural note, once the case is complete and judgment given, the sealed covers are opened and anyone can inspect its contents. So nothing to fret over. Storm in a teacup.
deleted by creator
Citations needed.
That edit was intended for people who downvoted the comment for unknown reasons.
And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
It’s likely that the editors and principles have been betrayed by this point and thus Encycla and ibis.wiki should be the places we can flock to.
Edit: What’s going on with the downvotes? What is despicable or freakish about discussing Wikipedia through a critical lens?
X, for example, is discussed through a critical lens ad nauseum in many mainstream publications throughout the English-speaking world. Do you find that despicable, too?
Wikipedia has very big problems that profoundly effect public discourse. Yet almost nobody knows about them.
Out of curiosity, why is criticism of Wikipedia so infuriating to you? You can just take a look at what Tracing Woodgrains had written about Wikipedia or rather, the following by Aaron Swartz who’ve seen the problems far away.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/wikiroads
I’ll be blunt here for die-hard defenders of Wikipedia; are you going to die on a wrong hill where the Andrew Tate fanboys are currently on just because of a website and institution which is far from perfect just like X, Meta, and United Nations?
And why make an entire account to post only negative posts about Wikipedia, and then barely use it?
This is a silly premise. Single-purpose shared accounts are good for security purposes, particularly if you want to expose a problematic organization whose members will stop at nothing to harass, stalk and even doxx you. You might as well argue that the accusers of Andrew Tate should be deanonymized.
It’s still insane. Things containing sensitive information like that should normally be restricted to users who had certain needs or ranks to do so. After all there’s little to no vetting process and anyone can post libellous information against other editors, whether on as a LTA page or as a user subpage, the latter which is more prevalent than the former.
I would ask you to suspend your judgement and belief and ponder for a moment that no institutions are perfect and whether you might be making the same mistakes as defenders of Theranos or Scientology did, before the respective scandals are exposed.
Here is the so-called Anvil email, which was an abusive message sent to an alleged rule offender by a Wikipedia admin. There they specifically mentioned that the alleged offender is Jewish and then the former insulted the latter further based on that.
https://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php/Chapters
As for the sexual harassment scandals, there’s one thing to corroborate on the veracity.
Wikipedia gets a million people saying its bullshit every week. I doubt theyll personally track you.
Unfortunately, they can, and they will.
Here’s an example on how they dox people they branded as “vandals”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34
Note how the sensitive details are publicly shown in a brazen manner. In fact, that’s not all yet; there are at least one instance of politically motivated hitjob which exploited exactly that kind of process.
Such a stuff won’t be normally allowed elsewhere at all because of the risks of violating relevant data protection laws. However, you’re only looking at the tip of the iceberg since there are credible allegations of admins involving in sexual harassment scandals along with doxxing and stalkings attempts against a federal employee.
https://rdrama.net/post/215764/there-are-two-dozen-sexual-harassment
Single-purpose shared accounts are good for security purposes, particularly if you want to expose a problematic organization whose members will stop at nothing to harass, stalk and even doxx you.
By your logic and on the other hand, your presumably “pro-Wikipedia” contigent are behaving not much different than the defenders of Theranos and perhaps Andrew Tate’s fanboys either.