Look at how cute you’re trying to deflect and gaslight away from the fact that you’re not reacting well to the hard truth that Wikipedia is not a “magical platform” after all, especially by committing so-called “psychological projection”.

One of the main point of the comparison is the parallel between churches in the 50’s and Wikipedia of today; you would’ve been summarily dismissed as an “atheistic commie bent on destroying the country” if you lift a finger against churches in the era, especially at the height of McCarthyism. The same is happening to critics of Wikipedia today, with people like you dismissing them as “far-right obscurantists bent on destroying knowledge”, which is the essence of strawman fallacy.

You clearly displayed your naivete right there when you summarily dismiss accounts which are solely used to expose any scandals in any companies or organizations as “narrow minded”; are you ten? Perhaps you should go sit at the kids table and cry a river there.

You would’ve said the same thing against victims of priest sexual abuses if you were a regular citizen in the 50’s or so.

You would’ve said the same about Apple and so on if this was the late 2000s.

By the way, there should be a second Internet Archive because currently the original one is getting under siege from copyright lawsuits, and unlike the WMF they’re running on budget money. In contrast to Wikipedia, I found the people there are kind and nice.

What are people supposed to think?

Stop thinking about Wikipedia as a “magical platform” and start thinking it as just another institution which are prone to human errors. It’s because of Google that Wikipedia has become a suffocating monopoly which escaped consequences every time somebody wants to vibe check it, until now.

You said no nuance? Now this is indeed no nuance as the so-called magical platform has hidden ableist biases against topics related to neurodivergent people as well.

That’s right. The other day I had shared a PDF document on this sub that is a court document, regarding serial harassment and stalking incidents done by some toxic editors against an academic on Hebrew Wikipedia. Unfortunately I had removed it with the help of a mod because the document, which is publicly hosted on Wikimedia Foundation’s governance website, contains unredacted personal information.

Has that been the reason you hate Wikipedia this whole time, they’re too honest about genocide?

With all due respect, the pro-Palestinian side has been griping about Wikipedia as well. You’re clearly trying to pigeonhole people so that you can dismiss all the concerns that the so-called “magical platform” has a ton of issues after all.

Perfect sometimes is the enemy of good. At least the issues on Wikipedia are finally being taken seriously after years of neglect.

Gee, why would conservative billionaires be against free and available information to the masses?

This is a false dichotomy pigeonholing fallacy. Many critics do support Wikipedia as a concept, however they are pissed off by how toxic editors have captured the levers of power on Wikipedia and corrupted it. It’s probably better for the knowledge market to consist of multiple platform instead of a single, suffocating monopoly, and there are already real efforts in addressing it, such as ibis.wiki.

Cory Doctorow’s thesis on enshittification fits right in this case.

The Detroit News has syndicated the content in case you can’t get past the paywall. Have a nice day.

I interpret this as a systemic issue (procedure, they) which happens regularly or always (procedure, anyone). It makes me imagine a wiki page “Vandalism cases on wikipedia” containing a table of cases with date, article, edit, and IP/account, existing for months or years frequented by wikipedia mods and admins.

That’s right! That’s exactly the format they used in these procedures, which sometimes branch over onto “sockpuppet investigations” casepages. The other day I approached an Europe-based digital rights lawyers group and they agreed with the assessment that these pages do indeed constitute violations of General Data Protection Regulation. The only problem is that they have to find a victim who’s willing to be a complainant in order to initiate a formal complaint.

A few months ago the Italian data protection authority ruled that Wikipedia isn’t exempt from the privacy regulation in some way.

deleted by creator

There are, but because of the brigading, to avoid stuffing the beans, I’d put this link to their “sockpuppet investigations” page instead so you can look into it further by yourself.

Ultimately, Eric Barbour of Metasonix has collected a trove of Wikipedia’s affairs and scandals over the years which is only accessible through hard drive formats to journalists if asked. There’s even a book which has yet to be published and which could be the Hollywood Babylon of Wikipedia.

deleted by creator

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.

Sure, except I would say that it’s a stochastic result of your brigading attempt.

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.

Update: 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:Community_response_to_Asian_News_International_vs._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.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOOPENPROXIES

Fixed, thanks.

Warning: This thread has been brigaded.

• https://old.lemmy.world/post/23537807

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

• https://www.iranintl.com/en/202401124365

• https://theconversation.com/wikipedias-volunteer-editors-are-fleeing-online-abuse-heres-what-that-could-mean-for-the-internet-and-you-218517

In 2014, there was an incident in the Netherlands where two Wikipedia administrators went to a woman’s home to harass her.

• https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5417