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

deleted by creator

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:Community_response_to_Asian_News_International_vs._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.

https://www.reddit.com/r/justwikipediathings/wiki/index

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?