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.
Semantic drifts can occur over time whether we like it or not; that word has now been used to refer to platform decay in a colloquial sense. To insist that a word must be tied to a particular definition or meaning when such a drift has de facto occured in a broader and significant degree is the textbook definition of etymological fallacy.
A lot of people have asked in the support forums to tone down or moderate their policy to only clearing the contents of inactive email accounts instead of accounts themselves, because access to email accounts are seen more like an utility these days with so many online services using emails for multi-factor authentication and verification.
There are a lot of factors which will cause people to be involuntarily absent from their accounts, such as medical incapacity, prison (whether rightfully or not, since there are many wrongful conviction cases worldwide), internet blackouts, and within the context of East Asia, being trapped in scam compounds for an extended time.
I support only the deletion of inactive accounts if they were abandoned immediately after creation and whose main motive is to squat usernames.
Enshittification in high gear mode. The other day they’ve been exposed for backpedalling on their promises to spare inactive accounts that were created before 2024 until next year from the inactive accounts deletion policy.
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.
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: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.
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.