- 28 Posts
- 29 Comments
:format(webp)/nginx/o/2026/01/08/17378490t1h5878.jpg)
11·3 months agoNo, it was an “anti-contact MAP” who did it. We at here categorically condemn violence and hope that those who’re unhappy with Wikipedia can go to the likes of Grokipedia and HandWiki instead.
Roblox has a lot of problems in child safety aspects, such as the profileration of so-called condo games and inaction against child predators on the platform. YouTuber Schlep and others tried to raise the issues to Roblox but to no avail, and they had an easier time in collaborating with law enforcement to get chomos on the game platforms arrested instead.
Early this month Roblox, instead of using the banhammer against chomos, turned it against Schlep instead accusing the latter of “vigilantism” despite categorical refutations that Schlep had done everything by the books. It became the final straw as numerous influencers like KreekCraft expressed solidarities for Schlep and began to boycott Roblox.
The controversy got so big that Congressperson Ro Khanna launched a petition urging Roblox to fix its child safety issues and some U.S. states began to sue Roblox.
246·10 months agoCory Doctorow has a word for the phenomenon: enshittification.
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.
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
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.
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 two Wikipedia administrators went to a woman’s home to harass her.
-
deleted by creator
This is one of the proofs. It’s completely understandable in human psychology when people initially goes into denial after being confronted with something shocking like that, as seen in the reactions by many people to the recent partial disclosure of the Epstein Files.