Don’t have the energy to do the due diligence here and I won’t just trust the headline because I have never heard of this source before. But I will note OP’s account seems to be a single issue account with a grudge against wikipedia.
You don’t have the energy to check their claims but you do have the energy to claim that they are bad actors. Interesting. Gerard himself did something similar.
In case anyone is interested the OP was the one who did an earlier expose on the FAA’s DEI shenanigans.
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.
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 stalking attempts against a federal employee.
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.
Don’t have the energy to do the due diligence here and I won’t just trust the headline because I have never heard of this source before. But I will note OP’s account seems to be a single issue account with a grudge against wikipedia.
Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the person that wrote the post
Yeah I only see one person trying to launder their grudges publicly here, and it’s not David Gerard…
You don’t have the energy to check their claims but you do have the energy to claim that they are bad actors. Interesting. Gerard himself did something similar.
In case anyone is interested the OP was the one who did an earlier expose on the FAA’s DEI shenanigans.
You must have misread my message. I never said that the claims were true or false, just that I’m sceptikal.
“OP’s account seems to be a single issue account with a grudge against wikipedia”
If you check OP’s account, you’ll see I’m right.
However that statement doesn’t say if OP is right or wrong.
Oh wait, you’re right I was misunderstanding. I meant the OP as in tracingwoodgrains but you mean the lemmy OP.
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.
Wikipedia gets a million people saying its bullshit every week. I doubt theyll personally track you. But as I privacy nerd I understand your concerns
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 stalking attempts against a federal employee.
https://rdrama.net/post/215764/there-are-two-dozen-sexual-harassment
This is completely different. Wikipedia tracks users and IP’s who don’t follow their rules, as a website that anyone can edit, they need too.
That doesn’t mean they’ll track people outside of wikipedia on social media.
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://archive.ph/rkFao
https://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php/Chapters
As for the sexual harassment scandals, there’s one thing to corroborate on the veracity.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5417