←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 4 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Wikipedianon ◴[04 Sep 25 17:49 UTC] No.45130075[source]▶
The article criticizes doxxing but well-known Wikipedia editors doxx each other all the time... There's a site called Wikipediocracy that's been around for 20 years and an Arbitrator (Wiki's Supreme Court) was suspended for leaking secret deliberations to the "private" section of the forum—just make an account and you can see it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

According to that Arbitrator, Wikimedia gave a legal opinion that he violated the law in doing so:

"Well, I got a result today: the ombuds commisssion found that I did indeed violate the access to nonpublic data policy, and has issued a final warning to me. Apparently mailing list comments are, "under a contemporary understanding of privacy law and the policies in question," nonpublic data on the same level as CU data or supressed libel."

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=350266#p350...

Wasn't the first time he did it either... Officially, community guidelines only apply on the site itself. Once you get into the Discords or forums, doxxing is common and tolerated. Admins and arbitrators are happy to participate on those forums under their Wikipedia usernames because they feel like they need doxx to take action against those trying to harm Wikipedia. And because it (usually) isn't them doing the doxxing, it's ok. There's even an "alt-right identification thread" where established editors can request doxxing from people who don't link their accounts onwiki.

Generally this targets newer editors who aren't in a clique yet. e.g. The person who made "Wikipedia and Antisemitism" got doxxed. Once you get to a certain level, you are expected to participate in these "offwiki" forums to get anything done.

Some people try to complain about it but it doesn't end well. Generally you don't want to fuck with them because by the time you find out about Wikipediocracy, you've already revealed too much and are doxxable. & unlike nation-state actors they have inside information and understand the site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...

If you do choose to edit Wikipedia, use a burner email and only edit during the same one or two hours of the day so they can't track timezones. & don't post any photos or information on where you live nor attend meetups.

There are some good people but once you get deeply involved it is a toxic community. Sorry for the rant but it pisses me off whenever people talk about how great the Wikipedia community is as someone who's into the internal shit. it's the worst place to get involved in "free culture".

replies(2): >>45130575 #>>45137273 #
howenterprisey ◴[04 Sep 25 18:29 UTC] No.45130575[source]▶
Hi. I was an arbitrator who voted to suspend that arbitrator. There was no doxxing involved, which anyone can verify. Barely anything else in your comment is correct either. Doxxing is an issue but from where I sit it's much worse from people outside Wikipedia.
replies(3): >>45130686 #>>45130795 #>>45131313 #
1. Wikipedianon ◴[04 Sep 25 18:46 UTC] No.45130795[source]▶
Beeblebrox leaked internal mailing list messages to a forum known for doxxing in violation of the NDA they signed.

i know that Beeblebrox did not doxx anyone and I said that in my comment. my point is leaking information to a doxxing forum sends the wrong message and is dangerous.

Maybe you should create an account and look at the "Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing" forum and get back to me. Or do something about it before the Trump administration uses this as an excuse to censor enwiki. Either way here are some excerpts if you don't want to.

From the first page, here's an active editor (iii, known as jps or ජපස) doxxing someone about UFOs. I took out the names to be polite but it's all there:

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=14172

"Is [username 1] (T-C-L) an alt account of [username 2] (T-C-L)?

For those who are not aware, [username2] is the name of an account used by one [redacted] on various platforms up until about 2024 when he more or less abandoned them. That account also was involved in the ongoing game of accusing [redacted] (T-H-L) of being [redacted] (T-C-L) which is about as fairly ludicrous an attempt at matching a Wikipedia username as I've ever seen.

Anyway, I feel like maybe he thought "If [__] can do it, so can I." And maybe that's the origin of the VPP.

Oh, this is about UFOs. Yeah, I'm in the shit. Maybe someone can link to some other stuff for you to read, but I just want to drop this here because I have nowhere else I get to speculate on these matters and everyone loves a good conspiracy theory data dump from time to time "

Here's the thread "Who is Wikipedia editor i.am.qwerty"

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=13821

"I.am.a.qwerty (T-C-L) gathered up a bunch of those articles and some earlier material to create Wikipedia and antisemitism..."

It goes on:

"But who is I.am.a.qwerty? Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I.a.am.a.qwerty is a PhD student named [real name]. Specifically, this [real name]:"

    "[real name] is a PhD candidate [major] at [university name]. He received his BA (Hons) in [major] from [university]. Previously [real name] received his rabbinical ordination from the [other school] in [location] in [year]. [real name] is also the [job title] at [organization]."
I can't imagine any other community tolerating its members going on KiwiFarms and encouraging doxxing of other community members, so long as they didn't technically engage in it. But Wikipedia does.
replies(1): >>45132808 #
2. justiciar9 ◴[04 Sep 25 22:10 UTC] No.45132808[source]▶
That’s hardly doxxing. Asking if two publicly visible usernames might be related is hardly alarming.
replies(2): >>45133007 #>>45138944 #
3. Wikipedianon ◴[04 Sep 25 22:36 UTC] No.45133007[source]▶
What about the part where they revealed the full name of the person allegedly behind the two usernames?
4. zahlman ◴[05 Sep 25 14:20 UTC] No.45138944[source]▶
To be absolutely, 100% clear: your position is that someone who writes on the Internet, a statement of the form:

> Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that [username] is a PhD student named [real name]. Specifically, this [real name]:"

> "[real name] is a PhD candidate [major] at [university name]. He received his BA (Hons) in [major] from [university]. Previously [real name] received his rabbinical ordination from the [other school] in [location] in [year]. [real name] is also the [job title] at [organization]."

is not "doxxing"?

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I find that patently absurd.