←back to thread

598 points leotravis10 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.022s | source
Show context
Wikipedianon ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
IAmBroom ◴[] No.45130686[source]
Also, the poster "Wikipedianon" makes Tu Quoque fallacies. The fact that some Wikipedia editors have engaged in doxxing of others doesn't make it less of a problem for the government to do so.

Unsurprisingly, "Wikipedianon" is a hit-and-run profile created just for this post, AFAICT.

replies(1): >>45130817 #
1. Wikipedianon ◴[] No.45130817[source]
it's a hit-and-run because I don't want to get doxxed.

I dont want a world in which Trump regulates Wikipedia but pretending it's sunshine and rainbows is a joke at this point.

And the person you're replying to is strawmanning. I never said Beeblebrox doxxed anyone, just that they leaked secret information on a doxxing forum in violation of Wikipolicy and possibly privacy law.

replies(1): >>45132792 #
2. justiciar9 ◴[] No.45132792[source]
Wikipediocracy is hardly a doxxing forum…