• mecfs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

    • wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Wikipedia gets a million people saying its bullshit every week. I doubt theyll personally track you.

      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

      • mecfs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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