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.
“sockpuppet investigations” page instead so you can look into it further by yourself
I don’t see how that is related. I am by no means a wikipedia expert but reading that article and some of the linked investigations it all seems mundane to me.
tbh this response seems kinda shitty to me. You originally said “[Wikipedia] has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.”. 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.
I interpret your response now as ‘there is info but it is private and part of ongoing investigations’.
If it was a larger issue there should be evidence. After all doxxing is precisely about making something publically available.
My interpretation now is that this is a small thing which either happened in the past or is unknown?
Can you please be specific about what you are referring to? And even without giving evidence, at least clarify what you aledge wikipedia or admins or anyone else did here?
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.
Any details on this?
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.
No idea what that means
I don’t see how that is related. I am by no means a wikipedia expert but reading that article and some of the linked investigations it all seems mundane to me.
tbh this response seems kinda shitty to me. You originally said “[Wikipedia] has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.”. 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.
I interpret your response now as ‘there is info but it is private and part of ongoing investigations’.
If it was a larger issue there should be evidence. After all doxxing is precisely about making something publically available.
My interpretation now is that this is a small thing which either happened in the past or is unknown?
Can you please be specific about what you are referring to? And even without giving evidence, at least clarify what you aledge wikipedia or admins or anyone else did here?
deleted by creator
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.
A few months ago the Italian data protection authority ruled that Wikipedia isn’t exempt from the privacy regulation in some way.