wikipediasuckscoop

joined 4 months ago
 

NYC-based singer-songwriter Dana Parish made explosive allegations on X that a fired government scientist is stalking and harassing her and had bribed some Wikipedia editors to remove an article about her.

One day I’ll share the story of how a fired Gov scientist was stalking me & had my / my husband’s longstanding wiki pages vandalized & then removed by paying @Wikipedia editors off (have receipts). Police, FBI tried to help but corrupt Wiki is an extension of Gov & stonewalled.

[–] wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Yea. She's that gamergate girl.

[–] wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

And why make an entire account to post only negative posts about Wikipedia, and then barely use it?

This is a silly premise. 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. You might as well argue that the accusers of Andrew Tate should be deanonymized.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5417

https://reddit.com/r/wikipediacriticism/wiki/scandals

[–] wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 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

[–] wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Yup. Unfortunately it's far from an isolated incident. The surface is barely being scratched. This page back on Reddit has more Wikipedia scandals which you should know about.

[–] wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Wow, that's miraculous!