Wikipedia bureaucracy is unlike other bureaucracies because there's accountability and it is decentralized. On Wikipedia, the possibly Israeli intelligence operative known as "Icewhiz" spent years cultivating an account…
> The more organized and professional they are about shilling, the better they do. This is incorrect. Shills do well when they contribute outside of the topic area, memorize wiki-law, and only coordinate to !vote in…
From a brief skim, the list includes pretty much all active Arbitration Enforcement (AE) admins. For those not in the loop, AE is the main mechanism to enforce civility and neutrality in contentious areas (obvious stuff…
It's not a good idea for common languages like German or English or French. But it is a great idea for indigenous languages that aren't in the training data but many people speak, which was the original purpose. I am…
Most articles on notable AND interesting subjects have already been written and are of a high quality. "notability" means there are peer-reviewed/editorially controlled articles on the topic. So, if I wanted to write an…
> What's the relevance? Wikipedia contributors aren't employed by Wikipedia. Their work is volunteered, and nobody asks them to do it. Yet, there's tons of people that love having control over articles and what people…
Some English Wikipedia (enwiki) editors are striking. They are predominantly non-technical that are forced to maintain their own shadow IT-style infrastructure that Wikimedia (nonprofit owners of Wikipedia) doesn't…
There shouldn't be any interface admins as such. There should be an enforced review process for changes to global JavaScript so stuff like this can't happen. I'm sure there are Google engineers who can push changes to…
This is half true, because Wikipedia admins had the ability to edit sitewide JavaScript until 2018. A certain number of "community" admins maintain that right to this day after it was realized this was a massive…
The sitewide JavaScript/CSS is an editable Wiki page. You can also upload scripts to be shared and executed by other users.
It's a political issue. Editors are unwilling or unable to contribute to development of the features they need to edit. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is run on insecure user scripts created by volunteers that tend to be…
"No one doxxing others in that particular clique is going to do it from anything other than a burner account." This is incorrect. many do it with accounts linked to their real onwiki profiles. jps is an example and I…
What about the part where they revealed the full name of the person allegedly behind the two usernames?
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…
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…
Wikipedia bureaucracy is unlike other bureaucracies because there's accountability and it is decentralized. On Wikipedia, the possibly Israeli intelligence operative known as "Icewhiz" spent years cultivating an account…
> The more organized and professional they are about shilling, the better they do. This is incorrect. Shills do well when they contribute outside of the topic area, memorize wiki-law, and only coordinate to !vote in…
From a brief skim, the list includes pretty much all active Arbitration Enforcement (AE) admins. For those not in the loop, AE is the main mechanism to enforce civility and neutrality in contentious areas (obvious stuff…
It's not a good idea for common languages like German or English or French. But it is a great idea for indigenous languages that aren't in the training data but many people speak, which was the original purpose. I am…
Most articles on notable AND interesting subjects have already been written and are of a high quality. "notability" means there are peer-reviewed/editorially controlled articles on the topic. So, if I wanted to write an…
> What's the relevance? Wikipedia contributors aren't employed by Wikipedia. Their work is volunteered, and nobody asks them to do it. Yet, there's tons of people that love having control over articles and what people…
Some English Wikipedia (enwiki) editors are striking. They are predominantly non-technical that are forced to maintain their own shadow IT-style infrastructure that Wikimedia (nonprofit owners of Wikipedia) doesn't…
There shouldn't be any interface admins as such. There should be an enforced review process for changes to global JavaScript so stuff like this can't happen. I'm sure there are Google engineers who can push changes to…
This is half true, because Wikipedia admins had the ability to edit sitewide JavaScript until 2018. A certain number of "community" admins maintain that right to this day after it was realized this was a massive…
The sitewide JavaScript/CSS is an editable Wiki page. You can also upload scripts to be shared and executed by other users.
It's a political issue. Editors are unwilling or unable to contribute to development of the features they need to edit. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is run on insecure user scripts created by volunteers that tend to be…
"No one doxxing others in that particular clique is going to do it from anything other than a burner account." This is incorrect. many do it with accounts linked to their real onwiki profiles. jps is an example and I…
What about the part where they revealed the full name of the person allegedly behind the two usernames?
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…
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…