Which reply supports some of his and Musk's points. On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 1:25 PM Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Man, that essay reads like someone spent a grand total of 5 days reading > Wikipedia policies, ventured into some politically fraught articles with a > right-wing agenda, got taken to AN/I for it, and subsequently blocked or > banned. > > Dan > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:41 AM Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't know whether crossing the line "musk [...] fixing [...] >> Wikipedia" gives me more disgust or fear. >> >> Vito >> >> Il giorno lun 12 dic 2022 alle ore 05:12 reybueno1--- via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto: >> >>> This just up in /r/trueunpopularopinion and YCombinator: >>> >>> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/zieyyf/wikipedia_is_not_so_great_and_is_overrated/ >>> >>> >>> Quoted below because it was explicitly released under public domain: >>> >>> You all have heard by now that Elon Musk said that Wikipedia has a "left >>> wing bias" when the article about Twitter Files had been suggested for >>> deletion. This has been received with mixed responses from liberals and >>> conservatives alike; the former dismissing it as "an attack on free >>> knowledge" and the latter cheering the move as "against censorship" and >>> vindication of their beliefs that Big Tech is biased against them. >>> >>> True, Wikipedia is supposedly editable by anyone around the world and I >>> had been an on and off editor there for years mostly doing small-ish edits >>> like fixing typos and reverting obvious vandalism. This is done while on IP >>> as opposed to using accounts because I would rather that some edits (i.e. >>> sensitive topics like religious and political areas) not tied to my name >>> and identity. However, reality is far from the preferred sugar-coated >>> description of Wikipedia, particularly its editing community. >>> >>> The editing community in overall is best described as a slightly >>> hierarchical and militaristic "do everything right" structure, >>> traditionally associated with Dell and recently Foxconn and now-defunct >>> Theranos. Exceptions apply in quieter and outlier areas such as local >>> geography and space, usually the top entry points for new users wanting to >>> try their first hand. There are higher tolerance of good-faith mistakes >>> such as point-of-view problems and using unreliable resources, which are >>> usually explained in detail on how to correct by them rather than a mere >>> warning template or even an abrupt block. >>> >>> Ultimately those sub-communities which can be said as populated by >>> exopedians, have relatively little to no power over the wider and core >>> communities, mostly dominated by metapedians. A third group called >>> mesopedians often alternates between these inner and outer workings. >>> Communities can have shared topical interest which are grouped by >>> WikiProject, an example being WikiProject Science >>> >>> I spend a lot of time casually browsing through edit wars (can be so >>> lame at times) like a fly on the wall, along with meta venues of Wikipedia >>> such as Articles for Deletion, Centralized discussion Neutral Point of View >>> Noticeboard, Biographical of Living Persons Noticeboard, Conflict of >>> Interest Noticeboard, Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents, Sockpuppet >>> investigations, Arbitration Committee noticeboard which is the "supreme >>> court" in Wikipedia community for serious behavioral and conduct disputes. >>> Therefore I can sum up how the editing community really functions, although >>> not really as extensive as you might expect because I am not a >>> "Wikipedioholic" with respect to inner workings. >>> >>> Deletionism and inclusionism >>> This has been very perennial and core reasons for just about any >>> disputes on Wikipedia ever D Deletionists treat Wikipedia as another >>> "regular encyclopedia" where information has to be limited once it become >>> very much to be covered; like cutting out junk, while inclusionists treats >>> Wikipedia as a comprehensive encyclopedia not bound by papers and thus can >>> afford to cover as much information as it can take; one man's junk could be >>> another man's treasure. Personally I support the latter and often the >>> conflict between two editing ideologies leads to factionalism, where >>> attempts to understand mutual feelings and perspectives are inadequate or >>> even none at all. >>> >>> There are no absolute standards of what defines "encyclopedic knowledge" >>> and "notability". Inclusionism posits that almost everything could become >>> valuable and encyclopedic in the future, even if they're aren't today. An >>> example I can think of is events, figures and stories from World War II. >>> Deletionism has been closely related to "academic standard kicks" and rely >>> on the premise that Wikipedia has to be of high standard and concise. There >>> are people who deem an addition of something as useful, and there are those >>> who think it's "trivia" or "crufty" something that is nominally discouraged >>> if not prohibited by Wikipedia's documentation (see this in particular, >>> although sometimes exceptions are applied through the spirit of "Ignoring >>> all rules for sake of improvement", which are frequent at entertainment and >>> gaming topics). >>> >>> On pages, notability debates around a person subject and otherwise are >>> frequently the main point of discussion in Articles for Deletion threads, >>> where articles deemed not substantial enough (such as very few sources) are >>> suggested for deletion. Usually they will run for a week but they can be >>> quickly closed if there are too many votes in favor of "keep", "delete" and >>> so on, the AFD nomination is withdrawn by the initiator, or that the >>> nomination is found to have been done in bad faith (such as to "censor" >>> articles from public view for questionable motives like ideology, paid >>> editing or so). >>> >>> Here I believe that deletionists are seen far more harshly by >>> inclusionists, than the vice versa. The chief reason is to add something, >>> you have to navigate through the user experience unfriendly editing >>> interfaces (although somewhat improved in recent years) all the while >>> having to scroll through the internet to find sources and references to >>> add. When you found some you have to go through an extra hoop to assess >>> whether they are reliable or not, before finally transcribing the >>> information through your own words which has to stick to the neutral point >>> of view (NPOV) policy; paraphrasing that are so close are not allowed >>> because, copyright. Non-English speaking editors would often find the >>> latter very difficult. >>> >>> In contrast, as per an old adage, destroying something is easier than >>> building something, deletions are comparatively easier than addition. This >>> could be the reason why deletionism currently maintains dominance over the >>> whole site as I see it, since in order to become an established an esteemed >>> editor, one has to garner a high amount of edits which are not reverted. >>> Thus, many editors like to gain these "scores" by deleting "unuseful >>> information" from passages up to entire articles by interpreting the >>> documentations and rules strictly, the latter through processes such as >>> Articles for Deletion and if confident enough, Proposed Deletion that >>> doesn't require discussion. Simply speaking, it's a feature not a bug and >>> aren't necessarily beholden to any political ideology; a liberal is as >>> equally likely as a conservative to become a hated deletionist. >>> >>> Even though every edit changes are recorded and displayed through page >>> histories which you can see for any given articles by clicking "View >>> History" at the top, the bone of contention remains particularly when page >>> deletions results in the redaction of these histories from public view. >>> This will be explained further later. >>> >>> Some historical contexts that can be think of regarding the current >>> prominence of deletionism are the excessive amount of Pokemon pages during >>> or before 2007 which had alienated some readers and editors alike because >>> search engines back then are not quite as adequate as today in terms of >>> finding precise information. Another is that child predators like Nathan >>> Larson used to sneak in as inclusionists to warp Wikipedia to fit their >>> agenda all the time, which are indelibly horrendous to all of us here and >>> those back then. Think of the poisoning of the well and the fruits from a >>> poisonous tree. Furthermore there are also large portion of userbases from >>> tech companies like Intel and those from the academic world (maybe instead >>> of GLAMs, short for galleries, libraries, archives and museums) that gained >>> top positions such as administrators, bringing along their work culture and >>> so-called "academic standards kick" respectively. To be absolutely fair, I >>> find that there are instances where deletionism is right enough, >>> specifically the removal of copyright violation and libel materials on >>> biographical pages of any living persons. >>> >>> Regardless of whether a page is deleted or not, they remain available in >>> Wikipedia's servers and accessible to administrators or higher only. >>> >>> Eventually, what defines as "encyclopedic knowledge" are vulnerable to >>> systemic biases as well. Different from some Musk's thoughts about it, >>> users who are white, male, US/UK/CA/EU/AU/NZ, middle or old aged, and >>> English speaker tend to have the greatest advantage above the rest in the >>> editing community. With this in mind, a prominent musical artist in Zambia >>> may be treated as too small-bore enough for a page on Wikipedia by an >>> editor in Canada. Shopping malls in the US are less likely to be deleted >>> than those in Vietnam. Such a bias doesn't go one way; the hypothetical >>> artist in Zambia would be "unimportant" to someone in Peru. >>> >>> This is the top causes of animosity between editors and also why many >>> editors chose to quit or rather fell from grace. You will always hate that >>> kid who like to ruin your LEGO structure every time you have assembled the >>> blocks. >>> >>> Neutral point of view >>> Different from mere deletions and additions, this normally means that >>> how to present a given information in a way to the readers ideally so that >>> no disproportionate biases towards or against something are left in their >>> impressions. You see arguments and conflicts concerning such a lot in >>> political articles, historical articles and geography topics of areas under >>> dispute from two or more nations. Say that a political figure is engaged in >>> activities that are remotely linked to extremism. Side A would argue that >>> the figure is therefore an extremist and it should be made prominent on >>> that page and any other linked pages, but Side B wants to tone it down by >>> writing it something like "Political figure was engaged in activities which >>> were sometimes reported by some as extremist" and limit it to a mere >>> mention on a single page. Another is a nation should be said as a >>> "partially recognized state" because some UN members don't recognize it as >>> such and instead as part of a bigger country, with others expressing views >>> that simply having an effective sovereignty for its own and different from >>> another nations would be enough to be deemed as a state. >>> >>> It can come into play on cases involving "fringe theories" as well, like >>> Bigfoots, UFOs and medical treatments, although Wikipedia indeed has a >>> preference of giving prominence to mainstream views in these cases, >>> something I don't find a problem with and is quite different from regular >>> harmful biases. >>> >>> Venues for resolution in this case are Neutral Point of View >>> noticeboard, along with Request for Comment. The latter entails a process >>> where a notice is put up in a centralized noticeboard all the while a pool >>> of experienced/established editors receive notifications to comment, >>> provide insights and make suggestions on a given issue. A month is usually >>> on how these discussions are up and running unless there is a need of >>> extension because of reasons such as unbroken deadlock. >>> >>> Along with deletionism and inclusionism, this is a major cause of >>> editors "going naughty" and getting blocked/banned/kicked out, whether for >>> right or spurious reasons. >>> >>> Conduct >>> The most important part of this post in my honest opinion. I'll start >>> this section by writing about edit war. Usually when you change something >>> in Wikipedia and it was undone/reverted by somebody else, then you have >>> only two tries before you get reported to the edit-war noticeboard if >>> you're stubborn enough not to go to the article's talk page ("Talk" in the >>> top left) for discussion, either by the person undoing your edits or by a >>> third party. In the meantime you get notifications on your personal talk >>> pages ("Talk" on the top right) inviting you for such discussion and if >>> lucky enough, the Wikipedia Teahouse for further help by some kind-hearted >>> editors, increasingly a rarity these days. In some quieter or outer areas >>> where as said before are slightly lenient, you may get up to approx. five >>> chances counting your original edit before getting referred to the admins. >>> >>> The tries count are reset after 24 hours but can be retained further >>> just as a guard against "gaming the rules". Clearer cut vandalism (like >>> putting gibberish such as "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL" at any pages) usually gets >>> reported to a separate noticeboard for administrators to intervene, >>> although first time vandals regularly get warnings on their talk pages >>> beforehand. When a report is there and if found guilty of edit-warring, >>> administrators would either give ultimatums to the users in question or >>> block their accounts for a day. They could escalate to multiple days, weeks >>> and up to indefinite (practically infinite) period should the behavior >>> continues beyond that. The same goes for vandalism, although they are dealt >>> more harshly with many prompt indefinite blocks (indeffs) for >>> "vandalism-only accounts". >>> >>> Regular editors can be in danger of falling from grace too either by >>> themselves or by others. Because Wikipedia is commonly seen by so many as >>> the biggest comprehensive encyclopedia in the world, sometimes equated to >>> history itself, many vested interests, feelings and sentiments have been >>> invested on the website. >>> >>> Those who are nationalists or otherwise fanatics of any imaginable >>> notions found themselves having incentives to make Wikipedia to support >>> their narratives both as an end itself or rather just means for other ends >>> such as "proving that they're great in the long annals of great history". >>> The same applies to run off the mill "promotional editing" by corporations >>> and individuals, along with those made by their supporters or fans. On the >>> opposite many people find it extremely attractive to twist it to denigrate >>> any ideologies, corporations, people, and just about anything they >>> personally oppose. For instance, they can make an article and fill it with >>> disparaging information against them, which is called an "attack page". >>> >>> I find that there are kernels of truth in the commonly-held viewpoint >>> that "Wikipedia is a placeholder of information" and that "Wikipedia is >>> history". A MIT report described how judges' behavior are increasingly >>> influenced by Wikipedia articles, while there are initiatives by space >>> missions such as Beresheet and Peregrine to perform civilizational backups >>> of humanity with all of English Wikipedia (version as of a given date) in >>> the event of collapse. >>> >>> After having their way, to keep their changes forever in "annals of >>> history" or simply the "placeholders of information" in general, >>> gate-keeping measures are utilized. A simple example would be using >>> excessively harsh language against editors who made a change challenging a >>> given status quo. In contrast, if anybody has a reason to radically change >>> a page and make sure it stays unassailable afterwards, the same set of >>> actions are used too but arguably these would be "antigatekeeping" measures >>> instead. >>> >>> In gatekeeping/antigatekeeping one would resort to different levels of >>> intepretation regarding PAGs (policies and guidelines) and user essays, the >>> latter sometimes used as a basis of many editorial and administrative >>> actions. The documentations can often contradict each other, like how "not >>> indiscriminate" is to "not a paper encyclopedia", and on top of all, can be >>> overruled by ignoring these if anybody sees fit. Hence, whoever has the >>> "biggest fist" gets to be the most advantageous in Wikipedia community. In >>> order to have the "biggest fist", they can befriend anyone sharing >>> interests with their own and form a cabal/gang that look after their own. >>> To increase their power and when enough time had passed they can nominate >>> each other for administrator positions giving them extra privileges of >>> blocking users, deleting pages, protecting an article from editing by >>> lower-ranked users. You don't get paid for spending your efforts and time >>> on editing Wikipedia unless perhaps you've listed a Venmo link or a crypto >>> address on your user profile, and these administrative tools alone are so >>> addictive and appealing given that you are essentially in control of the >>> important bits of "writing history" if you have these, apart from usual >>> human nature. Wikipedia is among the top 10 visited websites in the world >>> after all. >>> >>> Even more, there are additional ranks above administrator positions. Two >>> of those are CheckUsers (CU) and Oversighters. CU has the power to look >>> through IP address used by an account to see if it was a sockpuppet account >>> of a person, while Oversighters have super-delete rights to hide contents >>> or pages, even beyond the reach of administrators. >>> >>> Those on the other end of the power-tripping, gate-keeping and so on >>> rarely fares well. One would find them belittled, bullied by those editors. >>> Should they attempt to properly resolve an issue through established >>> processes such as talk page discussions, dispute resolution noticeboard, >>> and up to the infamous Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents (ANI), they >>> would expect to find obstructions upon obstructions along the way. If the >>> victim decides to invite other editors to give balanced/impartial opinions >>> and suggestions on a problem they would find themselves stonewalled on the >>> grounds that these are "canvassing". It can be quite hypocritical if the >>> "bully" had their gang friends informed beforehand, which is reasonably >>> believed to often be the case. Finally, if it escalates into the ANI, this >>> is where it start to get out of hand. >>> >>> The reason why I use the term "infamous" is because ANI is the >>> mother-lode of all kinds of ugly dramas. It is frequently the first place >>> in getting an editor sanctioned or so on. The bullies (I do not use the >>> term lightly) would then put all sorts of allegations and aspersions >>> against other for any types of wrongdoing, whether real or perceived, big >>> or small, or whether the result is a real harm or just a nothing burger. >>> Regardless, if they twisted the rules (derisively referred as >>> "wikilawyering" or otherwise "gaming the system") and played the victim >>> good enough, the passing administrators would then close the discussion and >>> place administrative actions against the "real" victim. Common egregious >>> example of such an action is the "not here to build an encyclopedia" >>> indefinite/permanent block that can be arbitrary interpreted from any given >>> actions. It's ironic given that the bullies are guilty of such as well. A >>> prime example of twisting the rules to railroad/squeeze out other editors >>> would start with so-called bad faith negotiation, where they promised a >>> victim not to remove content at other pages if the victim lets the bully >>> keep their changes in a page. Soon the bully reneged it and when confronted >>> by the victim the bully immediately accused them of being "tendentious" or >>> "POV pusher". >>> >>> The bullies, which can consist of most editors operating at the inner >>> workings, aren't necessarily beholden to any ideologies and come in all >>> stripes. The only attribute that they all share is the addiction to power. >>> >>> After such permablocks, most would be forced to leave it for good, >>> further bleeding the editors numbers. Still, because Wikipedia's so >>> preeminent and no viable competitors are currently available, some would >>> rather stay behind, disguise their identity and either continue editing or >>> start over in different areas. For those with knowledge of foreign >>> languages, they could simply switch to other language Wikipedias to >>> continue their work far from most perturbances. A smaller number would come >>> back as vandals to spite editors who had wronged them. >>> >>> This is where "sockpuppetry investigations" kick in, mostly referred as >>> SPI. Editors go there to start a new case if they suspect that an account >>> is an alt/sock account of someone else particularly users who evaded the >>> blocks/bans. When a user is blocked or banned for good, they are relegated >>> to a pariah status much akin to "unpersoning", Scientology's suppressive >>> persons, and the lowest ones in North Korea's Songbun, in the respect that >>> any and all edits by them under other accounts or IPs are liable to be >>> reverted/undone pursuant to policy pertaining to block evasion. While the >>> original goal of not separating the wheat from the chaff is expressedly to >>> prevent them from gaining further recognition and diminish the spirit of >>> the block, in practice this means a Monkey's Paw that any further potential >>> good contributions from them would be lost forever, handicapping the >>> improvement of encyclopedia as a whole in a way or more. Other editors have >>> the exception from edit-war policy to revert and undone any changes from >>> the violators of the blocks, perhaps as well as anybody who helped them. In >>> effect this is like what the Meatball Wiki said, a "PunishReputation". >>> >>> During a SPI, there are "clerks" who will look through the user's >>> contribution history to see if there is a similarity in pattern to warrant >>> a block for abuse of multiple accounts (sockpuppetry). If that alone is not >>> enough, the CheckUsers can then be called upon to check and compare the IP >>> used by the accounts. >>> >>> If a user is determined to have engaged in sockpuppetry, the userpage of >>> original and alt accounts used are then replaced with a scarlet letter >>> notice such as this example boasting that which sock account belongs to who >>> and therefore blocked. Forget about "denying recognition", this is simply a >>> punitive name-and-shame. >>> >>> The SPI case, now listing the accounts and IP used, would then be >>> archived in a separate page, still publicly viewable. This is despite >>> recent GDPR regulations and the implication that major privacy-improving >>> adjustments should've been made for the process while keeping it viable. >>> Try that in Reddit and you'd be instantly banned for doxxing, I can assure >>> you. >>> >>> In there you can effectively cosplay as a CSI although substantive >>> attention are given to clerks, administrators and CheckUsers. Keep in mind >>> that the results and outcomes of most if not all sockpuppet investigations >>> aren't really 100% accurate, given that there are a lot of unforeseen >>> variables such as the imitation of writing and behavior styles that are >>> mostly a result of multiple people pushing any particular editorial change >>> for any reasons i.e. brother helping his sister, along with the use of >>> software that can mask your IP addresses such as VPNs and TeamViewer. Those >>> admins in charge of sockpuppetry investigations often aren't privy to the >>> root cause of a "sockpuppetry" or "block evasion" and as such tend to for >>> example, underestimate the amount of users who has the right reasons to >>> support an edit made in violation of a block. >>> >>> VPN IP addresses, which are used for obvious privacy reasons, are >>> blocked in sight by any administrators pursuant to policy against open >>> proxies. They even have a dedicated WikiProject and a bot specializing in >>> finding and blocking these proxies, with the result being a great >>> inconvenience for people wishing to edit from countries such as Russia and >>> China. >>> >>> In time, if someone continues a behavior the other editors deemed as >>> "disruptive" or "vandal" past the initial block, they end up getting >>> displayed in so-called "Long Term Abuse" caselist. Right there, their >>> accounts and/or IP addresses, along with a likely-skewed description of >>> what they've done were listed out. The places they've been and accounts >>> outside of Wikipedia were frequently exposed there, as if it's an >>> opposition research and spiteful doxxing. Things that'll get you quickly >>> banned here are just a normal Tuesday over at Wikipedia, with GDPR out of >>> the window. >>> >>> As I see it, there are two categories of LTAs/vandals/whatever you call >>> it. The first are the inherent vandals who had been problematic and >>> disruptive for Wikipedia upon their first edit, and the other are those who >>> had been regular or good standing users in the past until their fall from >>> grace, normally caused by themselves such as being too overworked over one >>> thing but could be by others, like the bullying example. >>> >>> There is a reasonable possibility that some of those LTAs/vandals would >>> be redeemed and become a good editor once again if enough diplomacy and >>> mediation were tried. However, those would be a time-consuming process >>> compared to simply actioning them, and I reasonably suspect that some of >>> those are intentionally provoked by corrupt admins or their friends into >>> vandal or disruptive editing in order for them to increase that admin >>> actions count so as to further their own standing in the community, and to >>> stay away from losing their cherished tools if their KPI fell low enough in >>> a given period. >>> >>> It's fearful that the cycle of toxicities in Wikipedia could eventually >>> led to real-world harm, though I will not further speculate how that might >>> transpire for fear of stuffing the beans and giving bad ideas. However, >>> VICE had reported in 2016 that an editor had nearly driven to suicide after >>> being subjected to online abuse by the editors despite what the >>> documentation say about community collegiality. Furthermore, just before >>> Musk' comment against Wikipedia, the Anonymous group hacked a Chinese >>> ministry site and a satellite system out of the suspicion that a state >>> actor has manipulated Wikipedia's system and process to censor information >>> about their hacking activities against China. It was a hot news in Taiwan >>> then. >>> >>> Afterthoughts >>> Theoretically a deep and comprehensive reform is past due for Wikipedia >>> in order to (re-)foster collegiality among the members of Wikipedia >>> community and reduce the amount of synergies that leads to intractable >>> conflicts, as opposed to sinecures such as blockings and SPI which often >>> treats the symptoms but not the cause. >>> >>> Still, it appears that the core editors and/or administrators are so >>> content enough for the present status quo and thus doom any effort to >>> change the system. An example would be the temporary ban of an >>> administrator made in 2019 by the Wikimedia Foundation (ultimately >>> responsible for maintaining English Wikipedia and any other projects such >>> as Wikimedia Commons for photos and Wikipedias written in other languages), >>> nearly causing the split of Wikipedia into two or more. This is not to >>> mention that presently Wikipedia has a financial cancer and having to beg >>> for donations despite having sufficient funds so it may be worthwhile to >>> put your donations for the Internet Archive instead. >>> >>> A key to a solution may lie in the comparative analogy that Wikipedia is >>> like the only restaurant in a food desert. It could be a McDonald's, KFC, >>> BK, Taco Bell, White Castle, or so on, but customers are forced to go there >>> to dine in every time, even if some does not really like their food. Thus, >>> they will be really happy if a second restaurant is opened at the location. >>> >>> If Musk is really serious in fixing whatever problems Wikipedia has >>> brought as a result of its internal problems, then he would be wise in >>> angel-investing any alternatives which aims to become a better or >>> next-level version of Wikipedia. >>> >>> The hypothetical rival alternatives could come in the form of a more >>> comprehensive encyclopedia, close to the level of a compendia. It can come >>> in a format similar to GitHub where anyone can present in their preferred >>> version of a subject instead of edit-warring at a small point, and if >>> version is good enough then they can be merged/pushed/vouched by other >>> users to work upon and goes to the top in ranks. >>> >>> In fact, every edition of page histories are logged by Wikipedia when a >>> change is make, but in addition to heuristic placements which make these to >>> be perceivably obscure, those would get redacted if the page in question is >>> deleted. >>> >>> Forking contents from English Wikipedia isn't really a big problem since >>> all you can do is to go to the Wikimedia dump site and look for enwiki, but >>> the biggest issues are how to convince editors and readers alike to move >>> over to the alternative. One possible solution that I can think of in terms >>> of editors would be a pitch promising that the contents will eventually get >>> copied into discs that lasts for billions of years and launched to the Moon >>> and beyond for posterity. >>> >>> It is entirely possible that if such solution with out-of-the-world >>> approach had been thought about earlier, the synergies that led to all sort >>> of intractable conflicts in Wikipedia could be cut by a half or so. Perhaps >>> inside Wikipedia the environment would not resemble an authoritarian police >>> state like now. After all, you can find so many real stories echoing the >>> same theme on Wikipediocracy, Wikipedia Review and Wikipediasucks.co, which >>> are like how Xenu.net is to Scientology. >>> >>> Finally this post is released under Creative Commons CC0, which is a >>> public domain as the only thing I want is let everyone know how Wikipedia >>> really works in the inside given the recent attention to Musk's comments >>> against it and to dispel idealistic notions (as seen in WhitePeopleTwitter >>> regarding Musk's tweet) that overrated it beyond what should've been, while >>> hoping for alternatives to spring up to provide greater opportunities for >>> anyone to preserve histories without corrosive influence from systemic >>> biases such as those in Wikipedia. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DUHTE6FSKQB6PX4QD5GWX3OHXFYUHPT5/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZPL4Z5F22AS75M4NBKAENXTBJFFKGMNT/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VDQPVHJMDHD3XJD2H5GV4LUUWEX6EU2L/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org -- Dennis C. During
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DH65E7UJXZXDC3XCSGOKS47V2G6352YW/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
