This is one of the proofs. It’s completely understandable in human psychology when people initially goes into denial after being confronted with something shocking like that, as seen in the reactions by many people to the recent partial disclosure of the Epstein Files.

No, it was an “anti-contact MAP” who did it. We at here categorically condemn violence and hope that those who’re unhappy with Wikipedia can go to the likes of Grokipedia and HandWiki instead.

Roblox has a lot of problems in child safety aspects, such as the profileration of so-called condo games and inaction against child predators on the platform. YouTuber Schlep and others tried to raise the issues to Roblox but to no avail, and they had an easier time in collaborating with law enforcement to get chomos on the game platforms arrested instead.

Early this month Roblox, instead of using the banhammer against chomos, turned it against Schlep instead accusing the latter of “vigilantism” despite categorical refutations that Schlep had done everything by the books. It became the final straw as numerous influencers like KreekCraft expressed solidarities for Schlep and began to boycott Roblox.

The controversy got so big that Congressperson Ro Khanna launched a petition urging Roblox to fix its child safety issues and some U.S. states began to sue Roblox.

It’s impractical and unlikely, bordering on impossible. Deletionists have driven a lot of productive contributors out of the projects through shady tactics like “wikilawyering” and gaming the system. You can look at this essay by Gwern to see what I’m talking about.

Because that’s an old habit which is carried over from Reddit.

That’s right. You’re almost certainly looking at the tip of the iceberg. Let’s hope that the discovery processes will be extensive.

deleted by creator

Just to be clear, we’re not against the general notion of “free knowledge movement”. Rather we’d love it if there are viable competitors to Wikipedia.

Edit: You can always go to dumps.wikimedia.org to download a copy of Wikipedia encyclopedic articles and start a fork from there.

That’s doesn’t mean that the story isn’t credible though. Here’s a PDF to the court document.

Either way there should be competitors to Wikipedia. One of the promising projects is ibis.wiki but so far there’s no function to integrate Wiki markup yet.

Why is your username Wikipedia sucks lol?

Because this is a multiple-used shared identity by a number of whistleblowers who wants to protect their identity. The lawsuit basically vindicates what we’re trying to warn people about over the past few months.

Cory Doctorow has a word for the phenomenon: enshittification.

Removed by mod

I’d take their answers over yours because they’re a well-known lawyers group who is super-into privacy rights activism and they even are saying that they are compiling instances of so-called “troll pages” on German Wikipedia so that they can file a complaint to the relevant DPAs one day.

In this context I think you need to be mindful of the argument from ignorance fallacy; just because something has not happened or has not been proven either way, doesn’t mean that it’s not going to happen in the future.

Removed by mod

Except for those publicly visible sock-shaming and investigations pages, mark my words they’re going to be their Achilles heels one day. I’ve already asked some GDPR lawyers about it a long time ago and they agreed with me on that.

Removed by mod

They would have to delete their “sockpuppet investigations” pages and so on first before they can move there, otherwise they would violate GDPR.

Look at how cute you’re trying to deflect and gaslight away from the fact that you’re not reacting well to the hard truth that Wikipedia is not a “magical platform” after all, especially by committing so-called “psychological projection”.

One of the main point of the comparison is the parallel between churches in the 50’s and Wikipedia of today; you would’ve been summarily dismissed as an “atheistic commie bent on destroying the country” if you lift a finger against churches in the era, especially at the height of McCarthyism. The same is happening to critics of Wikipedia today, with people like you dismissing them as “far-right obscurantists bent on destroying knowledge”, which is the essence of strawman fallacy.

You clearly displayed your naivete right there when you summarily dismiss accounts which are solely used to expose any scandals in any companies or organizations as “narrow minded”; are you ten? Perhaps you should go sit at the kids table and cry a river there.

You would’ve said the same thing against victims of priest sexual abuses if you were a regular citizen in the 50’s or so.