New Wikimedia Foundation extremist policy

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

New Wikimedia Foundation extremist policy

Post by Kumioko » Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:28 am

On June 8th and with no announcement or advertisement the Wikimedia foundation released a new policy, Terrorist and violent extremist content procedures and guidelines found here: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/T ... guidelines. It appears to have been created and primarily edited by WMF Tech Law Lead Counsel Charles Roslof. Of course these will be handled be none other than the Trust and Safety team, whom almost no one in the community actually trusts.

I noticed this mentioned in the recent Signpost article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _and_notes

Now, this seems like a good idea up front, no one wants terrorists proliferating on their sites right. Well, given what we have seen from the WMF in the past, this is likely to be misused. From a cursory look, there are several problems that come to mind:

First, with a multilingual, multinational and multicultural project like the Wikipedia foundation projects, one persons terrorist could be anothers freedom fighter, so who decides what is a terrorist and what isn't.

Second, to put it succinctly, the community sucks! It is inevitable someone will make accusations of another on some morale, religious or cultural grounds, "TERRORIST I SAY, TERRORIST!" This will lead to counter allegations, hurt feelings and, potentially, ARBCOM cases for those projects that have them.

Third problem, the WMF is pretty awful with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. So they are likely to take the word of whichever editor has the most political capital on the site. In most cases, the Admins and functionaries.

There are of course many other issues inherent in this type of policy including how to enforce it, legal ramifications for the accused and accuser, etc. In summary, on the WMF projects due to incompetent leadership and low morals, this is likely going to be used as a way to ban editors with a viewpoint someone doesn't like.
#BbbGate

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: New Wikimedia Foundation extremist policy

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:50 am

Kumioko wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:28 am
Now, this seems like a good idea up front, no one wants terrorists proliferating on their sites right. Well, given what we have seen from the WMF in the past, this is likely to be misused.
It already HAS been misused, over and over again. Without being "official policy" before. They simply used other euphemisms.
First, with a multilingual, multinational and multicultural project like the Wikipedia foundation projects, one persons terrorist could be anothers freedom fighter, so who decides what is a terrorist and what isn't.
Given that I know of one IRA Provo who has edited Wikipedia's content about Ireland, and Arabic-language Wikipedia was founded by a guy who has been on police shitlists for years, and let's not forget the still-unsettled pro-Israel gang working on various Wikipedias.......this has already happened anyway. I've seen Grawp called a "terrorist" and I've seen them call Russavia a "terrorist". It's a dirty word they throw around freely to describe anyone not filled with blind Wiki-Luv, meaning someone they can't manipulate.
Second, to put it succinctly, the community sucks! It is inevitable someone will make accusations of another on some morale, religious or cultural grounds, "TERRORIST I SAY, TERRORIST!" This will lead to counter allegations, hurt feelings and, potentially, ARBCOM cases for those projects that have them.
Again, this has already happened before. Repeatedly. Wikipedia is "above the law" thanks to Section 230 and a few other American laws. In other countries, not so much--but those countries tend to take the censorship-and-control route to heeling their language Wikimedia projects. Often with the full and loving blessings of Jimbo Wales, King of Turds, himself.

This new "rule" will just be another baseball bat to use on "suppressive personalities". Meaning anyone who doesn't kneel to their pathetic little, paranoid, hateful ochlocracy. Just business as usual.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: New Wikimedia Foundation extremist policy

Post by wexter » Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:17 pm

Not quite "Section 230" in an EU ruling; if you can prove it is inaccurate Google has to remove it from search.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/goog ... 022-12-08/

Eventually, you will be to issue (supported) take down requests of Wikipedia articles to Google in the EU.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

Post Reply