dumps.wikimedia.org there you go.

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.

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.

Cory Doctorow has a word for the phenomenon: enshittification.

Thanks! We’ve been trying to warn people across Lemmy and beyond about Wikipedia’s problems, but here in Lemmy many simply refused to listen or even resorted to personal attacks.

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

What I’m not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it’s rules, it’s moderation… What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?

Good question. One good approach would be to create as many Wikipedia alternatives as you can, which is actually doable through newly released ibis.wiki. There’s also Encycla, Justapedia and Namu.wiki to pick from, although because of Google is putting it high up in their search results, almost all earlier alternatives failed to get off the ground and gather enough momentum.

Cory Doctorow’s theory of enshittification can be applied to this one. According to him there are four constraints that prevent enshittification: competition, regulation, self-help and labor. Normally the first and the third one would be sufficient but as I see that Wikipedia has entered a terminal phase with those sexual scandals and so on, which would cause the Internet to turn against Wikipedia overnight, all the constraints would therefore have to be activated in this case. A likely result would entail Wikipedia liquidating and getting absorbed into more better, successor encyclopedic organizations, like how the League of Nations folded into the United Nations at the end of WWII.

Please feel free to read this Reddit page which collects or summarizes a list of scandals and issues on Wikipedia.

The systemic toxicity issues in Wikipedia, many of which aren’t even remotely related to Israel-Palestinian conflict, are increasingly looking like their Achilles heels.

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

Update: They’ve already “sold out” the editors.

https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2024/12/21/does-wikipedia-protect-your-privacy/

Anyone can take a look at what the Wikipedia editors themselves are saying about the matter.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:2024_open_letter_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI_vs._WMF_Delhi_court

The admins from India have only been accused of defamation. Now that the court has their identities, the actual statements will be examined to see if they do actually contain defamation. So anyone can go on a fishing expedition to get someone’s identity, and then say ‘oops, no laws were broken after all’, and now that we know who you are, it would be a shame if someone fell out of a window or something. And of course whatever is in the “sealed” document is now out, India is one of the biggest places for bribery there is. They are also saying the documents will be unsealed at the end of the court case, so it might be cheaper to just wait until they are published.