Only hours after doxing Wikipedia volunteers to a court in India, Wikipedia tweeted out this 5-month old feel-good piece about protecting volunteers. “Because people can not contribute what t…

Warning: This thread has been brigaded.

For anyone who’s been brought on to here, especially mods, I’ll leave these links to some mainstream-ish news sources which explain why Wikipedia is not infalliable after all.

In 2014, there was an incident in the Netherlands where two Wikipedia administrators went to a woman’s home to harass her.

    • ping@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      This presumes the person you’re responding to is even right wing. But I doubt you have any evidence, other than circular reasoning about their criticisms of Wikipedia.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        0·
        3 months ago

        This presumes the person you’re responding to is even right wing.

        What?

        But I doubt you have any evidence, other than circular reasoning about their criticisms of Wikipedia.

        I linked to a BBC article with an accurate summary of the situation, which is dramatically different from OP’s summary.

        • ping@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          This presumes the person you’re responding to is even right wing.

          What?

          Innuendo Studios’ “The Alt-Right Playbook”

          • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
            0·
            3 months ago

            Oh, I got it. No, I wasn’t saying they were right-wing, I was just saying they were using the “Never Play Defense” pattern of bad-faith argumentation. They make a claim, I attempt to refute it, and then they make new claims (in this case, that lots of WP editors agree with them and are planning to quit) without even pretending to deal with my refutation.

            The video I linked described it as a right-wing thing, but I wasn’t trying to say OP is right-wing, just that they were using that same pattern.