Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by Bbb23sucks » Tue May 23, 2023 3:47 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 3:09 am
Bbb23sucks wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 9:02 pm
Try removing the 'newly registered users' group from him.
Done.

I also hope you're saving all your Bbb23 links and evidence offline. Don't rely on archive sites--KEEP COPIES on a hard drive YOU control.
Oh. I should do that. I'll set something up soon.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by adamovicm » Tue May 23, 2023 6:59 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 3:09 am
I also hope you're saving all your Bbb23 links and evidence offline. Don't rely on archive sites--KEEP COPIES on a hard drive YOU control.
I think someone already changed the history in Wikipedia of the page Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard regarding Numbeo I'quite certain Girth had a statement there something like "You don't have to look into it, I have already handled it" and AndyTheGrump had a statement like "I agree, there is really nothing to be seen here. "

Now in page history I cannot find it.

So it might happen that already someone "fixed it". The alleged changes are somewhere from 08:35, 09 May 2023 until 11 May 2023.

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: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by ericbarbour » Tue May 23, 2023 7:13 am

adamovicm wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 6:59 am
I think someone already changed the history in Wikipedia of the page Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard regarding Numbeo I'quite certain Girth had a statement there something like "You don't have to look into it, I have already handled it" and AndyTheGrump had a statement like "I agree, there is really nothing to be seen here. "
Now in page history I cannot find it.
This is all I can find
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ite_Numbeo

If there was more, someone had an oversighter destroy the diffs. No traces are left.

Now you know: WIKIPEDIA IS CENSORED---to protect Wikipedia insiders. And to keep "disruptive people" like you out. If they EVER give you that "NOTCENSORED" crap, know they are lying openly.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by adamovicm » Tue May 23, 2023 7:30 am

This page is indexed in Wayback Machine and it seems I was wrong about that statement from AndyTheGrump. It would be seen in the Wayback machine.

Girth closed the discussion with "I've indef blocked the OP - nothing more to do here. Girth Summit (blether) 14:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)", while the article looked as piece of shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1154139336

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by Kumioko » Wed May 24, 2023 8:47 am

I've said this before but suing wikipedia or even wikimedia isnt the answer. There are too many legal protections in place (at least for now) and theyre to financially capable.

What they need to do is sue the editors. Then no matter the outcome, win or lose, they win. Most editors dont have the financial means to fight back. Theyll put the WMF in the position to protect the editor, which they won't and even if they did and win, and there is no guarantee they would, the WMF would have to burn a lot of cash to do it.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by Boink Boink » Wed May 24, 2023 1:58 pm

Not only is going after the WMF, like any similar third party, a complete non-starter, you're missing many of the basic elements of a successful business defamation or business disparagement lawsuit against the individual posters. Simply wanting to cause your company reputational damage, in and of itself, is wholly insufficient. You would need to demonstrate that a statement of fact was false -- not an opinion -- and that it was knowingly or recklessly so. The malice standard is a massive hurdle here. And you have to demonstrate *actualized* monetary damages, not theoretical ones, that were caused *by* the knowingly false statements.

-

Your plan of making a pathetic threat involving a frivolous lawsuit complete with going full-on Streisand effect over email is a shockingly incompetent one, and given the internet, I've seen my share of hilarious incompetence. The smart thing to do would be to completely drop the whole thing. The next-smartest thing to do is talk to an actual American lawyer who specializes in this field who can talk you out of this insane idea in just a few billable hours.
Although they would charge you a lot, an American lawyer would quite easily recognise that someone walking into their office saying that potential customers have been phoning me up asking questions about my product that sounded strange until I realised they were reading a Wikipedia article that seems to highlight a couple of critical stories and otherwise says nothing else (which upon investigation I gather is against the Wikipedia policy that says do not host articles about companies where there is so little coverage since it is almost guaranteed such an article will be biased and cause harm), is the beginnings of a case built on actual, demonstrable harm.

Once again, Wikipediocracy demonstrates an ability to read a thread before you give your ill informed opinion that looks for all the world like Wikipedia apologism at best, schilling at worst, is not a necessary skill for their advice forum. Which is handy I guess, since it's not too high a prized skill among the Wikipedia community, where they seem to get most of their advisers from.

Any lawyer worth their salt knows where to look (the massive pile of actual scandals) to prove to a judge that based on the other information already provided by the client about their business model and competitors, that there is a reasonable belief that the editors who were responsible for this content being presented in this fashion are probably not well meaning but mistaken bystanders, but malicious actors who know exactly what they are doing.

The next step, proof of malice by the legally liable third party, comes only after you properly notify the Foundation of your concerns via the procedure I highlighted. Wikipedia is only protected by Section 230 until that point. This is why you need a lawyer and the only realistic way to protect your rights is through the law.

You are not expected or required to interact with volunteers to ensure your legal rights are upheld. This is the law. Doing it is a complete waste of your time. Look how much of your time they have already wasted, for no benefit. Their advice is designed to ensure you are harmed further. You have already been blocked once. Being refused an appeal multiple times, or worse, being unblocked and then quickly reblocked, is their plan. They are only interested in what will make you look bad, so that the people who are paid to look into whether Wikipedia has infringed your rights, are less inclined to look very hard.

Legal threats work because once you have notified the Foundation (and hopefully by then you still appear to be only a misguided victim), it is highly likely they will delete the article rather than have this become yet another media story about how easy it is for Wikipedia to be abused. Especially if your lawyer tells them that just like Jimmy Wales, they too have UK lawmakers in their roladex and they too have a keen interest in Wikipedia being specifically included in the forthcoming internet regulation laws that are apparently scaring the shit out of Wikipedia (contrary to Wikipedocracy claims that Wikipedia freely ignores foreign laws because they can't hurt them).

The purpose of a legal threat is to force Wikipedia to act to protect you from harm by upholding your legal rights. If they refuse, there is nothing in the law to stop you challenging this in court. If you can afford it, do it. Wikipedia cannot harm you any more than the top Google result being that article forever. I guarantee it. Even if you lose, since there is nothing about your case that suggests you were being malicious or frivolous, you would not be subject to damages or a counter suit.

Wikipedia has a long history of being stupid enough to fight really hard to "win" a court case, while suffering huge reputational damage as the real cost. The principle of them being a benign actor who cannot possible be expected to moderate content proactively, they want to leave it to volunteers (who have shown you how little they give a fuck) is very important to them. A matter of survival. There is no reason for European citizens have to accept this uniquely American bullshit. And they are fighting back. Facebook recently got fined massively for breaching an EU law that is probably unconstitutional in America. Fuck those pricks. They don't run the world.

You should think about that. Wikipedia is presumably already seen as biased in Serbia, a small but not insignificant territory in their plan for global dominance. If you end up being seen as a Serbian hero who got screwed over by Wikipedia because American law has a very high bar to prove defamation, higher than more civilised territories like the EU (who are also passing laws that specifically seek to regulate Wikipedia), and furthermore they used the law to hide the identities of who is defaming you, that can only help your business and you personally.

If you don't unretract your legal threat, you're letting those pricks win. You are letting Wikipedia screw you over, you are letting the volunteer Wikipedia Administrators (Girth, Beeblebrox, Boing) screw you over, and you are letting Wikipediocracy screw you over.

None of them feel remotely bad about this. Don't be fooled by the crocodile tears. People who genuinely care, take action. What action have you seen? The article has got worse. It is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy to devote that many words to a handful of critical pieces. Imagine how long the Criticism of Wikipedia article would be if it went into that level of detail for every incident written up in the media or by an academic?

It is fair to say it is becoming a COATRACK. The effect of this Wikipedia content is clearly to amplify criticism that isn't nearly as prominent in general seaches. And it obviously isn't widely known information, or the source of any major scholadly controversy. It is arguably routine news coverage, which, according to NCORP, should not be the majority of what Wikipedia presents to readers (because Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an investing guide).

Hemiauchenia is an absolutely perfect example of the disgusting apologism that Wikipediocracy specialise in. He is a very experienced editor. He is taking advantage of the fact you don't know much about Wikipedia at all.

Take this edit summary....
It is not up to the CEO of the company to decide if an article about their company should be deleted. There is nothing stopping the article being taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to gain a broader consensus on the matter.
....used to explain this removal of your PROD tag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1154016125

I can see nobody on Wikipediocracy pointing out that PRODing an article is a right that anyone has, even connected contributors. I see nobody pointing out that painting this as if somehow you would be deciding if your article gets deleted, is a FUCKING LIE. He tried to smear you. He knows that if he had not taken that tag off, it would fall to an Administrator to decide for themselves if it needed deleting.

It is policy that anyone can dispute a PROD for any reason, but you would hope that Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy would recognise that removing it because you disagree with the idea a CEO should be allowed the opportunity to REQUEST an ADMINISTRATOR review their article to see whether it is using unreliable sources and fails verification, is a very bad reason. But no, I see no criticism of this at Wikipediocracy. They don't care. They like the fact it is this easy for Wikipedia insiders to break Wikipedia's own rules and conventions, because being insiders and even fans themselves, they benefit from it.

Worse still, he then tells you it should go to AfD. He already knows that would be a difficult if not impossible thing for a novice to do. He has already said on Wikipediocracy "I do think there is actually a pretty good case for deletion", so what is going on here? He is stopping you from asking for it to be deleted, he can't be bothered to put it up for deletion himself, but he thinks it could be deleted.

The reason is probably because he hates you. As he admitted earlier in the thread....
What you've failed to mention here is that you created the article about your own company back in 2014, in blatant violation of COI guidelines.
It is almost certain that Wikipedia did not have an outright ban on company owners creating their own Wikipedia article, but details like that don't matter to the assholes who defend Wikipedia with religious zeal. Indeed, even as of right now, it is not prohibited, you just have to submit the article for review first.

Which is still a ridiculous thing for an encyclopedia to do, and makes Wikipedia look much more like what it is, some sort of user submitted information source where nobody can really say what their reason for existence even is. They are only sure what it is not. Even then, they are never too sure. Wikipedia is definitely not a newspaper or a directory of companies, but there they are, quite a few of them, happily editing your article, with nobody, least of all Hemiauchenia, even thinking about deleting it. How strange.

It is surely because they hate you, and Wikipedia makes it very easy for random assholes to hate on their enemies.

Hate is what drives Wikipedia (hatred of experts, hatred of the right wing, hatred of copyright) just as it drives Wikioediocracy (hatred of people who can tell people like you what is really behind situations like yours). Which is usually the lazy, ignorant, assholish behaviour of people like Hemiauchenia, if not every single Wikipedia editor that ever stayed there long enough to know the policies they routinely ignore while merrily exploiting the fact it all seems like an impenetrable complex web of super important stuff to you.

It is not important. All that matters is, pending the unlikely discovery of any other coverage, which typically happens in the AfD they are reluctant to start, is does that article belong on Wikipedia? Is it's presence on Wikipedia unfair to you, since it likely harms you, for no appreciable benefit to humanity?

Simple questions, easy answers. No and yes.

Hatred (prejudice) always prevents Wikipedia editors doing the right thing. It is widely understood that "Assume Good Faith" is no longer in effect. Nobody ever gets blocked for not assuming good faith. They always have an excuse. It is always hard for Wikipedia to ban an asshole like Hemiauchenia, because they are often very committed, very productive assholes. Believers in Wikipedia are hard to find, because most people know Wikipedia is evil by design, and even worse in implementation.

This is why you will never get honest or even remotely helpful answers from people like Boing. They are Wikipedia Administrators. It's quite literally their fault that peole like you end up in situations like this.

Bojng! has the power (and the right) to warn Hemiauchenia to stop removing PROD tags for reasons which have nothing to do with making Wikipedia better or reducing harm. He won't. Whether that is cowardice or friendship or just plain lazyness, it is a fact.

Hemiauchenia has a long history of being an asshole, doing shitty things like that. If you asked Wikipediocracy why editors like that never get banned by Wikipedia, and why the very idea they could is laughable to them, there would be silence. They know why, but because they are the reason for it, they won't tell you. Wikipedia's dirty secrets must be kept away from people like you, people looking to understand Wikipedia.

Wikipediocracy provides a platform for Hemiauchenia to insult you. Wikipedia provides a platform to unfairly present your company in a negative light. Neither has a good reason for doing this. They don't care. It is fun for them. A sick game. They are in it together in a very real way. The realest way. A direct partnership.

The fact that your company makes money out of crowd sourcing most definitely annoys Wikipedia volunteers and will give them a reason to want to harm you or otherwise not step in to prevent you being harmed, in case you hadn't realised it.

Wikipedia editors are theoretically meant to understand concepts like this and act accordingly, but as you have learned, mostly from the very place that supposedly hosts critics but doesn't, they are mostly thick, horrible, nasty people. They don't give a fuck about you, and given their wil!ingness to blatantly violate Wikipedia policy just because they seem to hate you, they don't give a fuck about Wikipedia either.

Most of them enjoy causing further harm to victims of Wikipedia. They enjoy the fact the victims of Wikipedia are all too easily made to look foolish and stupid. It's a hobby for them. A sick, prurient interest. It makes them feel smart. It is the only power over others that they have.

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: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by ericbarbour » Wed May 24, 2023 6:05 pm

Boink Boink wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 1:58 pm
Hate is what drives Wikipedia (hatred of experts, hatred of the right wing, hatred of copyright) just as it drives Wikioediocracy (hatred of people who can tell people like you what is really behind situations like yours). Which is usually the lazy, ignorant, assholish behaviour of people like Hemiauchenia, if not every single Wikipedia editor that ever stayed there long enough to know the policies they routinely ignore while merrily exploiting the fact it all seems like an impenetrable complex web of super important stuff to you.
Probably wasting your time....addicts gonna addict
This is why you will never get honest or even remotely helpful answers from people like Boing. They are Wikipedia Administrators. It's quite literally their fault that peole like you end up in situations like this.
Nope, and "geniuses" like Boing are so tightly stuffed up their own asses, they will NEVER admin they were "wrong". Ever.

And you can actually have a "coherent conversation" with him. Not the worst of the species. Ever tried to talk to someone like SqueakBox or Steven Walling or Peter "Smallbones" Ekman? Impossible. They are insane--period. All Glory To Jimbo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjsO1-ws4b0
Hemiauchenia has a long history of being an asshole, doing shitty things like that.
.........
Wikipediocracy provides a platform for Hemiauchenia to insult you.
Should've led with that. Needs to be stated more often and more loudly.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by adamovicm » Thu May 25, 2023 8:57 am

Boink Boink wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 1:58 pm
Any lawyer worth their salt knows where to look (the massive pile of actual scandals) to prove to a judge that based on the other information already provided by the client about their business model and competitors, that there is a reasonable belief that the editors who were responsible for this content being presented in this fashion are probably not well meaning but mistaken bystanders, but malicious actors who know exactly what they are doing.
Look Boink, the purpose of my Cease and Desist letter was to make Wikipedia fix the issue, rather than actually to sue them.
It seems you read carefully what I said there, but from I know, (even) if they would be liable for reputational damages until you inform them, as they are using user-generated content.

But to my surprise, they don't work as normal companies, and even if you put something in front of their faces (with Critics forum), they still don't strive to fix it.

Anyhow, I have a feeling this will be sorted out, there is a lot of things going on in parallel and I have come to the point that I don't have enough time for all the stuff that needs to be done.
Boink Boink wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 1:58 pm
If you end up being seen as a Serbian hero who got screwed over by Wikipedia because American law has a very high bar to prove defamation, higher than more civilised territories like the EU (who are also passing laws that specifically seek to regulate Wikipedia), and furthermore they used the law to hide the identities of who is defaming you, that can only help your business and you personally.
"if"... Serbian courts are heavily politicized and I think it would bring them "reputational damage" if Numbeo wins a case in Serbia against WMF.

But really, legal cases are the last resort.
None of them feel remotely bad about this. Don't be fooled by the crocodile tears. People who genuinely care, take action. What action have you seen? The article has got worse. It is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy to devote that many words to a handful of critical pieces. Imagine how long the Criticism of Wikipedia article would be if it went into that level of detail for every incident written up in the media or by an academic?
Definitely agree. But things might get better. It's probably way more convenient for us to use that Wikipedia/Numbeo scandal for PR purposes, rather than to actually sue Wikipedia.

It is fair to say it is becoming a COATRACK.
The problem is that they should acknowledge it, and fix it, not pretend it doesn't exist....
The effect of this Wikipedia content is clearly to amplify criticism that isn't nearly as prominent in general seaches.
I see you are very familiar with the topic and the problem, congrats.

I can see nobody on Wikipediocracy pointing out that PRODing an article is a right that anyone has, even connected contributors. I see nobody pointing out that painting this as if somehow you would be deciding if your article gets deleted, is a FUCKING LIE. He tried to smear you. He knows that if he had not taken that tag off, it would fall to an Administrator to decide for themselves if it needed deleting. It is policy that anyone can dispute a PROD for any reason, but you would hope that Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy would recognise ...
Exactly, great point. Admins and editors skrewed me on multiple occasions.

Worse still, he then tells you it should go to AfD. He already knows that would be a difficult if not impossible thing for a novice to do. He has already said on Wikipediocracy "I do think there is actually a pretty good case for deletion", so what is going on here? He is stopping you from asking for it to be deleted, he can't be bothered to put it up for deletion himself, but he thinks it could be deleted.
hhahahahaha...

The reason is probably because he hates you. As he admitted earlier in the thread....
What you've failed to mention here is that you created the article about your own company back in 2014, in blatant violation of COI guidelines.
It is almost certain that Wikipedia did not have an outright ban on company owners creating their own Wikipedia article, but details like that don't matter to the assholes who defend Wikipedia with religious zeal. Indeed, even as of right now, it is not prohibited, you just have to submit the article for review first.
I have checked and they made that policy back in 2014 at the same year the article was created. But now somebody wants to find all places where I might break Wikipedia policies? Ouch, gotch, I'm a novice editor. Stupidity.

Which is still a ridiculous thing for an encyclopedia to do, and makes Wikipedia look much more like what it is, some sort of user submitted information source where nobody can really say what their reason for existence even is.
Good point.

Bojng! has the power (and the right) to warn Hemiauchenia to stop removing PROD tags for reasons which have nothing to do with making Wikipedia better or reducing harm. He won't. Whether that is cowardice or friendship or just plain lazyness, it is a fact.
COATRACK it is, then! And an extremely big one.

Wikipediocracy provides a platform for Hemiauchenia to insult you. Wikipedia provides a platform to unfairly present your company in a negative light. Neither has a good reason for doing this. They don't care. It is fun for them. A sick game. They are in it together in a very real way. The realest way. A direct partnership.
The fact that your company makes money out of crowd sourcing most definitely annoys Wikipedia volunteers and will give them a reason to want to harm you or otherwise not step in to prevent you being harmed, in case you hadn't realised it.
It seems that way. If I got rich by doing this, I might would think different, perhaps I'd thought the best approach is to bribe 10 editors to fix the issue... everyone happy.... hahahaha... But there is a principle for not doing that. Wikipedia should be free encyclopedia where (almost) everyone could edit (apart of those who really abuse it), not the place where Numbeo pays xyZ to "independent editors" and gets a very good article.
They don't give a fuck about you, and given their wil!ingness to blatantly violate Wikipedia policy just because they seem to hate you, they don't give a fuck about Wikipedia either.
Someone who writes about scandals in Wikipedia already started to work on this, so there might be a lot more to come.

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: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by ericbarbour » Thu May 25, 2023 7:32 pm

adamovicm wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 8:57 am
Look Boink, the purpose of my Cease and Desist letter was to make Wikipedia fix the issue, rather than actually to sue them.
Good luck. I say again: everyone who has tried to sue them has gotten nowhere. Public shaming only works on WP when the scandal is big and outrageous (look up Quorty, Seigenthaler, Mantanmoreland, etc.) Following "procedure" is useless because they can gaslight you for years.

And don't try to address every name-drop in a Boink tirade. Summarize. (Because he won't.)

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: don't sue Wikipedia?!?

Post by adamovicm » Thu May 25, 2023 8:09 pm

Boink makes some nice valid arguments and friendly. It looks like he knows what he is speaking about. Nice conversation.

That Gaslighting of me in Critics is really... disgusting. Why that admin, (Jake is the admin there, if I understand correctly) allow it, if somebody has an idea? Or just the guess?

Post Reply