Is Wikipedia vulnerable to the GDPR?

Post Reply
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 111 times

Is Wikipedia vulnerable to the GDPR?

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:08 am

The chuckleheads of Wikipedia are being embarrassingly ignorant about an important issue, as usual.

In case there is anyone out there who needs to know, here are the facts as any lay person would understand them, if they were even remotely paying attention....

1. The GDPR probably doesn't apply to Wikipedia because of what it is. This is legally untested.

2. Notwithstanding 1., the GDPR definitely applies to the WMF even though they are a Californian corporation, because they process the data of EU citizens. This has been legally tested. And it applies even if said citizen is residing outside of the EU.

3. Notwithstanding 2., the GDPR also applies because the WMF has physical infrastructure (data centres) located within the EU that are necessarily handling the personal data of EU citizens in the course of their everyday economic activity.

4. The WMF is the entity who would be sued for any breaches of the GDPR, rather than any individual, because they are the data controller. Who and how is the interesting part, and that is the point where the serious lawyers and the Jedi Council get involved. But suffice to say, there is no "ha ha, you can't touch us, Stars And Stripes Rule All" defence, and that is of course, by design. This is the EU. They suck at a lot of things, but being technocrats and a ruthless Galactic Trade Federation is not one of them. There is reason why something like 95% of incoming EU border checks are now applied at the Northern Irish frontier. They are all about trade war and protectionism.

5. Personal data covered by the GDPR includes even your basic IP address, because it is data that can be tied to an identifiable person (as in can, not always is). This is why the WMF have decided to make efforts to mask it from public view.

6. GDPR is about consent and control, not anonymity per se. It doesn't seek to prevent entities creating data about you, even huge and detailed amounts of it, as long as you know what is being collected and you can control it, up to and including its wholesale deletion. This is why it is pretty obvious Wikipedia is hoping it doesn't apply or that at least nobody is going to test it, because they must be the only (major) website in the word that still doesn't even ask for cookie consent, let alone employ any other kind of proactive consent and control measures. What little they do in the area of privacy, is all still in terms of passive knowledge/consent, which in terms of the GDPR, is legally insufficient. Their non-compliance if it does apply, is already clear and obvious.

As is well known, the WMF doesn't usually bother with things that can't seriously harm their existence. And sad to say, although it can sound like the GDPR is serious business, it really isn't. Presumably because lobbyists are as effective in the pathetically weak European Parliament as they are in the ridiculously corrupt US Congress, even the most serious breach would only cost the WMF €20 million (~$23m). Last year the WMF made $127m in donations.

The true value in GDPR therefore is public awareness and negative publicity, and the international rights angle, and as a secondary benefit, draining the beast by making them spend money and harming their business model by meeting their legal obligations as a true global citizen.

Wikipediocracy are not the people to lead this effort. And not just because they are retarded. Wikipediocracy long ago decided that they are on the side of the poor downtrodden Wikipedia volunteers, like poor old Beeblebrox. One of the many reasons why that was a moronic path to choose for alleged Wikipedia critics, is that it isn't the WMF who are the real villains when it comes to the GDPR. They're just doing what is economically expedient, what any corporation would do.

The difference is people like Beeblebrox, the pure scum of the Mafia like cult that is the Wikipedia "community". They're the people who quite willingly do the things that have to be done, and give the necessary leadership cues, that make sure that it is hard if not impossible to ensure the WMF and their volunteer actors are not misusing your personal data, without at the VERY LEAST, giving them even more personal data than you have probably already given them. Which, if you suspect them of misusing your personal data in the first place, would be absurd.

They hate and fear transparency and accountability, which is why they do so much to ensure it doesn't feature as any part of their warped project.

Needless to say, thanks to my network, I have lots of very difficult questions I could put to Beeblebrox in this exact area of his privileged responsibility. Questions that if he were seen to evade or ignore them, would prove his and Wikipedia's guilt beyond doubt.

Questions that have no real value being put here, and which are of course easily removed if placed on Wikipedia directly. NOTHERE naturally covers and any all queries that could result in disciplinary action against Wikipedia volunteers. You can thank Beeblebrox and his ilk for fostering and enhancing that sort of warped culture.

Long gone are the days when you could ask the Founder a tough question on his very own Wikipedia talk page, in full view of everyone, and expect an honest answer. These days, in fear of what might be exposed about their ways and means, the Wikishits even filter what can be put to the Founder by outsiders. They have good reason to be afraid.

What really happened with the investigation into BarryBoggside's privacy complaint? For example. Assuming it wasn't just filed under B. Any answer at all, would undoubtedly see one or more Wikishits in serious trouble. So they do not answer.

The sad truth of their existence is that Wikipediocracy chooses not to allow such questions on their forum, even though Beeblebrox is a resident member and could and should, if we were to seriously believe he is there for the right reasons, give a full and complete answer. He has all the necessary knowledge and access (assuming he himself hasn't deleted it as part of his generous act of volunteering to do a little bit of ArbCom housekeeping).

Why is Materialscientist still a CheckUser? What other explanation to the BarryBoggside block is there, other than fishing? And if he did it then, why would people assume he is not doing it as a matter of routine?

Deny it, if you can, Beeblebrox. Tell us something that explains that block in a way that is allowable under any of your policies and resolutions and indeed US law. It is possible to do this without violating any confidences or terms, and if you claim otherwise, you will be confirming your intent to take serious people for utter fools.

Wikipedocracy see this sort of inquiry as hostile and somehow not part of their investigative mission. :lol:

So be it. They are what they are, sell out motherfuckers, and their reluctance to acknowledge our existence, much less push back on what we say about them if they really thought it was untrue or unfair, is of course, supremely ironic.

Not for nothing do I say they routinely flatter Wikipedia through imitation.

A cult is a cult.

Scum is scum.

HTD.

:flamingbanana:

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 394 times
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Is Wikipedia vulnerable to the GDPR?

Post by boredbird » Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:32 pm

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:08 am
What really happened with the investigation into BarryBoggside's privacy complaint? For example. Assuming it wasn't just filed under B. Any answer at all, would undoubtedly see one or more Wikishits in serious trouble. So they do not answer.
It says here that BarryBogside is the same as AttackTheMoonNow.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... ryBoggside

Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 111 times

Re: Is Wikipedia vulnerable to the GDPR?

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:20 pm

boredbird wrote:
Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:32 pm
Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:08 am
What really happened with the investigation into BarryBoggside's privacy complaint? For example. Assuming it wasn't just filed under B. Any answer at all, would undoubtedly see one or more Wikishits in serious trouble. So they do not answer.
It says here that BarryBogside is the same as AttackTheMoonNow.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... ryBoggside
What's your point?

If the Ombuds investigation into BarryBoggside's block was dropped because he was subsequently linked to AttackTheMoonNow using improperly obtained personal data, then what is the point of the Ombuds Commission?

Although it is noted that one aspect of BarryBoggside's complaint was that it apparently didn't bother his fellow CheckUsers Yunshui or Johnbod that it seemed highly likely that Materialscientist had performed an improper fishing check, to them, it meant the block could not be lifted.

Take those two things together, and there would appear to be zero incentive for English Wikipedia CheckUsers not to perform fishing checks, or indeed to monitor and report each other for such practices.

Well, not zero, they still might face the wrath of Beeblebrox, who you would hope would be absolutely furious that the functionaries under his charge were violating the privacy policy, and would make a grand spectacle of demoting them all and reminding anyone who might apply to be their replacement that the first duty of a CheckUser is to ensure the privacy policy is enforced, and the protection of Wikipedia is a secondary concern. Not just because it's the right thing to do, but because the privacy policy is derived from Californian law.

So yes, zero.

Over to you, Wikipediocracy. Have I accurately predicted the character and honestly reflected the past actions of a scumlord like Beeblebrox? Feel free to correct the record if you disagree. That is, if you can find the time in your busy schedule of sucking Beeblebrox's dick.

Post Reply