Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
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: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by ericbarbour » Wed May 25, 2022 12:26 am

Abd already tried to sue the WMF on a similar basis. And failed, mostly because he had a stroke and couldn't respond to their requests.

As I've said before: not many cases against Wikimedia or individuals on Wikipedia have made it to a courtroom. They tend to be dismissed for procedural reasons, or because the WMF invoked Section 230. Have I sent you a copy of the book wiki yet?

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

Re: Wikipedia born from porn site "Bomis"

Post by wexter » Wed May 25, 2022 1:51 am

Love reading your book - send me a copy.. The case you mention was a pro se case that might get some media attention but really lacked a cause of action.

This is a draft that will be sent out to the FLA AG, I think its relevant because there is tons of push back here in Red parts of the state against de-platforming and bias on social networks. Failure of Wikipedia to respond to illegality, and then follow on retaliation, makes them extremely vulnerable.

---------------------------


Wikipedia will actively retaliate against anyone informing the platform that it hosts (or links to) unprotected speech. Wikipedia takes down a tremendous amount of user created data, however Wikipedia defends illegal speech to the point of intractability.

A tacit “Whistleblower's Dilemma” exists on Wikipedia whereby anyone that reports unprotected speech will be at risk of being harassed and then deplatformed.

Both a legal and moral obligation exists on the part of Administrators and Wikipedia to remove unprotected speech immediately upon receiving notice. Wikipedia lacks a central point of contact for the reporting of unprotected speech, and it lacks a process for investigating illegal speech promulgated on its platform. Direct editing on the platform provides the only avenue to give notice to Wikipedia and it is assured that retaliation against the reporting party will take place as a result.

Notice, to remove unprotected speech, given through direct edits will be reestablished and reverted immediately with the editing user being harassed and then banned. Notice given on “talk pages' ' are generally ignored; such notice will usually be interpreted as an assault on the integrity of the platform with the reporting user being harassed and then banned.. Notice given to the Wikimedia Foundation will be disavowed on the basis that it is a responsibility of the Wikipedia platform. .

As a matter of free speech, Wikipedia can moderate and manage its platform any way it sees fit. When it comes to illegal speech Wikipedia will retaliate instead of addressing concerns swiftly, directly, and in overview.

How can Wikipedia enjoy “free speech” without meeting its obligation to manage and remove illegal speech through process, fairness, and pragmatism?

If Wikipedia had a process in place it would not need to defend its continuity by being retaliatory. Wikipedia represents a utility and monopoly that all Floridans use and rely upon. It's frankly outrageous that Wikipedia operates without process and oversight, thus it provides a platform that favors the preservation and promulgation of unconscionable content.

Federal law (section 230) has historically provided Wikipedia with total exculpation from recourse. In my analysis, I believe that failure to address illegal content, in combination with retaliatory actions of the platform, provide an avenue for argument in law to hold this irresponsible “Social Network” accountable.

I will be glad to provide the Attorney General with factual information that supports this complaint.
As a Florida resident I am asking the Attorney General to address this concern with the Wikimedia Foundation and with all the resources at its disposal.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

Post Reply