According to a journalist who lurk on here, there is a second Holocaust scandal.
It looks like a major scandal to me - to be hitting the media perhaps
Statement by Jimbo Wales
I will post a full statement here tomorrow morning - I just wanted to pop a note here now to make sure people know I am aware of this and not ignoring it.
In the meantime, let me be clear: I regret and have apologised for the tone of my question to BradV. "If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page" says WP:COICOIN. I was upset by the large number in question and wasn't nearly as civil as I should have been - but the right thing to do is ask people, per policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is similar because the rules are totally arbitrary - there is no real process or internal controls it is a lunatic free for all toxic mosh pit - the Jimbo issue shows that the fruit of the tree is poisoned. (Fruit = Wikipedia, Poison started with Jimbo's Porn Site Bomis)
--The issue is whether or not the founder can do whatever he wants to do regardless of process
--In the Holocaust scandal - a group of editors can do whatever they want to do using the faux process
--He who prevails on setting reality wields the biggest stick! (in either case)
I think Wikipedia is going to be pounded from here on in.. In a shark attack you lose a leg or get killed; in a piranha attack you get nipped away relentlessly. Wikipedia is under piranha attack.
(PS the value of Chat GPT is not in content -- it can organize your content if you present it with your overview - as far as parroting the work of ohters there are indicators that just as Wikipedia harvested Britannica Chat GPT will start out by harvesting Wikipedia)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."
