What I am doing to save this site.

[grandmaster-huon]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rebuilt_Wikimedia

[ericbarbour]

Good luck getting any attention from the deranged MMO players. They will fight you tooth and nail.

Oh look, you got a comment. Someone accusing you of being an AI.

If for anything else, I'd like to hear your further answers to topics of AI neutrality and implementation. One last question, was this proposal written by a large linguistic model?

[Ognistysztorm]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rebuilt_Wikimedia

The intention is good but more likely we'll see a soft reboot of the knowledge market as Wikimedia will be subsumed by multiple platforms such as HandWiki and Justapedia in the future, like how the League of Nations was replaced by the UN after WWII.

In other news, with the retirement of Rep. Don Bacon from the Congress, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick has emerged as a top contender to lead the Congressional Select Committee to Investigate Issues Concerning Wikipedia and Other Online Platforms if and when HTD comes, due to his prior experiences as a FBI agent and a prosecutor.

https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/07/02 ... s-in-2026/

If the Democrats won the 2026 congressional elections then I think that Rep. Ritchie Torres could be a top contender instead, with Rep. Fitzpatrick relegated to the ranking member role.

[grandmaster-huon]

See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... 80%99s_why

[grandmaster-huon]

"Preemptively closing this before it becomes a complete circus. Throwing out a bunch of vague thoughts that are a mix of unrelated to Commons, non Commons-specific, utterly unworkable, exceedingly unlikely to be accepted by the community, and bereft of useful detail is not the way to start a productive conversation.

@Grandmaster Huon: , I suggest you carefully Jmabel and ReneeWrites told you. Immediately after an unblock is an exceptionally poor time to propose systemic change. That is not going to establish you as a trustable community member, and neither is posting LLM-generated drivel. If you want to eliminate "low-value uploads", you can start with some of your own. Just since your unblock, you're uploaded multiple uselessly-blurry files (1, 2, 3), multiple sets of duplicates (4a/4b, 5a/5b), and vacation photos with useless filename and description (6) - and none of the uploads are well-categorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi.1415926535 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)"

[Ognistysztorm]

"Preemptively closing this before it becomes a complete circus. Throwing out a bunch of vague thoughts that are a mix of unrelated to Commons, non Commons-specific, utterly unworkable, exceedingly unlikely to be accepted by the community, and bereft of useful detail is not the way to start a productive conversation.

@Grandmaster Huon: , I suggest you carefully Jmabel and ReneeWrites told you. Immediately after an unblock is an exceptionally poor time to propose systemic change. That is not going to establish you as a trustable community member, and neither is posting LLM-generated drivel. If you want to eliminate "low-value uploads", you can start with some of your own. Just since your unblock, you're uploaded multiple uselessly-blurry files (1, 2, 3), multiple sets of duplicates (4a/4b, 5a/5b), and vacation photos with useless filename and description (6) - and none of the uploads are well-categorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi.1415926535 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)"

I would heavily disagree with some of your proposals though, especially the deletionism-supporting part to "purge fancrufts".

[grandmaster-huon]

But quality over quantity, all the time.

[Archer]

Do not waste your effort and charity on charlatans/propagandists. Wikipedia falsely promotes itself as a public and democratic organization, yet rarely if ever actually uses those words. Wikipedia's nebulous policy avoids granting any rights to members the public. It contains a wealth of open-ended and often contradictory rules/guidelines that apply to editors, but no policy that might inconvenience or embarrass an admin who abuses their authority. Wikipedia policy does not even require an admin to cite official policy when issuing a block nor any other formality besides leaving a notice on the user's talk page (which the user often removes at a later point). The block log comprises the only public record and each entry contains only the recipient, the admin, the date and an informal note. Thousands of entries merely read "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia", hyperlinked to WP:HTBAE, which is not official policy and in fact not even a falsifiable charge at all. I could go on, but must I? Nobody would or could contrive this ass-backwards policy by honest mistake. Wikipedia serves to launder propaganda as public consensus - that is my general critique of Wikipedia, or perhaps my hypothesis.

We also need AI-assisted edit filtering on Wikipedia to reduce vandalism before it appears.

I suspect Wikipedia actually appreciates a steady stream of 'vandals' to block, just to maintain the appearance of authority and provide cover for their thuggery. I've said before that even a bayes spam filter would probably catch a lot of their 'vandalism'. They likely have a spam detector of some sort.

[grandmaster-huon]

Do not waste your effort and charity on charlatans/propagandists. Wikipedia falsely promotes itself as a public and democratic organization, yet rarely if ever actually uses those words. Wikipedia's nebulous policy avoids granting any rights to members the public. It contains a wealth of open-ended and often contradictory rules/guidelines that apply to editors, but no policy that might inconvenience or embarrass an admin who abuses their authority. Wikipedia policy does not even require an admin to cite official policy when issuing a block nor any other formality besides leaving a notice on the user's talk page (which the user often removes at a later point). The block log comprises the only public record and each entry contains only the recipient, the admin, the date and an informal note. Thousands of entries merely read "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia", hyperlinked to WP:HTBAE, which is not official policy and in fact not even a falsifiable charge at all. I could go on, but must I? Nobody would or could contrive this ass-backwards policy by honest mistake. Wikipedia serves to launder propaganda as public consensus - that is my general critique of Wikipedia, or perhaps my hypothesis.

We also need AI-assisted edit filtering on Wikipedia to reduce vandalism before it appears.

I suspect Wikipedia actually appreciates a steady stream of 'vandals' to block, just to maintain the appearance of authority and provide cover for their thuggery. I've said before that even a bayes spam filter would probably catch a lot of their 'vandalism'. They likely have a spam detector of some sort.

Why isn't the foundation doing anything about this? They are mainly PR now.

[ericbarbour]

Why isn't the foundation doing anything about this? They are mainly PR now.

I spent the last 15+ years telling people, IN PUBLIC, that the WMF is rotten and the WP insiders are even more rotten. You are delusional if you think anything will "change" suddenly. Or ever. I still expect the WMF will crash and burn before there is serious "reform".