| ▲ | CaptainNegative 4 hours ago | |
> but at some point a state based cyber attack that just wipes wikipedia off the net is deeply damaging to our modern society’s ability to agree on common facts Haven't we hit that point already with bad faith (and potentially government-run) coordinated editing and voting campaigns, as both Wales and Sanger have been pointing out for a while now? See, for example, * Sanger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses * Wales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#... * PirateWires: https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-is-becoming-a-ma... | ||
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 an hour ago | parent [-] | |
> Haven't we hit that point already with bad faith (and potentially government-run) coordinated editing […] campaigns, Yes, this is a real phenomenon. See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Wikipedia%E2%80%93...: the examples from 2006 are funny, and the article's subject matter just gets sadder and sadder as the chronology goes on. > and voting campaigns I'm not sure what you mean by this. Wikipedia is not a democracy. > as both Wales and Sanger have been pointing out {{fv}}. Neither of those essays make this point. The closest either gets is Sanger's first thesis, which misunderstands the "support / oppose" mechanism. Ironically, his ninth thesis says to introduce voting, which would create the "voting campaign" vulnerability! These are both really bad takes, which I struggle to believe are made in good faith, and I'm glad Wikipedians are mostly ignoring them. (I have not read the third link you provided, because Substack.) | ||