A reporter in a Wikipedia criticism forum had just said that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
Posted by:
crazymonkey
()
Date: September 08, 2023 09:29PM
This is gonna be the most unusual post in this forum, in that it is about a very famous non-profit platform which according to critics and former insiders, had acquired a culty-structure and the associated hallmarks of toxic community over time, like Synanon back in older days. I encourage everyone here to read these first to get some clues about the operation of Wikipedia.
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/djEojDKnp5nHKGPHS/wikipedia-is-not-so-great-and-what-can-be-done-about-it
https://gwern.net/inclusionism
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939
So there are two forums that are dedicated to criticize Wikipedia, namely Wikipediocracy and Wikipediasucks.co. On the latter, a user who had disclose herself as a journalist, made a bold claim that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
In the story, a Wikipedia admin harassed someone who broke Wikipedia rules, the latter being a NARA staff, going as far as to try to get their employer to fire them. Then he doxxed that user along posting personal emails he had obtained from hacking the users personal email account and posted the information to the Wikipediocracy forum. He also attempted to traffic a child from Thailand to his home.
With all due respect, I had interacted with the journalist months ago through PM there because initially I didn't believe it. She manage to furnish some proofs, which included links to an online photo album linked to the perp featuring images of kids in Southeast Asia, however I'm only comfortable of sharing that link with Rick Ross if asked upon at this time because of the fear that he would tamper/destroy the evidence if prematurely exposed, although by now I had archived it with Wayback Machine and Pikwy.
We are looking at a Danny Masterson moment against Wikipedia if these ever got published in the New York Times.
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/djEojDKnp5nHKGPHS/wikipedia-is-not-so-great-and-what-can-be-done-about-it
https://gwern.net/inclusionism
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939
So there are two forums that are dedicated to criticize Wikipedia, namely Wikipediocracy and Wikipediasucks.co. On the latter, a user who had disclose herself as a journalist, made a bold claim that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
Quote
Jennsaurus
For the folks at home, the story I was working on was going to be published by the Daily Beast in Spring 2024. Everything was in place then we had to go to both Wikipedia and the National Archives for comment, as required by law. Archvies wouldn't speak to us and Wikipedia threatened to sue, I suspect because of what we had found out about their administrators. The piece had mainly been about administrator abuse, using tools on Wikipedia to trace ip addresses, dox people's identities then harass them in real life. The Oberranks clusterf*** was a big part of the story, but not the entire story. The real beef of the article was about female editors on their site being stalked and even assaulted after having their identities revealed online by administrators. I found several cases of that including a woman who was stabbed outside her home in Mexico City by a stalker who had researched who she was off of her Wikipeida profile.
Daily Beast backed out because of the lawsuit threat, but I still have the whole story and might one day sell the rights. For now, its back to Eastern Europe covering real news.
In the story, a Wikipedia admin harassed someone who broke Wikipedia rules, the latter being a NARA staff, going as far as to try to get their employer to fire them. Then he doxxed that user along posting personal emails he had obtained from hacking the users personal email account and posted the information to the Wikipediocracy forum. He also attempted to traffic a child from Thailand to his home.
With all due respect, I had interacted with the journalist months ago through PM there because initially I didn't believe it. She manage to furnish some proofs, which included links to an online photo album linked to the perp featuring images of kids in Southeast Asia, however I'm only comfortable of sharing that link with Rick Ross if asked upon at this time because of the fear that he would tamper/destroy the evidence if prematurely exposed, although by now I had archived it with Wayback Machine and Pikwy.
We are looking at a Danny Masterson moment against Wikipedia if these ever got published in the New York Times.
Re: A reporter in a Wikipedia criticism forum had just said that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: September 09, 2023 03:57AM
There are wild rumors about everything and everyone these days.
The more serious the allegations the more important it is to remember that in our legal system we are presumed innocent.
Without this, you, I everyone is at the mercy of rumor.
The more serious the allegations the more important it is to remember that in our legal system we are presumed innocent.
Without this, you, I everyone is at the mercy of rumor.
Re: A reporter in a Wikipedia criticism forum had just said that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: September 09, 2023 04:03AM
IMO Wikipedia is a little bit culty, but not a destructive cult.
My own Wikipedia bio (Rick Alan Ross) went through years of edit battles and ultimately it was found out that cult members were editing it and using Wikipedia as a platform to attack me.
Since then the bio has been largely locked down and frozen with no new additions reflecting my work, such as helping to put away cult leader Keith Raniere of NXIVM infamy, or the fun I had helping the creative team at Ubisoft construct and roll out the videogame "Far Cry 5."
Wikipedia is not (according to its own disclaimer) a reliable source and instead is subject to the whims of its often anonymous editing community, which can be quite arbitrary and biased. Thus a bio on Wikipedia is based largely upon if it's community likes you and/or people you recruit to edit your bio.
My own Wikipedia bio (Rick Alan Ross) went through years of edit battles and ultimately it was found out that cult members were editing it and using Wikipedia as a platform to attack me.
Since then the bio has been largely locked down and frozen with no new additions reflecting my work, such as helping to put away cult leader Keith Raniere of NXIVM infamy, or the fun I had helping the creative team at Ubisoft construct and roll out the videogame "Far Cry 5."
Wikipedia is not (according to its own disclaimer) a reliable source and instead is subject to the whims of its often anonymous editing community, which can be quite arbitrary and biased. Thus a bio on Wikipedia is based largely upon if it's community likes you and/or people you recruit to edit your bio.
Re: A reporter in a Wikipedia criticism forum had just said that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
Posted by:
crazymonkey
()
Date: September 09, 2023 11:51AM
corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are wild rumors about everything and
> everyone these days.
>
> The more serious the allegations the more
> important it is to remember that in our legal
> system we are presumed innocent.
>
> Without this, you, I everyone is at the mercy of
> rumor.
Indeed. The allegations are quite serious on their own and that's why months ago I had forwarded the full details (about the pedophilia part) I got from the journalist to other media outlets and law enforcements such as FBI and NCMEC. No acknowledgement letter had been received thus far.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are wild rumors about everything and
> everyone these days.
>
> The more serious the allegations the more
> important it is to remember that in our legal
> system we are presumed innocent.
>
> Without this, you, I everyone is at the mercy of
> rumor.
Indeed. The allegations are quite serious on their own and that's why months ago I had forwarded the full details (about the pedophilia part) I got from the journalist to other media outlets and law enforcements such as FBI and NCMEC. No acknowledgement letter had been received thus far.
Re: A reporter in a Wikipedia criticism forum had just said that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
Posted by:
DharmaLion2003
()
Date: September 12, 2023 04:32AM
I must confess that I'm a bit confused by this message:
Can you back up your claims, especially your central claim which appears to be that Wikipedia is a cult, a bit more strongly?
- [*] You, crazymonkey, have only been a member here for less than 48 hours with only the two posts in this thread. Would you be willing to introduce yourself and your credentials for speaking on this matter?
[*] The articles you link to, although critical of Wikipedia, don't seem to back up your claim that Wikipedia is a cult. Not every organization with issues is a cult. Can you back up your claim that Wikipedia is a cult? I agree with rrmoderator that Wikipedia is not a destructive cult.
[*] Beyond your (undocumented) claim that Wikipedia is a cult, you have made some pretty serious accusations against Wikipedia editors, including pedophilia and aggravated assault. It is unclear both whether these allegations--and they are quite serious--have any basis in fact, and whether they are connected to Wikipedia in any way. There are currently 46M Wikipedia accounts of which 119K are currently active. Criminal behavior on the part of a few individual editors, although reprehensible, doesn't necessarily reflect badly on the community as a whole, especially given that Wikipedia is NOT a very close knit community.
[*]And the fact that Wikipedia is not especially close knit is further evidence that it is not a cult--most cults are more close knit than that.
Can you back up your claims, especially your central claim which appears to be that Wikipedia is a cult, a bit more strongly?
Re: A reporter in a Wikipedia criticism forum had just said that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
Posted by:
crazymonkey
()
Date: September 21, 2023 03:05PM
I must admit that I am a bit dubious about that it is a cult and would think that it's more of a high-control group, although I stand by my claims that it has acquired some "culty vibes". However the forum board doesn't have a separate section for high-control groups that fall short of a cult.
That being said, in practice Wikipedia has been known to revert edits made by anyone not in good standing, such as so-called "sockpuppets" and so on regardless of the fact that some of these are constructive. They even have a list of case files meant for public shaming against those who perceived to be belligerent enough, not unlike "suppressive persons" of a certain famous cult and in contrary to the principles of General Data Protection Regulation in the Europe.
Any critics looking to expose and criticise Wikipedia has meet so many unusual hurdles ranging from public indifference and apathy and up to legal threats, just like the journalist's case. Bbb23sucks who is a regular Wikipedia critic at Reddit tried to get public attention to the cause on a link submission about the Columbia Hospital predator cover-up scandal, only to get booed, downvoted, and their comments mass-removed which I believe is a likely sign of the sub mods banning them simply because of viewpoints.
She has since said that the story still has hopes of getting published if it is rewired a bit to clear up some legal fears.
That being said, in practice Wikipedia has been known to revert edits made by anyone not in good standing, such as so-called "sockpuppets" and so on regardless of the fact that some of these are constructive. They even have a list of case files meant for public shaming against those who perceived to be belligerent enough, not unlike "suppressive persons" of a certain famous cult and in contrary to the principles of General Data Protection Regulation in the Europe.
Any critics looking to expose and criticise Wikipedia has meet so many unusual hurdles ranging from public indifference and apathy and up to legal threats, just like the journalist's case. Bbb23sucks who is a regular Wikipedia critic at Reddit tried to get public attention to the cause on a link submission about the Columbia Hospital predator cover-up scandal, only to get booed, downvoted, and their comments mass-removed which I believe is a likely sign of the sub mods banning them simply because of viewpoints.
She has since said that the story still has hopes of getting published if it is rewired a bit to clear up some legal fears.
Quote
Jennsaurus
Pretty straight forward libel laws in US publishing code. If you publish a news story about a person or entity, you have to go to them for comment, otherwise they can sue you for libel. As I said in my OP, when we did that for this story, NARA refused to comment and the Wikipedia Foundation threatened to quash the story with a lawsuit. BTW, the ship is not sunk on this. A rewire will probably clear up the libel fears with Daily Beast but I won't have to do it until I get back from Poland at the end of the year.
Re: A reporter in a Wikipedia criticism forum had just said that Daily Beast killed the story about Wikipedia's harassment scandals against women.
Posted by:
crazymonkey
()
Date: October 21, 2023 08:32PM
New update from Jennsaurus:
Quote
Jennsaurus
The war in Israel certainly has changed my life a bit. I am stationed in Poland these days but have asked to go cover the fighting. As a Jew myself, I have a personal interest in this since I have family in Haifa and used to do summer courses in Jerusalem. Nasty business going on right now, that's for sure.
I gave Daily Beast my story, I'm not sure if they will run it or not. You have to remember the Oberranks case is something of old news, as it happened five years ago in 2018. Oscroft and his internet activities were more recent, but he's been quiet now for about two years since I think he actually got a bit scared after his name started popping up on law enforcement radars. I've confirmed he was talked to at least once by law enforcement, mainly about his obsession with the U.S. government worker (Hughes) who he had convinced himself was Oberranks.
Hughes probably did operate that account about fifteen years ago from what I can tell, but was one of several people who did. Oscroft and his buddies don't like it when their narrative gets spoiled, and refused to ever admit, even with the evidence staring them in the face, that the Oberranks account was clearly being operated by more than one person. It was actually Goodman (DGG) who confirmed that for me in one of our interviews and had himself spoken to two of the people who operated the account.
For those wondering, the end game of Oscroft appeared to be blackmail, or some kind of weird plan where he was going to fly to the United States and confront Hughes in person literally at the front door of the National Archives and be some kind of Wikipedia hero - that's how crazy that guy is. He never went through with his plan since, like I said, law enforcement started taking an interest in him especially after it appeared he really did have a plot to travel internationally to a US federal building in Washington DC. What's really ironic is that when all the s**t was going down, Hughes didn't even work at the National Archives anymore.
Also, gotta remember, Oberraks/Hughes was only a small part of my story. In three years of research, I found over two dozen cases where Wikipedia administrators had misused their authority, traced ip addresses, and stalked people in real life. Two of the worst cases ever were CommanderWaterford, who some on Wikipedia actually tried to bankrupt as well as a user named Eustress who apparently there was some type of plan to kidnap and rape. Not to mention Henrettia Gonzalez, who never told me her user name, but was attacked outside her apartment in Mexico City after a Wikipedia administrator traced her ip address and gave the information to her attacker.
It's actually a wonder no one has been killed yet by some of the people on that web site.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.