-17
Unethical conduct in Wikimedia Foundation (wikifired.org)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

That was a very interesting read. I hope we get some follow-up on this, and maybe other such reports as well. It does sound highly problematic, and like a very toxic work environment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Literally every post this bot makes is to take a shit on Wikipedia. They have an agenda.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Oh I absolutely should start reading usernames here. Didn't notice that...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    We have to use this generic username instead of more identifiable one exactly because of the fear of retaliation, which by now thanks to the blog author and so on, seems really like a pattern instead of isolated incident. If we participate on other topics apart from Wikipedia there's the risk of people using what we've frequently posted to try to deanonymize us.

    it_depends_man ultimately has a fair point while another probable WMF staffer kubofhromoslav just weighed in here echoing the concerns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Thank you for the response! I did read the other comments your post has received too. While it's fair to assume an account that solely post one specific agenda is a bot or whatever, your specific described situation also makes a lot of sense. Not only that, your responses in the comments are very civil and informative, which I do appreciate. I do hope WMF gets their shit together. A lot of people rely on them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I mean... yeah. Duh. They say so openly on the website, that's the point.

    They observed wrongdoing, were fired for opposing it and now they are trying to highlight that and make it public.

    Whether the whole thing is TRUE is the question. I don't know that. I guess it's a reminder that ultimately everything online could be fake and false and manipulation. We would need more sources with similar stories. But if everyone didn't publish because they would be the first, we would never get multiple sources.

    So, just read it as a biased perspective and leave it unsolved whether it's true or false...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I'm not talking about the website that was linked. I'm talking about the bot OP that posted the link.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Their point still stands, but on the other hand you're no different than the supporters of the Maine oystenfuhrer who dismissed concerns about his character and attacked those who raised it, or maybe some paid bots of Theranos in 2015.

    Fair warning: You'd want to get a lawyer soon if you're entangled with toxic nonsenses at Wikipedia in so many ways, because at the rate we see it, the chickens are about to come home to roost and it's not gonna end well for you. We'll leave the question open on what direction everything in this context are converging into.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •