15
Wikipedia doxxes details of editors to Delhi High Court
(en.wikipedia.org)
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
🪆 About Lemmy World
🧭 Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
Rules
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
As a European, I wonder if I can be protected via EU law?
If the foundation decides to share the details of the involved editors, a large group of contributors could quit their accounts and ask for removal of their contributions.
Considering the structure of Wikimedia, this will be a near impossible task, it may bring them to European courts next for violating EU law???
Theoretically Wikipedia could be held accountable under GDPR already since unbeknownst to many, the website has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.
As seen here and below, the judge reportedly mentioned the word "addresses". Others have said that in this case it could only mean email addresses, home addresses, or IP addresses. The shit has hit the fan.
Any details on this?
There are, but because of the brigading, to avoid stuffing the beans, I'd put this link to their "sockpuppet investigations" page instead so you can look into it further by yourself.
Ultimately, Eric Barbour of Metasonix has collected a trove of Wikipedia's affairs and scandals over the years which is only accessible through hard drive formats to journalists if asked. There's even a book which has yet to be published and which could be the Hollywood Babylon of Wikipedia.
No idea what that means
I don't see how that is related. I am by no means a wikipedia expert but reading that article and some of the linked investigations it all seems mundane to me.
tbh this response seems kinda shitty to me. You originally said "[Wikipedia] has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.". I interpret this as a systemic issue (procedure, they) which happens regularly or always (procedure, anyone). It makes me imagine a wiki page "Vandalism cases on wikipedia" containing a table of cases with date, article, edit, and IP/account, existing for months or years frequented by wikipedia mods and admins.
I interpret your response now as 'there is info but it is private and part of ongoing investigations'.
If it was a larger issue there should be evidence. After all doxxing is precisely about making something publically available.
My interpretation now is that this is a small thing which either happened in the past or is unknown?
Can you please be specific about what you are referring to? And even without giving evidence, at least clarify what you aledge wikipedia or admins or anyone else did here?
That's right! That's exactly the format they used in these procedures, which sometimes branch over onto "sockpuppet investigations" casepages. The other day I approached an Europe-based digital rights lawyers group and they agreed with the assessment that these pages do indeed constitute violations of General Data Protection Regulation. The only problem is that they have to find a victim who's willing to be a complainant in order to initiate a formal complaint.
A few months ago the Italian data protection authority ruled that Wikipedia isn't exempt from the privacy regulation in some way.