Wikipedia Bans Seven Chinese Users Amid Concerns of 'Infiltration, Physical Harm' (theregister.com) 36
Thelasko writes: The Wikimedia Foundation has revealed efforts to gather personal information on some Chinese Wikipedia editors by entities opposed to their activities on the platform and likely to threaten the targets' privacy or well-being. The foundation's response has been to ban seven users in mainland China, cancel sysop privileges for another dozen, and warn plenty more Wikipedia editors to modify their behaviour. The bans and warnings were revealed in a Monday letter from Maggie Dennis, the foundation's vice president of community resilience and sustainability. This move followed the detection of what Dennis described in a statement as "information about infiltration of Wikimedia systems, including positions with access to personally identifiable information and elected bodies of influence."
The foundation contracted a security firm, which assessed that the ongoing situation "placed multiple users at risk." Dennis's letter describes the exposure of personal information of Chinese editors, and states "we know that some users have been physically harmed as a result." The Wikimedia Foundation therefore decided some of the perpetrators had to be sanctioned. "We have banned seven users and desysopped a further 12 as a result of long and deep investigations into activities around some members of the unrecognized group Wikimedians of Mainland China," Dennis wrote. "We have also reached out to a number of other editors with explanations around canvassing guidelines and doxing policies and requests to modify their behaviors." The letter and statement don't explain the source of the conflict, but do mention "recent world events" as one catalyst.
The foundation contracted a security firm, which assessed that the ongoing situation "placed multiple users at risk." Dennis's letter describes the exposure of personal information of Chinese editors, and states "we know that some users have been physically harmed as a result." The Wikimedia Foundation therefore decided some of the perpetrators had to be sanctioned. "We have banned seven users and desysopped a further 12 as a result of long and deep investigations into activities around some members of the unrecognized group Wikimedians of Mainland China," Dennis wrote. "We have also reached out to a number of other editors with explanations around canvassing guidelines and doxing policies and requests to modify their behaviors." The letter and statement don't explain the source of the conflict, but do mention "recent world events" as one catalyst.
Gentlemanly persuasion. (Score:3)
This move followed the detection of what Dennis described in a statement as "information about infiltration of Wikimedia systems, including positions with access to personally identifiable information and elected bodies of influence."
2021 seems to be the year of breaking into computers for the purposes of influence.
Back in my day it was a darkened room and a rubber hose.
Re:Gentlemanly persuasion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully 2021 is the year of NOTICING people breaking into computers for the purposes of influence.
But really, it's more like "using systems within their stated rules and guidelines, but creating political influence." And I wish Wikipedia would ban about ten thousand editors who are clearly doing this, but domestically.
It's depressing browsing deletionpedia. Or go to a page for a recently political topic and view history, and compare if from a few years ago to what it is now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's depressing browsing deletionpedia. Or go to a page for a recently political topic and view history, and compare if from a few years ago to what it is now.
I'm not familiar with that site but I'm assuming it's similar to the old photographs from the Soviet Union where people would slowly disappear. Did some people miss the point of the book when they had to read 1984 in high school?
Re: (Score:2)
Did some people miss the point of the book when they had to read 1984 in high school?
No, not at all, but they took it as a How-To instead of a lesson on something to be prevented.
(And, no, I'm not the first one to make that observation.)
Re: (Score:2)
People still believe those influenzas on YouTube that the crap they hawk and peddle is really something they really, really like. I wouldn't get my hopes up if I was you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this how all technology moves forward?
Ftfy
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but now the whole world is the dark room and that rubber hose is intercontinental.
Re: (Score:2)
People are going to die.
If that was the case then libraries are in a lot of trouble.
Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory (Score:2)
This article looks like it was written by the CCP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
(Whether you agree or disagree with the theory, the evidence should be presented. But we now know that it was almost certainly engineered and released by accident. Many other labs around the world are also doing similarly dangerous experiments.)
Wikipedia has been amazingly resilient to this type of abuse. But China might bring it to a new level.
Look closely everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Look closely everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Look closely everywhere (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone living happily within the bounds of his own country without foreign interference?
Can I haz pony? With wings and single horn?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever been to a wedding? Then yes, you can.
Oh, you've never even been to a wedding, so you don't know if you can?
Are you a terrorist? Have you been planning attacks terrorist attacks lately? Did you invite all your terrorist friends to your daughter's wedding? This sounds like a legit military command and control target to me!
Terrorists bring their families to the war. That puts them at risk of being bombed. Whine as loud as you want; everybody else still can have a wedding with no problems. Food po
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What label do you think George Washington would bear if the independence war had been won by the Brits?
A freedom fighter is a terrorist that won.
Re: Look closely everywhere (Score:2)
Re: Look closely everywhere (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s like condemning the Allies for fire bombing Dresden without acknowledging th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that's not in the cards.
I just want the Soviet Union back. They basically ensured our freedom because back when it existed, our wannabe tinpot dictators had to pretend they're the good guys.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a dual national, with family and other immediate personal connections in 3 countries. I'm not at all alone in this respect. But thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Look closely everywhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if China becomes the world's superpower
It already is. Nothing of note happens in this world without China's at least tacit approval. No leader or decision maker anywhere — including all of our leaders in the US — say or do anything without thinking about how China will feel about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
if China becomes the world's superpower
It already is. Nothing of note happens in this world without China's at least tacit approval. No leader or decision maker anywhere — including all of our leaders in the US — say or do anything without thinking about how China will feel about it.
China is not what is conventionally thought of as a superpower, despite possessing nuclear weapons for half a century, but they are indisputably a world power, something which should be acknowledged more often, for their benefit. China has been visibly yearning for international acknowledgement. Their space program is quite obviously an international prestige program, and a successful one. Their Lunar and Mars rovers are very visible demonstrations of top tier engineering and project management prowess.
M
They couldn't agree upon the fate of other 281 (Score:3)
They identified 300 potential bad actors but as usual the in-crowd fighting at Wikimedia over who's opinion is the most righteous paralyses all decision making.
Just like with any edit made Wikipedia, there is always some superior not agreeing with you just for the sake of disagreeing.
LOL (Score:2)