Comment by scarab92
5 days ago
A couple of journalists broke Twitters rule on doxxing, and were briefly suspended.
Wikipedia cops a lot of criticism for being politically biased. The fact it has a whole article around this seems to support that.
5 days ago
A couple of journalists broke Twitters rule on doxxing, and were briefly suspended.
Wikipedia cops a lot of criticism for being politically biased. The fact it has a whole article around this seems to support that.
> A couple of journalists broke Twitters rule on doxxing, and were briefly suspended.
That is a complete lie. Musk "updated" twitter rules to ban the tracking of private jets (namely his) despite that being public information, and immediately proceeded to suspend accounts having relayed that public information, and accounts which had mentioned or linked to such, or to aviation tracker websites.
Musk also routinely singles out individuals of companies or administrations he dislikes e.g. https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-bullying-federal-wor...
Doxing often involves linking data in public datasets to de-anonymised individuals. Using ADS-B to achieve that is just an implementation detail.
Ultimately, there's little doubt that sharing the real time location of named private individuals is doxing.
It's true that Twitter suspended journalists only 24 hours after the ban on doxing went live, but the penality was minor, and journalists were allowed back after they removed the offending content.
What exactly is it about that article that leads you to label it as politically biased? I see nothing but apparently factual information without any commentary.
It's existence.
A couple journalists broke a social media platform's rule on doxxing, and were temporarily suspended for it.
This wouldn't meet the standard for notability if it occurred on any other platform.
You can not make Wikipedia care about your pet idea without working on it yourself, so the absence of information on something is more an issue with you than with the people that edit Wikipedia.
It is impossible to argue against you because it is an opinion. First of all there is not one "Wikipedia", second of all as politicians usually say "I can not comment on specific cases". There is some truth in that saying, you can only talk about the policy and the policy continues to be "neutral point of view". Considering the horribly biased alternatives to Wikipedia that has sprung up, I would say that Wikipedia is probably the best NPOV you are going to get.
2 replies →
And why was CrimethInk banned then? because they didn't dox anyone, never called for violence against people or location.
Until a "free speech defender" can explain what CrimthInc did that was against free speech that warranted the ban (and not either ignore it or sweep it under the "mistake were made" rug), i will keep thinking they are only a Musk glazer, deal?
Did they break the rules on doxxing, or did Musk just say they did?
2 replies →
The rules on doxing are applied haphazardly.
Musk is fine with censorship with his Chinese CCP friends, anyway, so the hypocrisy is as big as his Melon.
> link to Watergate Scandal article
> Wikipedia’s political bias confirmed
A president breaking the law, vs a few low-level journalists breaking a doxxing policy of a social media website.
Hardly equivalent in terms of notability.
When you say "Wikipedia" do you mean the site operators, or the volunteer editors? If there is a factually incorrect statement in the article, instead of complaining about bias you can always edit it or start a section in the Talk page on the article. Be a part of the group and reduce its perceived bias.
The simple existence of a page that documents an event is not evidence of political bias, and that accusation says more about your own biases than it does Wikipedia editors.
The editors.
The problem is that notability is very subjective, and wikipedia's editors are notorious for applying a low threshold for information critical of those on the right, and high threshold for information critical of the left.
Suspending a few journalists for doxxing would not meet the notability threshold for an article to exist, if it occured on any other platform.
If you have verifiable information that debunks or improves upon existing text in the article, which meets the standards of the organization (not self-published, etc), I promise you that your edits will be considered and integrated. There is a Talk page for a reason.
The system is not perfect, and is still vulnerable to certain kinds of subterfuge, but the more critical thinkers involved in the process, the better. If you consider yourself a critical thinker, consider adding to the body of knowledge.
> if it occured on any other platform
Who cares? Those platforms are not Wikipedia, and serve different goals. You will find plenty of historical events covered in great depth on Wikipedia despite only involving a few people over a few days. Don't fall victim to cherry-picking.
5 replies →