> […] process for auditing or evaluating the actions, activities, and voting patterns of editors, admins, and committees, […]
Voting patterns, note. Edward Robert Martin Jr expresses the totalitarian position of a secret ballot, something that was fought for long and hard in centuries past, being a bad thing.
> […] through its wholly owned subsidiary Wikipedia […]
An encyclopaedia is not a corporation, of course, and this is just plain ignorant nonsense.
The same individual making these legal threats has appeared on Russian state media over 100 times.
It is interesting that Russian government also believes that Wikipedia spreads misinformation, Western deceitful propaganda and plainly breaks the laws. Especially in articles related to politics and the war.
Difficult to live in a world where everyone has its own version of "truth".
Aside from the blatant political bias, Wikipedia is a hornet's nest of intelligence pushing agendas.
[1] https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically...
I've been critical of Wikipedia for years. Can't they come up with a more coherent argument like it put paid encyclopedias out of business so the donations it gets for running ads should be taxed like a business.
its true. wikipedias network of editors has been manipulated and infiltrated by special interest groups and intelligence agencies.
There is nothing "alleged" about wikipedia's activites that have absolutely nothing to do with publishing an open source online encyclopedia, and have gone from an "inclusivity" statement into spending money on "programs" in an entirely discretionary manner that has absolutly no possible conection or meaning to an ALL inclusive publishing endevour. knowledge IS power but picking WHO gets to be empowered, and heard is called censorship and discrimination, no matter how disadvantaged and under represented those chosen are. publishing is one thing, how people are empowered by that information is another. wiki crossed the line,failed to pick a lane, and will very likely end up causing more suffering, than if they had left the pie, alone and just done there stated job, very, very, well
Wikipedia is more vulnerable than you think, there are only around 840 administrators on the English Wikipedia, most of them who have been around for nearly 20 years. It would only take a few takedowns of major admins to disrupt the power balance on Wikipedia to a different viewpoint. The next level in the hierarchy, bureaucrats, only have 16 members. Many administrators, including one quite recently got demoted for conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Some of the other language Wikipedias already had their administrator's imprisoned by governments.