dumps.wikimedia.org there you go.

It’s impractical and unlikely, bordering on impossible. Deletionists have driven a lot of productive contributors out of the projects through shady tactics like “wikilawyering” and gaming the system. You can look at this essay by Gwern to see what I’m talking about.

Because that’s an old habit which is carried over from Reddit.

deleted by creator

Just to be clear, we’re not against the general notion of “free knowledge movement”. Rather we’d love it if there are viable competitors to Wikipedia.

Edit: You can always go to dumps.wikimedia.org to download a copy of Wikipedia encyclopedic articles and start a fork from there.

That’s doesn’t mean that the story isn’t credible though. Here’s a PDF to the court document.

Either way there should be competitors to Wikipedia. One of the promising projects is ibis.wiki but so far there’s no function to integrate Wiki markup yet.

Why is your username Wikipedia sucks lol?

Because this is a multiple-used shared identity by a number of whistleblowers who wants to protect their identity. The lawsuit basically vindicates what we’re trying to warn people about over the past few months.

Look at how cute you’re trying to deflect and gaslight away from the fact that you’re not reacting well to the hard truth that Wikipedia is not a “magical platform” after all, especially by committing so-called “psychological projection”.

One of the main point of the comparison is the parallel between churches in the 50’s and Wikipedia of today; you would’ve been summarily dismissed as an “atheistic commie bent on destroying the country” if you lift a finger against churches in the era, especially at the height of McCarthyism. The same is happening to critics of Wikipedia today, with people like you dismissing them as “far-right obscurantists bent on destroying knowledge”, which is the essence of strawman fallacy.

You clearly displayed your naivete right there when you summarily dismiss accounts which are solely used to expose any scandals in any companies or organizations as “narrow minded”; are you ten? Perhaps you should go sit at the kids table and cry a river there.

You would’ve said the same thing against victims of priest sexual abuses if you were a regular citizen in the 50’s or so.

You would’ve said the same about Apple and so on if this was the late 2000s.

By the way, there should be a second Internet Archive because currently the original one is getting under siege from copyright lawsuits, and unlike the WMF they’re running on budget money. In contrast to Wikipedia, I found the people there are kind and nice.

What are people supposed to think?

Stop thinking about Wikipedia as a “magical platform” and start thinking it as just another institution which are prone to human errors. It’s because of Google that Wikipedia has become a suffocating monopoly which escaped consequences every time somebody wants to vibe check it, until now.

You said no nuance? Now this is indeed no nuance as the so-called magical platform has hidden ableist biases against topics related to neurodivergent people as well.

That’s right. The other day I had shared a PDF document on this sub that is a court document, regarding serial harassment and stalking incidents done by some toxic editors against an academic on Hebrew Wikipedia. Unfortunately I had removed it with the help of a mod because the document, which is publicly hosted on Wikimedia Foundation’s governance website, contains unredacted personal information.

Has that been the reason you hate Wikipedia this whole time, they’re too honest about genocide?

With all due respect, the pro-Palestinian side has been griping about Wikipedia as well. You’re clearly trying to pigeonhole people so that you can dismiss all the concerns that the so-called “magical platform” has a ton of issues after all.

Perfect sometimes is the enemy of good. At least the issues on Wikipedia are finally being taken seriously after years of neglect.

Gee, why would conservative billionaires be against free and available information to the masses?

This is a false dichotomy pigeonholing fallacy. Many critics do support Wikipedia as a concept, however they are pissed off by how toxic editors have captured the levers of power on Wikipedia and corrupted it. It’s probably better for the knowledge market to consist of multiple platform instead of a single, suffocating monopoly, and there are already real efforts in addressing it, such as ibis.wiki.

Cory Doctorow’s thesis on enshittification fits right in this case.

The Detroit News has syndicated the content in case you can’t get past the paywall. Have a nice day.

Semantic drifts can occur over time whether we like it or not; that word has now been used to refer to platform decay in a colloquial sense. To insist that a word must be tied to a particular definition or meaning when such a drift has de facto occured in a broader and significant degree is the textbook definition of etymological fallacy.

A lot of people have asked in the support forums to tone down or moderate their policy to only clearing the contents of inactive email accounts instead of accounts themselves, because access to email accounts are seen more like an utility these days with so many online services using emails for multi-factor authentication and verification.

There are a lot of factors which will cause people to be involuntarily absent from their accounts, such as medical incapacity, prison (whether rightfully or not, since there are many wrongful conviction cases worldwide), internet blackouts, and within the context of East Asia, being trapped in scam compounds for an extended time.

I support only the deletion of inactive accounts if they were abandoned immediately after creation and whose main motive is to squat usernames.

Enshittification in high gear mode. The other day they’ve been exposed for backpedalling on their promises to spare inactive accounts that were created before 2024 until next year from the inactive accounts deletion policy.