Even better, fork Wikipedia.

https://ibis.wiki/

That’s right. Many Global South topics are more likely to be affected by deletionism than the WASP ones. “Wikipedia has a left wing bias” is just a misnomer.

We have to use this generic username instead of more identifiable one exactly because of the fear of retaliation, which by now thanks to the blog author and so on, seems really like a pattern instead of isolated incident. If we participate on other topics apart from Wikipedia there’s the risk of people using what we’ve frequently posted to try to deanonymize us.

it_depends_man ultimately has a fair point while another probable WMF staffer kubofhromoslav just weighed in here echoing the concerns.

Hope that Bernadette Meehan will have the guts to correct all the issues, but guess we’ll see.

Their point still stands, but on the other hand you’re no different than the supporters of the Maine oystenfuhrer who dismissed concerns about his character and attacked those who raised it, or maybe some paid bots of Theranos in 2015.

Fair warning: You’d want to get a lawyer soon if you’re entangled with toxic nonsenses at Wikipedia in so many ways, because at the rate we see it, the chickens are about to come home to roost and it’s not gonna end well for you. We’ll leave the question open on what direction everything in this context are converging into.

Volunteer editors make up a vast majority of the workhorse in the encyclopedia. Here’s a post on how the strike will look like.

At WP:VPWMF § Petition: Editors willing to join in collective labor action, I’ve suggested the possibility of Wikipedia’s editorbase going on strike in solidarity with Wiki Workers United. As I stress at VPWMF, the details of such a strike would only be finalized in the event that a strike happens; supporting the conditional commitment to strike does not mean supporting exactly what I’ve written in this document. However, it seems prudent to sketch out an idea of how a strike might work, which is what I aim to do here.

What would the strike prohibit? Editors on strike would agree to refrain from any on-wiki activity that does not in some way further the goals of the strike, except as necessary to preserve the dignity of our readers, editors, and living biographical subjects. In particular, they would not: Edit or take other actions on content pages[a] or their talk pages, except to remove content that is so egregiously inappropriate as to require revision deletion, suppression, or speedy deletion as an attack page Revert, warn, or block accounts for routine violations of the vandalism policy, the username policy, or any content policies Participate in content improvement or curation processes such as Wikipedia:Good article nominations or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion How would the strike be enforced? The strike would be strictly voluntary. No one would be blocked or otherwise administratively sanctioned merely for not participating. However, nothing prevents striking editors from lobbying other editors to join, even in strongly-worded terms, so long as they are civil and do not harass people. Furthermore, nothing prevents striking editors from imposing social consequences against those who cross the picket line, for instance by saying that upon the end of the strike they will not review good article nominations or featured article nominations by former strikebreakers.

Would this require community consensus? Individual participation in the strike would not require community consensus. Organizing the strike and encouraging others to join would only require an absence of consensus forbidding it. If there is sufficient support for the strike among community members, community-level decisions could be made such as: Revoking authorization for bots that edit content pages Disabling software features that make editing easier, perhaps such as those that are maintained by Community Tech Authorizing a bot to notify users of the strike the first time they edit a content page Placing banner messages notifying readers of the strike

When would the strike end? A minimum criterion for ending the strike would be Wiki Workers United saying that it is no longer needed. However, the participants in the strike could !vote to add further criteria, such as greater accountability and community influence in WMF governance.

What if those criteria were never met? The community at all times reserves its fundamental right to fork the wiki if necessary.

Unfortunately and theoretically, the WMF could just resort to strikebreakers, like recruiting people through channels like WikiEd and so on.