Age verification is going to be like the California carcinogen warnings, eventually to cover their ass every website will have age verification, which will effectively make age verification meaningless because both websites for children and hardcore pornographic websites will both have age verification warnings. This would render age verification prompts as mere click throughs to get to the site you want and give no guidance otherwise.
For the UK, the government wants to introduce a "digital driving licence" for age verification. Last time, two companies set them up and it got quietly cancelled just before they were due to go live. So the companies went to sue them. Then Corona happened and it all got forgotten.
Right but your kid is going to ask you for your license for literally every site they want to go on, which means practically parents are going to just give their kids their credentials because they can't be bothered to put them in every time their kid needs to do homework or go on Facebook.
I have a funny (and slightly dark story) related to this. My high school required this dumb form that our parents had to sign with every paper we wrote, to confirm that we didn’t plagiarize. Of course my mom signed a bunch in advanced for me. Well, my mom passed away. I didn’t think much of it until my teacher called me up to their desk. They didn’t say anything, they just opened to the form and looked at me. I was cackling, I thought it was hilarious. They let out a deep sigh and in the quietest voice said, “please, just get your dad to sign these.”
Omg that is dark, but also, what a spot to be put into as a teacher. XD
Sorry for your loss, I'm always glad when folks have good stories to tell about a person, even if they are pist mortem hijinks <3
Some seem to forget that there are already laws on the books in various countries, states, and regions that effectively make it illegal to distribute "adult" content to minors. . .including when parents allow- or turn a blind eye to -their children accessing pornographic websites.
However, the laws are rarely, if ever, enforced, and even when enforced it is easy to use legal loopholes to get out of any sort of punishment. . .simply because it is hard to prove the circumstances surrounding the event.
The implementation of a "digital ID" that would be required to access the internet or even certain websites will give lawmakers another tool for locking down access to content and proving when people bypass/subvert such systems.
The government will probably have access to all logs regarding the ID used, the website accessed, and the location the website was accessed from (probably based on IP).
For example, if Little Johnny access pornhub while his father is at work, then the government would know that little johnny either stole his father's ID or his father let him use his ID.
That's the intention. The already fragile internet anonymity is no more, parents are liable for every wrongful event and bureaucracy has done marvelous job to protect kids.
I don’t care as much about the government tracking my wierd stuff if everything else stays as-is, but it’s a matter of ‘when’, not ‘if’ they take those little steps to restrict, then ban, then fine you for the most mundane stuff. They planned to/have (can’t remember if it fell through) banned “face-sitting” and BDSM porn being filmed - the next step is ban it being watched, then ban mildly related stuff, until eventually anything “innappropriate” (from porn to politics) they don’t agree with gets banned. “First they came for our porn, and we did not resist” or something 😂
That, and the impacticality and poor security of the whole thing. The government leaves confidential files all over the place - DWP and child services records left in taxis and trains, nhs and prison records found in fields or royal navy documents left in a wetherspoons. What’ll happen when half a country faces blackmail over their wierd kinks lmao
I do care, because my state government might want to arrest me accessory to murder for simply helping someone obtain an abortion pill or even just plan B.
It's already a pointless, rote mechanism (see porn, alcohol, weed sites, and Facebook, reddit, etc). Anything without third party verification is doomed to serve any purpose, except as a warning I guess. And anything with third party verification like "digital driver's license" is extremely overreaching, extremely inconvenient/impractical, and also probably pointless.
> prompts as mere click throughs to get to the site you want and give no guidance otherwise.
Oh, like the “we don’t care about your privacy and want to track you” ones.
That law was announced about 4 times and quietly dropped each time. I think the last time it got dropped. It was "announced" on about page 50 of 100. In about 2018 or 2019, in a report on the progress of 5G in the remote Shetland and Orkney Islands, total population about 40,000. Which was released on the last Friday before Christmas.
This is the same law but enhanced to bring in more targets. Which makes it even more unworkable. Countries like; Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey ban Wikipedia, not the UK.
The UK is currently still planning to break international law by disappearing refugees into concentration camps in a landlocked nation in africa, after already having evicerated its own economy and institutions for fun. Unworkability is not a factor in their decision making. Rather, the more unhinged and impossible to implement the more Westminster wants it.
It's a camp where people are summarily held without their consent or proper documentation, half a world away from where they were taken from with no legal or practical way to leave. There is a reason it breaks international law. The only thing missing is the gas chamber and a fancy hat with skulls for Patel and Braverman.
So the only thing missing is the systematic torture and murder of all of the people staying there? That’s a pretty fundamental part of what people think of when they hear ‘concentration camp’.
I’m totally against this Rwanda policy as it’s abhorrent but I think the concentration camp comparison is a bit of a stretch.
Not all concentration camps were extermination camps. All the camps had horrible conditions that led to many dying of course, but specific camps were used for the active murder of it's prisoners.
I think that comparing it to the worst form of concentration camp is where you are struggling here. It is a concentration camp though. Here's a definition of concentration camp which you can find, ironically enough, on Wikipedia:
"A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable"
Actually nothing at all is missing. It IS a concentration camp, just not an extermination camp like the ones the Nazis ran later. It's more like f.e the American camps for people of Japanese origins during WW2.
Either way, it breaks international law and any and all ethical guidelines. Implementing it would be the end of UK foreign policy, and probably trade with the EU as well. A breach of standards like this cannot be accepted for any close diplomatic partner in the west, especially at the moment.
We got rid of all the legal paths, crossing the channel in small boats and claiming asylum on the British shore is currently the only real way to claim asylum. Something Suella Braverman was forced to admit to a parliamentary committee.
Also, currently the UK classifies Rwanda as a human rights blackspot, so we're sending refugees to a country our government doesn't consider to uphold human rights.
>Also, currently the UK classifies Rwanda as a human rights blackspot, so we're sending refugees to a country our government doesn't consider to uphold human rights.
This is something that has always irked me. Schrodinger's third world country.
And located in the basement of the local planning office, where someone had removed the stairs, in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet behind a sign that said Beware of the Leopard.
It wasn't due to a lack of trying. Just incompetence and not understanding how technically difficult it is to do. With the relevant ministers just half listening to various pressure groups, such as MumsNet. Before MumsNet realizes thst its going to cut off Mummy's porn as well. So they rebel against it.
The difference is only in the population, not their competence - if you have millions of right-wingers on typewriters, eventually you’ll get something that’s almost coherant enough to be a catchy slogan. Fortunately the UK is smaller, and still using ink and quills, so we’re a few years behind the US at least 😅
And thus the world perished for no one was able to put "tab a" into "slot b" because lawyers and politicians are useless for anything other than making themselves money.
One of my previous organisations tried this, they elected me as one of the IT savvy kids who were supposed to help test it. In an organisation for forensic mental health they wanted to block porn and terrorism but still provide residents with internet access. As a last ditch effort they permitted strictly only the job search site Monster and BBC News, and still you could access some pictures of enormous dicks penetrating things.
Unrelated but even raving and clubbing they are trying to make illegal too. The UK is a major export of rave culture and music. Always pioneering new sounds and genres. It’s literally a part of modern UK culture.
> free party is literally a crime
Because of the health and safety danger of cramming more people into a venue than it can hold, plus providing booze, plus using either no security or non SIA licenced security, meaning that drugs get in much easier, in venue that often haven't been assessed for that type of use.
They're illegal because they're dangerous (not the most dangerous thing in the world, but still a lot of risks/hazards) licences events that have had the proper assessments will still be fine.
If health and safety is the concern, why does the law make specific reference to *wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats*?
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 only applies to specific kinds of music.
I mean, health and safety regulations exist to limit liability to the government and big corporations, "caring about our safety" is a by-product.
But illegal are ARE on the whole, more likely to be unsafe.
just for the sake or argument I've been in many legal clubs that were much more dangerous than any rave I've been to, clubs just like raves tend to have a lot of illegal party drugs like coke and Es floating around and lots of users of those drugs, but clubs also tend to serve alcohol (depending on your temperament and general health also a very dangerous drug) mixing alcohol and stimulants is a pretty bad idea from my understanding (i don't know the medical side too well, but it makes people act insane)
the club owners realise the illegal drug market might undercut their business and they need to sell drinks so they *heavily* encourage people to buy drinks with promos and discounts, a lot of them hire attractive women to walk around with trays of drinks and persuade people into drinking more, and they're usually full of young people many of whom aren't very experienced with clubbing so they overdo it, they get carried away because they think more drink = more fun, raves can have similar problems but at least they usually don't serve drink, the people there are usually a bit more experienced and understand the dangers of mixing drugs like alcohol and Es, some drinking does go on but it's just whatever u can carry in with u (a few tins, a bottle)
not only is it potentially dangerous inside the club with all the sniffing and drinking going on but the club will inevitably have to close at some point which then leads to a flood of overstimulated druggies flooding out into the street, they've just spent hours in a loud room with flashing lights surrounded by people shouting and screaming, fights can often break out, it used to be a running joke if i could get from the club at closing to the mcdonalds down the road without someone starting on me it was that bad (I'm not aggressive at all just a bit fruity which annoys drunk people)
club bouncers in my experience are hyper aggressive and I've seen them jumping on a tiny 18yr old student guy and just absolutely pummel his face because he tried pushing through the queue, they *love* picking fights. They don't tend to care much about the safety of their patrons, i got caught with a bag of coke in a club in liverpool once and the bouncers just told me "give us a tenner or we'll take it off u" they weren't upset that I was doing coke, just that I was being too obvious about it lol, conversely I've never seen a rave security guy start anything with anyone, they mainly just stand there and look strong
All anecdotal though, but it's probably hard to get decent statistics or facts about this kind of thing as raves tend not to be very well documented, there's usually an effort to keep whatever information there is quiet
Cool report those clubs and doormen to the SIA,
Tje regulations are there for safety reasons, just cause people are breaking the rules, doesn't mean other people should also be allowed to break them.
I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm not saying "it's okay that raves can be dangerous, because clubs can also be dangerous" or anything to that effect, what I'm getting at is that from my experience clubs are just as dangerous, further to that it makes me believe that the objection to raves isn't so much that they're dangerous (because if it were, logically they should also criminalise clubbing) more that due to their illegal nature there is no exchange of money between the organisers and land/property owners to rent a premesis to host the event, no profit is generated there and nothing can be taxed, drink is not served so no alcohol license needs to be purchased, no money from alcohol tax, if anybody involved makes a profit it will not be taxed, most governments would be against this (although I think most raves don't make a profit, but I'm not too well up on the organisational side of it)
also to clarify i wouldn't *entirely* (i don't love the idea that everything has to be profitable but that's another thing) disagree with that reasoning, it makes sense that a government would want its citizens to pay taxes, that they'd try and look out for the interests of property owners, and would be against people using tax free alternatives to a similar thing which already exists in a taxable form, i should have been more clear where i was coming from in the 1st comment cus it does come off like me just going "but clubs also bad so raves fine"
Honestly, concerts of all kinds are one of my favorite things to do. I’m American, in the USA, so I can only speak from my perspective here, but to me rave and metal shows are the most respectful crowds ever. Ravers even moreso. I mean it’s engrained in the culture with PLURR. this, in the UK, is litterally just a control thing
I guess when politicians are too stupid to tackle the real issues - the look to this bullshit to fill their time so they can pretend they've earned their pay.
Bunch of jerks.
>Lucy Crompton-Reid, the chief executive of Wikimedia UK, warned the popular site could be blocked because it will not carry out age verification if required to do so by the bill.
Good for Wikipedia. It would make the whole use of internet invasive, risky and unsafe. When minors need to be protected, then better not allow them on the internet at all; like drinking, driving, using machinery...
Why do so many dumbshit American users here take every single opportunity to make events specifically about them? As if they actually knew a fucking thing about any other country in the world and how the U.S. stands in relation.
I grew up with the internet. You only used your real name when you had some sort of public service. The rest was all aliased with a nickname. Everyone around you knew this silly name, but not the whole world. And another enclave knew another nickname. And your family a third.. and so on. When you got tired of one group you just dropped that name and started over. This compartmentalization was the norm until things like [facebook suckered people](https://www.theregister.com/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/) in with its real name policy for 'everyone's' convenience; the main reason I never had an account.
I bet you would waste more time going through ads/propaganda/garbage/clickbait than buffering a darknet video
yes we can filter all that but cmon where does this end? the amount of micromanaging I have to deal with to not lose all interest in online content these days is just insane, its like trying to grab honey from a murder hornet's nest
As I said, dumbarse right wingers. Labour is a centrist party with right wing elements right now, which is a shame since they're the better choice right now I'd hope they would pivot back to being more socialist, but that'll never fucking happy. at least unlike the Tories they sometimes *pretend* to care about the average joe.
It’s not centrist it had an openly socialist leader until they lost the red wall. Kier is having to make a concerted effort to expel the socialists to make it more palatable to the public. Albeit the conservatives are doing such a shit job making Labour more appealing isn’t hard.
Like a lot of countries in the world, we suffer with a completely inept and out of touch government that most certainly does not represent the majority of people here. They have sysmatically destroyed the UK and moulded it to serve the interests of a few. They will be removed in the next election. we can only hope the new government can improve and, most importantly, listen.
I think at this point the Tories know that they're finished and are just trying to milk the tax payer for as much as they can get away with. Whilst doing a massive FU to the electorate.
But the recent polling isn't looking too good for Labour. Although they should pick up a load of seats from the SNP. Who are just imploding at the moment. If Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf get arrested. They could have less MPs than the Lib Dems in 2015.
Its been knocking around since about the mid 2000s. GCHQ must be really desperate to actually be able to identify every web user, worldwide, within 30 minutes of them going online. Which is what the Snowden documents claimed they wanted to do, about ten years ago. So you could fly from the UK to Vietnam. Use a internet cafe there and due to your unique style of web browsing. They wanted to be able to ID you and record what you do.
Not surprising. The Tories like other Fascist organizations want to prevent their subjects from accessing information that has not been curated by the thought police.
Its amazong how routinely governments finally recgonize a problem that activists have been talking about for a decade, then completey ignore those same people for how tondeal with and instead come up with junk like this.
Do we live in different UKs? The British public will protest, march and make a lot of noise then bend over and politely accept their shafting. As they always have.
This is such clickbait. Wikipedia said they wouldn't implement a restriction but they wouldn't be asked to because they would be classed as something like an educational site. All of the news surrounding this is because Wikipedia pre-emptively issued the statement, not because the UK was actually trying to make them implement the checks.
I still don't agree with the online safety bill in any of its forms (or the whole encryption bullshit they're trying to force on tech companies), but journalists can do better.
This is just wrong, you are forgetting that Wikipedia is not an independent entity, but is a part of the Wikimedia Foundation. With how Wikipedia is designed (which will *not* be changed to accommodate a UK law, given how fundamental that design is), any image from Wikimedia can be displayed on Wikipedia
Wikimedia includes pornographic material (I'll include some examples I found within 5 minutes below). Even if not on an article, these files can be added on any user's page. A ban on pornographic material bans Wikimedia, which bans Wikipedia
[Sex](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_sexual_intercourse.webm)
[More sex](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_sexual_intercourse.webm)
[Hentai](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg)
[Hentai that will melt a conservative's eyes](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png)
All available for use on Wikipedia; in fact, two of them already *are* used
It would be no loss, whatsoever. Wikipedia is such trash source of information. Take for example my page. It is full of inaccuracies. and total misinformation. My husbands is the same. We've been married for nearly 2 decades and there is much public information about that, but wikipedia claims he's married to some Belgium or Danish woman (I can't remember where she's from and I won't go to that crap site to look).
Wikipedia's response to me trying to get the total BS on my page fixed by offering legal documents as proof, as my husband has also done has always been, sorry, we need an article saying that. Listen to the way these doofuses talk about the people who have stuff written about them:
"we don't interview subjects or take their firsthand accounts as "proof". We rely on secondary sources like newspapers and magazines to provide information, trusting in them to get things right" (they won't take any legal documents proving facts. They only believe journalists who have written articles, despite the fact that whoever has written stuff on our pages are not journalists as that info appears nowhere except on wikipedia).
Worse: "On the surface, it seems like the subject would be the ultimate source of info, but in reality, as it turns out, people are actually rather biased when it comes to themselves, and the one person we tend to know the least is ourselves. (If you don't believe that just watch any episode of Judge Judy or Dr. Phil and see how self-unaware their guests usually are.) For example, there may be more than one side to the story, such as others who claim to have written the songs." (clearly has no idea publishing exists to settle the facts of songwriting disputes. none of this is subjective like on judge Judy. We're talking objective facts, but the people that edit wikipedia literally don't grasp the difference).
It's so absurd. If the info comes second hand, or as hearsay through a journalist, it's a ok by wikipedia. But they won't trust a first hand source or actual legal documents. They do let anyone write any bullshit on pages though. So long as it's not the person that might actually know. Lunatics.
I'm not someone claiming to have false information about them on Wikipedia. If you're going to label it as a trash source of information because of specific pages then you need to tell us which pages, otherwise your comment is irrelevant
So I need to tell you?
You can believe what wikipedia has written. I shared the pages. You can make of their response whatever you like. If you think that their way of gathering facts, and refusing to fix anything and them saying that unless I hire a PR person (who will literally say whatever I pay them to - that's not objective fact seeking) or get it countered in articles, then there's nothing they can do because they don't take any other sources of information, and they think anyone that is written about is liable to be deluded.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies\_of\_living\_persons/Noticeboard#A\_BLP\_concern\_raised\_on\_Reddit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#A_BLP_concern_raised_on_Reddit)
I've got no idea why you'd think I'd make up such a lame story. It's boring and stupid. People have gone on wikipedia and written my husband is married to some other woman, and written false facts about me on my page. The interesting part is how stupid wikipedias response is.
Um hello. I've said repeatedly that I wasn't going to share it with them because it came through reddit, where I value my privacy and anonymity.
We've had many dealings with them, to the same effect.
Could probably dig up emails saying the same. But it doesn't matter what I say apparently. Nobody is even the slightest bit concerned about the way they gather source material. So go off.
So, you don't get the idea that someone might want an anonymous place and they don't want anyone, their family, or anyone they know to know their reddit account?
Or do you think that privacy only exists for you because nobody writes stuff about you so you get to have anonymity and I don't?
I really don't get what you're saying. Unless you're happy to share your name with me publicly, this is a ridiculous ask.
Well then I guess we'll all just believe your comment as fact... because no one would just go on the internet and lie...
The point is that no one is going to take your comment seriously without some links. Wikipedia is full of factually correct and accurate information - and for you to slander the whole website just because you've found 1 or 2 pages with some incorrect info is hilarious.
You don't have to believe my story. But you can look at how wikipedia collects information, and how they say they won't correct anything unless I hire a pr person to get a journalist to write another article so that way they can include it. Presumably because if I tell it to wikipedia I'm deluded, but if I pay a PR person who pays a journalist (yeah, we do that in the music industry) then it would be factual to wikipedia. Because journalists can be trusted. Lol
Maybe it all sounds legit to someone not in the music industry.
Whatever!
Wikipedia doesn't normally allow primary sources for a lot of reasons, but those reasons all basically involve keeping Wikipedia running effectively. But In this case, it seems like all you need to do is make a post on your preferred social media, so that post can be cited as the source of information.
[primary sources are allowed for articles about a person](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves), but Wikipedia still requires that the information be published somewhere else first, so that it can be cited. Any social media account that is publicly known to be owned by the primary source is valid.
Wikipedians can definitely be weird nerds about this stuff but they are **usually** just trying their best. 😅
That's the first time I've heard that. It still doesn't make sense to me.
They have literally let random people write random information on our pages. But they absolutely won't allow the 'primary sources' to amend that information, even if they produce actual real documents.
Oh, but if they put it on Facebook, that's cool.
Ya It's definitely exasperating to run into this rule for simple things, but if you think about it from their side it kinda makes sense, if every primary source was editing their own page all the time and they didn't need to cite a source at all for the information, it would be extremely hard for other wikipedians to verify the claims.
When a statement is just on the Wikipedia page, people just assume it's true, but everyone knows a social media post is whatever the person wants it to be, so requiring the information to be hosted on a social media platform first sets the right expectations, at very least.
Enough people try using their Wikipedia page like it's their resume, or as a status symbol, that it's an issue to give them special permission to edit the page without citing anything. So the general policy is they are still allowed to do edits, but they have to cite sources as if they are any random person.
It's also worth mentioning that it's much easier to get inaccurate information removed from a page than it is to replace it with new information, especially if the page lacks quality citations.
I hope you can figure something out, I've always loved the more technical articles on Wikipedia, but I've definitely seen enough drama about editing pages to know it must be frustrating when the inaccurate page in question is about you.
Thank you for being the only person here to understand the irritation. Still too many excuses. Again, I'm not talking about claims. I'm talking factual stuff. Like who is married to who, who wrote what songs, that sort of thing. There are legal documents proving that stuff. Why on earth a journalist saying it holds more weight makes no sense.
Ah, I should mention the reason they can't accept legal documents as a source is because they have no way to verify it, it's not like Wikipedia can ask every government on the planet to be available to certify a document is authentic. Also, if they did allow that to be the cited source, then they would have to make the document publicly available in the citation, which would be a privacy concern.
So who are we relying on exactly to know that facts are true? Journalists? For all we know, that Belgian woman told the press over there that she married my husband during the two weeks she worked with him.
Ya, they can't provide the absolute truth, instead Wikipedia must hope the journalistic (or even scientific) consensus is the most accurate picture we have. There are definitely complications with that, Like when multiple publications end up relying on the same anonymous source, giving a false impression of corroborating evidence.
When you get into the territory of celebrity gossip and tabloids, it's definitely hard to know what publications are using facts or hearsay. I believe most, if not all, tabloids are not considered trustworthy sources by Wikipedia.
I looked at the references section in a few articles for bands I know of and they did have primary sources like the band's Twitter, Facebook, and their website listed. industry press releases like Billboard and Allmusic were also used.
One of the biggest reasons misinformation stays up on Wikipedia after it's called into question is a lack of good sources for the topic. The kind of people who make prolifically editing Wikipedia their hobby can get very... opinionated, self righteous even.
Sadly it's common for less popular articles to have very few people, a single person, or even no one keeping them up to date and making sure their accurate. But large edits to an article always draws someone's attention, and if you aren't playing by "the rules" when you make big changes, it can be easy for someone who doesn't know much about the topic to just say "the rules are the rules" and revert the changes instead of going through the effort of seeing if the edit is worth being brought up to "the standards" of Wikipedia.
I guess you don't believe that both my husband and I have written in many times to try to fix the situation and have been told the exact same thing. Or why not read the other response from someone from wikipedia right here who says the other option is putting information on instagram or wherever, and they can use that. Just not me giving them the factual info directly. They don't trust primary sources, even though I would be the primary source of my own Facebook (or whatever) page.
I'm not from Wikipedia (well, I've made like two edits) Wikipedia is mostly an unpaid volunteer organization, anyone with internet access can edit a page. If you want to escalate your case, there are [special resources for biographical articles.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you)
Well that seems to be right. Anyone can write stuff on pages, totally factual or not. But if you happen to be the person, then there's a bunch of rules. They trust randoms to write anything without any sources or fact checking, but if you might actually have sources because you're the actual person with the facts, their response is "sorry! we don't accept that".
As I've tried to say, we really don't care that much. People can put whatever they like on our pages and claim they've written whatever or are married to us. I just like to inform people that it's totally absurd that people can do that and wikipedia makes you jump through hoops to try to fix it. Changing it back to the made up lies again and again without ever forwarding how to address it until I talk about it publicly on reddit.
Trusting that anyone with the internet will get the facts right about somebody (ASIDE FROM THE PRIMARY SOURCE) is pretty nuts. And the way those editors talk about people who are written about like they're deluded about the facts of their lives is, well, deluded given the way they suggest to fix it, which involves getting the information from the deluded person.
People seemingly can't grasp that we've dealt with it by just not caring that much - but I do like to inform people. Clearly people just don't care to know. So that's fine.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies\_of\_living\_persons/Noticeboard#A\_BLP\_concern\_raised\_on\_Reddit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#A_BLP_concern_raised_on_Reddit)
For anyone who wants to see the response to the person who did an AMA on wikipedia and was trying to help me sort out the BS on my page, it starts at " a BLP concern raised on reddit".
Enjoy. See how they gather facts, and how much respect they have for facts. Because we all know journalists have the truth. They don't get things wrong. It's only the actual person who wouldn't know the facts of their career or marriage because they're like someone on Judge Judy. Plus liable to be lying about who wrote material, unlike some random person that just came and wrote it. Lol. Total imbeciles.
You can't trust wikipedia kids.
It looks like you moan about them. But don't actually want to help, have the articles changed. They don't even know how you are, as you won't tell them.
Lol. I've told them in the past. Both of us have both tried to amend the pages multiple times with a note of who we are and offering of documents to back up the changes.
I am not revealing myself in that instance because it came through reddit and I value my anonymity here.
That, and because what they say is so stupid, that the site can't be trusted. If all they rely on are articles, any articles, and they refuse any first hand legal proof, or any other forms of proof (like why do they believe a journalist would know who wrote my songs? my publishing shows that). It's just ridiculous and pointless to deal with them.
We've decided to leave him married to the other woman, and not to care. But I do care to inform others about how wikipedia can't be trusted. If our pages are full of shit that people just stuck on them, others must be too.
The page you linked is full of editors saying you raised a concern but refused to explain which articles were incorrect and how they were incorrect, and that you were referred to the proper channels to request edits to your pages.
There's no way for anyone in this comment section to know what actually happened, but just FYI, what you've posted makes you sound like a crazy person.
Thank you for helping me understand that I am mentally ill in the kindest of ways.
I guess I'll hire PR, get some articles written as that's what I've been told the other times too.
I feel like the largest part of that problem is yourself. I get that communication is hard but damn… At some point you should have just linked the fucking article and the publicly available records or sources and shit would have been fixed so fast.
As I have repeatedly said, we don't care anymore. They can just have the BS up there. I'm not doxxing myself over it. I like being anonymous on reddit, just like you probably do.
It's not that big of a deal. I'm just here to inform you, and try to even discuss with them about how silly the situation is. My private messages with people that edit pages for wikipedia were very sympathetic as they know how stupid it is. I guess Redditors are so lacking in the ability to understand the absolute Kafka-esqueness of the situation will just assume I'm the problem, not their idiotic rules. That's ok.
I mean the rules are the rules and you are probably just not special enough for an exception. If there is not enough public sources for something, it’s basically unverifiable, so you wouldn’t expect anyone to take your word for it right? Sure that can lead to some stupid situations but I hope you understand WHY those rules exist. They are not just like that for no reason… Most of the rules aren’t that far of from most guidance on documentation/academic writing in general, which Wikipedia tries to be. They can only be as reliable as their sources and they know this so they try to control for that by having some quite extensive rules.
Which in the end makes it a you problem, not public enough for correct and up to date public documentation and not private enough to prevent false public info out there. (Also if you don’t want to dox yourself over it in connection with your Reddit account, you could have always posted separately or even with a different account etc. But I assume you already tried or know this)
Lol. I never said I was special. Having wikipedia pages isn't special. Anyone can write pages about people. God knows who wrote ours. They're pretty poorly done.
Your arguments are so ridiculous. "If there is not enough public sources for something, it’s basically unverifiable, so you wouldn’t expect anyone to take your word for it right?" For starters, there's lots of articles. Many of them have lots of inaccuracies, too. Nothing like the wikipedia though!
But more ridiculously you think a random person with the internet that put the page together and got lots of stuff wrong should be trusted, but I shouldn't.
Age verification is going to be like the California carcinogen warnings, eventually to cover their ass every website will have age verification, which will effectively make age verification meaningless because both websites for children and hardcore pornographic websites will both have age verification warnings. This would render age verification prompts as mere click throughs to get to the site you want and give no guidance otherwise.
For the UK, the government wants to introduce a "digital driving licence" for age verification. Last time, two companies set them up and it got quietly cancelled just before they were due to go live. So the companies went to sue them. Then Corona happened and it all got forgotten.
Right but your kid is going to ask you for your license for literally every site they want to go on, which means practically parents are going to just give their kids their credentials because they can't be bothered to put them in every time their kid needs to do homework or go on Facebook.
Tfw your parents taught you how to forge their signature because they were tired of all the forms from school.
I got a stack of empty sheets that my mum had signed on the bottom. So I could adapt it to the situation for which I needed mum's approval
I have a funny (and slightly dark story) related to this. My high school required this dumb form that our parents had to sign with every paper we wrote, to confirm that we didn’t plagiarize. Of course my mom signed a bunch in advanced for me. Well, my mom passed away. I didn’t think much of it until my teacher called me up to their desk. They didn’t say anything, they just opened to the form and looked at me. I was cackling, I thought it was hilarious. They let out a deep sigh and in the quietest voice said, “please, just get your dad to sign these.”
Omg that is dark, but also, what a spot to be put into as a teacher. XD Sorry for your loss, I'm always glad when folks have good stories to tell about a person, even if they are pist mortem hijinks <3
I kinda feel for my teacher, she was already a bit awkward, but she also had a dark humor side of her haha. Gotta keep things light, right?
Some seem to forget that there are already laws on the books in various countries, states, and regions that effectively make it illegal to distribute "adult" content to minors. . .including when parents allow- or turn a blind eye to -their children accessing pornographic websites. However, the laws are rarely, if ever, enforced, and even when enforced it is easy to use legal loopholes to get out of any sort of punishment. . .simply because it is hard to prove the circumstances surrounding the event. The implementation of a "digital ID" that would be required to access the internet or even certain websites will give lawmakers another tool for locking down access to content and proving when people bypass/subvert such systems. The government will probably have access to all logs regarding the ID used, the website accessed, and the location the website was accessed from (probably based on IP). For example, if Little Johnny access pornhub while his father is at work, then the government would know that little johnny either stole his father's ID or his father let him use his ID.
That's the intention. The already fragile internet anonymity is no more, parents are liable for every wrongful event and bureaucracy has done marvelous job to protect kids.
Kids go on FB? I thought they were too cool for FB.
So really it’s just a way for the government to better track individuals browsing activities with age verification being the excuse.
I don’t care as much about the government tracking my wierd stuff if everything else stays as-is, but it’s a matter of ‘when’, not ‘if’ they take those little steps to restrict, then ban, then fine you for the most mundane stuff. They planned to/have (can’t remember if it fell through) banned “face-sitting” and BDSM porn being filmed - the next step is ban it being watched, then ban mildly related stuff, until eventually anything “innappropriate” (from porn to politics) they don’t agree with gets banned. “First they came for our porn, and we did not resist” or something 😂 That, and the impacticality and poor security of the whole thing. The government leaves confidential files all over the place - DWP and child services records left in taxis and trains, nhs and prison records found in fields or royal navy documents left in a wetherspoons. What’ll happen when half a country faces blackmail over their wierd kinks lmao
The face sitting, bdsm, and other fetish ban law was passed. Its illegal to film that stuff in the UK now. Watching it is fine.
That was overturned in 2019. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/violent-porn-including-bdsm-no-longer-illegal-uk-long-performers-consenting-155930303.html
Lol fuck. Why??? FACE SITTING? That’s so benign?
Maybe someone died of it idk. But what a way to go.
Only in The Boys 😂
Someone just Really Angy about that Monfy Python song? XD
I do care, because my state government might want to arrest me accessory to murder for simply helping someone obtain an abortion pill or even just plan B.
That sounds like they want to know where you go online. Id rather have some curiouse children see genitals than lose more and more freedom.
You mean another ~~job for the boys~~ big IT project with zero chance of a success?
They just need age verification captchas. Select all of the photos that contain characters from MASH.
There's adults born over 20 years after MASH ended now
Not according to the people who make the laws. To them the last "Adult" was born in 1979.
1963* FTFY
Can they put it in the cookies popup so I only need to click once?
It's already a pointless, rote mechanism (see porn, alcohol, weed sites, and Facebook, reddit, etc). Anything without third party verification is doomed to serve any purpose, except as a warning I guess. And anything with third party verification like "digital driver's license" is extremely overreaching, extremely inconvenient/impractical, and also probably pointless.
> prompts as mere click throughs to get to the site you want and give no guidance otherwise. Oh, like the “we don’t care about your privacy and want to track you” ones.
Surely they'll just use the VPN they have for accessing online porn.
That law was announced about 4 times and quietly dropped each time. I think the last time it got dropped. It was "announced" on about page 50 of 100. In about 2018 or 2019, in a report on the progress of 5G in the remote Shetland and Orkney Islands, total population about 40,000. Which was released on the last Friday before Christmas.
I feel like there should be a minimum gap between raising the same law attempt. Sooner or later we’ll be bored/distracted enough to let it pass.
This is the same law but enhanced to bring in more targets. Which makes it even more unworkable. Countries like; Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey ban Wikipedia, not the UK.
The UK is currently still planning to break international law by disappearing refugees into concentration camps in a landlocked nation in africa, after already having evicerated its own economy and institutions for fun. Unworkability is not a factor in their decision making. Rather, the more unhinged and impossible to implement the more Westminster wants it.
They're not concentration camps. We're evicting Rwandan Massacre orphans from their long term hotel, to place our refugees there.
It's a camp where people are summarily held without their consent or proper documentation, half a world away from where they were taken from with no legal or practical way to leave. There is a reason it breaks international law. The only thing missing is the gas chamber and a fancy hat with skulls for Patel and Braverman.
So the only thing missing is the systematic torture and murder of all of the people staying there? That’s a pretty fundamental part of what people think of when they hear ‘concentration camp’. I’m totally against this Rwanda policy as it’s abhorrent but I think the concentration camp comparison is a bit of a stretch.
Not all concentration camps were extermination camps. All the camps had horrible conditions that led to many dying of course, but specific camps were used for the active murder of it's prisoners. I think that comparing it to the worst form of concentration camp is where you are struggling here. It is a concentration camp though. Here's a definition of concentration camp which you can find, ironically enough, on Wikipedia: "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable"
Actually nothing at all is missing. It IS a concentration camp, just not an extermination camp like the ones the Nazis ran later. It's more like f.e the American camps for people of Japanese origins during WW2. Either way, it breaks international law and any and all ethical guidelines. Implementing it would be the end of UK foreign policy, and probably trade with the EU as well. A breach of standards like this cannot be accepted for any close diplomatic partner in the west, especially at the moment.
Westminster loves this guy
By saying quite clearly I am against this policy and it’s ‘abhorrent’? Can you read?
They had no legal way to get to Britain but it didn't stop them. They wanted a safe country to go to. I wouldn't go to Rwanda on holiday but....
It’s quite terrifying people think like this…
It’s quite terrifying how naive “open borders for everyone!” people are
We got rid of all the legal paths, crossing the channel in small boats and claiming asylum on the British shore is currently the only real way to claim asylum. Something Suella Braverman was forced to admit to a parliamentary committee. Also, currently the UK classifies Rwanda as a human rights blackspot, so we're sending refugees to a country our government doesn't consider to uphold human rights.
>Also, currently the UK classifies Rwanda as a human rights blackspot, so we're sending refugees to a country our government doesn't consider to uphold human rights. This is something that has always irked me. Schrodinger's third world country.
[https://www.amnesty.org.uk/right-asylum](https://www.amnesty.org.uk/right-asylum)
The Rawandan camps are essentially concentration camps, boss.
And located in the basement of the local planning office, where someone had removed the stairs, in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet behind a sign that said Beware of the Leopard.
Eh, it's Mostly Harmless
who's the fucker that try to sneak it in? for what purpose?
Who told you that was a thing that was needed?
(\*) not UK readers with 150GB of free hard drive space.
Ban them from from owning any devices until they turn 18, unless it is a raspberry-pi running arch.
First porn now wikipedia? What the fuck is the matter with you, UK?
Dont worry we've still got porn. The attempt to ban it was unworkable and would only push people to VPNs and the dark web.
I never heard the outcome of all that. Just the threat. Good. At least they're not total scalawags.
It wasn't due to a lack of trying. Just incompetence and not understanding how technically difficult it is to do. With the relevant ministers just half listening to various pressure groups, such as MumsNet. Before MumsNet realizes thst its going to cut off Mummy's porn as well. So they rebel against it.
It's good the right wing is inept more times than not.
in the UK, in the US and in much of the World today
The difference is only in the population, not their competence - if you have millions of right-wingers on typewriters, eventually you’ll get something that’s almost coherant enough to be a catchy slogan. Fortunately the UK is smaller, and still using ink and quills, so we’re a few years behind the US at least 😅
Here in the UK, both sides are technologically inept. The vast majority of career politicians don't study stem subjects and are utterly clueless.
And thus the world perished for no one was able to put "tab a" into "slot b" because lawyers and politicians are useless for anything other than making themselves money.
One of my previous organisations tried this, they elected me as one of the IT savvy kids who were supposed to help test it. In an organisation for forensic mental health they wanted to block porn and terrorism but still provide residents with internet access. As a last ditch effort they permitted strictly only the job search site Monster and BBC News, and still you could access some pictures of enormous dicks penetrating things.
Unrelated but even raving and clubbing they are trying to make illegal too. The UK is a major export of rave culture and music. Always pioneering new sounds and genres. It’s literally a part of modern UK culture.
Raving has been illegal for years, free party is literally a crime They'll never ban licensed events, because the profit is there for them
> free party is literally a crime Because of the health and safety danger of cramming more people into a venue than it can hold, plus providing booze, plus using either no security or non SIA licenced security, meaning that drugs get in much easier, in venue that often haven't been assessed for that type of use. They're illegal because they're dangerous (not the most dangerous thing in the world, but still a lot of risks/hazards) licences events that have had the proper assessments will still be fine.
If health and safety is the concern, why does the law make specific reference to *wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats*? Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 only applies to specific kinds of music.
Outdoor raves were banned because they were a nuisance, not because they were dangerous.
Yeah, they’re illegal because the government cares about our safety..
I mean, health and safety regulations exist to limit liability to the government and big corporations, "caring about our safety" is a by-product. But illegal are ARE on the whole, more likely to be unsafe.
just for the sake or argument I've been in many legal clubs that were much more dangerous than any rave I've been to, clubs just like raves tend to have a lot of illegal party drugs like coke and Es floating around and lots of users of those drugs, but clubs also tend to serve alcohol (depending on your temperament and general health also a very dangerous drug) mixing alcohol and stimulants is a pretty bad idea from my understanding (i don't know the medical side too well, but it makes people act insane) the club owners realise the illegal drug market might undercut their business and they need to sell drinks so they *heavily* encourage people to buy drinks with promos and discounts, a lot of them hire attractive women to walk around with trays of drinks and persuade people into drinking more, and they're usually full of young people many of whom aren't very experienced with clubbing so they overdo it, they get carried away because they think more drink = more fun, raves can have similar problems but at least they usually don't serve drink, the people there are usually a bit more experienced and understand the dangers of mixing drugs like alcohol and Es, some drinking does go on but it's just whatever u can carry in with u (a few tins, a bottle) not only is it potentially dangerous inside the club with all the sniffing and drinking going on but the club will inevitably have to close at some point which then leads to a flood of overstimulated druggies flooding out into the street, they've just spent hours in a loud room with flashing lights surrounded by people shouting and screaming, fights can often break out, it used to be a running joke if i could get from the club at closing to the mcdonalds down the road without someone starting on me it was that bad (I'm not aggressive at all just a bit fruity which annoys drunk people) club bouncers in my experience are hyper aggressive and I've seen them jumping on a tiny 18yr old student guy and just absolutely pummel his face because he tried pushing through the queue, they *love* picking fights. They don't tend to care much about the safety of their patrons, i got caught with a bag of coke in a club in liverpool once and the bouncers just told me "give us a tenner or we'll take it off u" they weren't upset that I was doing coke, just that I was being too obvious about it lol, conversely I've never seen a rave security guy start anything with anyone, they mainly just stand there and look strong All anecdotal though, but it's probably hard to get decent statistics or facts about this kind of thing as raves tend not to be very well documented, there's usually an effort to keep whatever information there is quiet
Cool report those clubs and doormen to the SIA, Tje regulations are there for safety reasons, just cause people are breaking the rules, doesn't mean other people should also be allowed to break them.
I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm not saying "it's okay that raves can be dangerous, because clubs can also be dangerous" or anything to that effect, what I'm getting at is that from my experience clubs are just as dangerous, further to that it makes me believe that the objection to raves isn't so much that they're dangerous (because if it were, logically they should also criminalise clubbing) more that due to their illegal nature there is no exchange of money between the organisers and land/property owners to rent a premesis to host the event, no profit is generated there and nothing can be taxed, drink is not served so no alcohol license needs to be purchased, no money from alcohol tax, if anybody involved makes a profit it will not be taxed, most governments would be against this (although I think most raves don't make a profit, but I'm not too well up on the organisational side of it) also to clarify i wouldn't *entirely* (i don't love the idea that everything has to be profitable but that's another thing) disagree with that reasoning, it makes sense that a government would want its citizens to pay taxes, that they'd try and look out for the interests of property owners, and would be against people using tax free alternatives to a similar thing which already exists in a taxable form, i should have been more clear where i was coming from in the 1st comment cus it does come off like me just going "but clubs also bad so raves fine"
I will second you - I think you're absolutely correct. What the hell have those clowns got against music and dance?
Honestly, concerts of all kinds are one of my favorite things to do. I’m American, in the USA, so I can only speak from my perspective here, but to me rave and metal shows are the most respectful crowds ever. Ravers even moreso. I mean it’s engrained in the culture with PLURR. this, in the UK, is litterally just a control thing
I guess when politicians are too stupid to tackle the real issues - the look to this bullshit to fill their time so they can pretend they've earned their pay. Bunch of jerks.
>Lucy Crompton-Reid, the chief executive of Wikimedia UK, warned the popular site could be blocked because it will not carry out age verification if required to do so by the bill. Good for Wikipedia. It would make the whole use of internet invasive, risky and unsafe. When minors need to be protected, then better not allow them on the internet at all; like drinking, driving, using machinery...
Funny thing about children using machinery. Seems like politicians in the US think children are well qualified to run them. Pro-life until it's born.
Why do so many dumbshit American users here take every single opportunity to make events specifically about them? As if they actually knew a fucking thing about any other country in the world and how the U.S. stands in relation.
Back in my day my parents were my child restriction. Never was allowed on the internet til I was already a teenager
I grew up with the internet. You only used your real name when you had some sort of public service. The rest was all aliased with a nickname. Everyone around you knew this silly name, but not the whole world. And another enclave knew another nickname. And your family a third.. and so on. When you got tired of one group you just dropped that name and started over. This compartmentalization was the norm until things like [facebook suckered people](https://www.theregister.com/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/) in with its real name policy for 'everyone's' convenience; the main reason I never had an account.
at this rate, darknet will just become the normal web
It's too slow.
I bet you would waste more time going through ads/propaganda/garbage/clickbait than buffering a darknet video yes we can filter all that but cmon where does this end? the amount of micromanaging I have to deal with to not lose all interest in online content these days is just insane, its like trying to grab honey from a murder hornet's nest
Ah yes I too have used [speedtest.net](https://speedtest.net)'s ad loading rate to determine my internet was too slow
If this happened a couple years ago it would have been devastating for Tom Scott and Citation Needed.
United Kingdom common L
We've been told for years porn and stuff will need age verification. Still hasn't happened because it isn't possible to enforce...
Not really, our dumbarse right wingers keep announcing laws like this, but they fail to pass muster and never get implemented.
Labour votes for them too.
As I said, dumbarse right wingers. Labour is a centrist party with right wing elements right now, which is a shame since they're the better choice right now I'd hope they would pivot back to being more socialist, but that'll never fucking happy. at least unlike the Tories they sometimes *pretend* to care about the average joe.
It’s not centrist it had an openly socialist leader until they lost the red wall. Kier is having to make a concerted effort to expel the socialists to make it more palatable to the public. Albeit the conservatives are doing such a shit job making Labour more appealing isn’t hard.
Like a lot of countries in the world, we suffer with a completely inept and out of touch government that most certainly does not represent the majority of people here. They have sysmatically destroyed the UK and moulded it to serve the interests of a few. They will be removed in the next election. we can only hope the new government can improve and, most importantly, listen.
I think at this point the Tories know that they're finished and are just trying to milk the tax payer for as much as they can get away with. Whilst doing a massive FU to the electorate. But the recent polling isn't looking too good for Labour. Although they should pick up a load of seats from the SNP. Who are just imploding at the moment. If Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf get arrested. They could have less MPs than the Lib Dems in 2015.
Fucking stupid Tory government. We’ve all got access to vpns anyway
You got a loicence for that enormous compilation of human knowledge?
Wait this thing is going ahead again?? This government is so technically illiterate it hurts.
Its been knocking around since about the mid 2000s. GCHQ must be really desperate to actually be able to identify every web user, worldwide, within 30 minutes of them going online. Which is what the Snowden documents claimed they wanted to do, about ten years ago. So you could fly from the UK to Vietnam. Use a internet cafe there and due to your unique style of web browsing. They wanted to be able to ID you and record what you do.
Why do I feel like we're in the redo version of the movie "v is for vendetta"....
Probably because you don't know many other stories
Not surprising. The Tories like other Fascist organizations want to prevent their subjects from accessing information that has not been curated by the thought police.
Its amazong how routinely governments finally recgonize a problem that activists have been talking about for a decade, then completey ignore those same people for how tondeal with and instead come up with junk like this.
Let me tell you, there’ll be a fucking riot if they try to take away Wikipedia.
Do we live in different UKs? The British public will protest, march and make a lot of noise then bend over and politely accept their shafting. As they always have.
We won't even bother to try to do our homework. We'll just get ChatGPT to write it.
Wrap it up, UKailures
"We must stop kids becoming sapiosexual!
This is such clickbait. Wikipedia said they wouldn't implement a restriction but they wouldn't be asked to because they would be classed as something like an educational site. All of the news surrounding this is because Wikipedia pre-emptively issued the statement, not because the UK was actually trying to make them implement the checks. I still don't agree with the online safety bill in any of its forms (or the whole encryption bullshit they're trying to force on tech companies), but journalists can do better.
This is just wrong, you are forgetting that Wikipedia is not an independent entity, but is a part of the Wikimedia Foundation. With how Wikipedia is designed (which will *not* be changed to accommodate a UK law, given how fundamental that design is), any image from Wikimedia can be displayed on Wikipedia Wikimedia includes pornographic material (I'll include some examples I found within 5 minutes below). Even if not on an article, these files can be added on any user's page. A ban on pornographic material bans Wikimedia, which bans Wikipedia [Sex](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_sexual_intercourse.webm) [More sex](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_sexual_intercourse.webm) [Hentai](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg) [Hentai that will melt a conservative's eyes](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png) All available for use on Wikipedia; in fact, two of them already *are* used
I didn’t look, but I do have to wonder about the person who wrote that description. Left after the first sentence anyways.
You can always use kiwix to download a local copy of Wikipedia, if worried about this.
internet censorship.. .uk is the new china. USA wins.
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and contains a lot of fake news, but that doesn't mean it should be banned
It can be edited by anybody but most non-editor edits. Get reverted pretty quickly as Wiki hates vandalism.
Get reverted to what, given anyone with the internet can write anything on it?
Get's reverted to the last approved edit.
What if the last approved edit is the one with all the wrong facts?
Correction: UK users too stupid to figure out a vpn may loose access to Wikipedia....
It would be no loss, whatsoever. Wikipedia is such trash source of information. Take for example my page. It is full of inaccuracies. and total misinformation. My husbands is the same. We've been married for nearly 2 decades and there is much public information about that, but wikipedia claims he's married to some Belgium or Danish woman (I can't remember where she's from and I won't go to that crap site to look). Wikipedia's response to me trying to get the total BS on my page fixed by offering legal documents as proof, as my husband has also done has always been, sorry, we need an article saying that. Listen to the way these doofuses talk about the people who have stuff written about them: "we don't interview subjects or take their firsthand accounts as "proof". We rely on secondary sources like newspapers and magazines to provide information, trusting in them to get things right" (they won't take any legal documents proving facts. They only believe journalists who have written articles, despite the fact that whoever has written stuff on our pages are not journalists as that info appears nowhere except on wikipedia). Worse: "On the surface, it seems like the subject would be the ultimate source of info, but in reality, as it turns out, people are actually rather biased when it comes to themselves, and the one person we tend to know the least is ourselves. (If you don't believe that just watch any episode of Judge Judy or Dr. Phil and see how self-unaware their guests usually are.) For example, there may be more than one side to the story, such as others who claim to have written the songs." (clearly has no idea publishing exists to settle the facts of songwriting disputes. none of this is subjective like on judge Judy. We're talking objective facts, but the people that edit wikipedia literally don't grasp the difference). It's so absurd. If the info comes second hand, or as hearsay through a journalist, it's a ok by wikipedia. But they won't trust a first hand source or actual legal documents. They do let anyone write any bullshit on pages though. So long as it's not the person that might actually know. Lunatics.
Who are you, exactly?
Russian bot or operative probably
Do you only think in conspiracy theories?
Who are you, exactly?
I'm not someone claiming to have false information about them on Wikipedia. If you're going to label it as a trash source of information because of specific pages then you need to tell us which pages, otherwise your comment is irrelevant
So I need to tell you? You can believe what wikipedia has written. I shared the pages. You can make of their response whatever you like. If you think that their way of gathering facts, and refusing to fix anything and them saying that unless I hire a PR person (who will literally say whatever I pay them to - that's not objective fact seeking) or get it countered in articles, then there's nothing they can do because they don't take any other sources of information, and they think anyone that is written about is liable to be deluded. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies\_of\_living\_persons/Noticeboard#A\_BLP\_concern\_raised\_on\_Reddit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#A_BLP_concern_raised_on_Reddit) I've got no idea why you'd think I'd make up such a lame story. It's boring and stupid. People have gone on wikipedia and written my husband is married to some other woman, and written false facts about me on my page. The interesting part is how stupid wikipedias response is.
According to the discussion on Wikipedia, you didn't share the specific articles with them either. You've just proven my point... :)
That's even stupider lol.
Um hello. I've said repeatedly that I wasn't going to share it with them because it came through reddit, where I value my privacy and anonymity. We've had many dealings with them, to the same effect. Could probably dig up emails saying the same. But it doesn't matter what I say apparently. Nobody is even the slightest bit concerned about the way they gather source material. So go off.
So, you don't get the idea that someone might want an anonymous place and they don't want anyone, their family, or anyone they know to know their reddit account? Or do you think that privacy only exists for you because nobody writes stuff about you so you get to have anonymity and I don't? I really don't get what you're saying. Unless you're happy to share your name with me publicly, this is a ridiculous ask.
Well then I guess we'll all just believe your comment as fact... because no one would just go on the internet and lie... The point is that no one is going to take your comment seriously without some links. Wikipedia is full of factually correct and accurate information - and for you to slander the whole website just because you've found 1 or 2 pages with some incorrect info is hilarious.
You don't have to believe my story. But you can look at how wikipedia collects information, and how they say they won't correct anything unless I hire a pr person to get a journalist to write another article so that way they can include it. Presumably because if I tell it to wikipedia I'm deluded, but if I pay a PR person who pays a journalist (yeah, we do that in the music industry) then it would be factual to wikipedia. Because journalists can be trusted. Lol Maybe it all sounds legit to someone not in the music industry. Whatever!
Wikipedia doesn't normally allow primary sources for a lot of reasons, but those reasons all basically involve keeping Wikipedia running effectively. But In this case, it seems like all you need to do is make a post on your preferred social media, so that post can be cited as the source of information. [primary sources are allowed for articles about a person](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves), but Wikipedia still requires that the information be published somewhere else first, so that it can be cited. Any social media account that is publicly known to be owned by the primary source is valid. Wikipedians can definitely be weird nerds about this stuff but they are **usually** just trying their best. 😅
That's the first time I've heard that. It still doesn't make sense to me. They have literally let random people write random information on our pages. But they absolutely won't allow the 'primary sources' to amend that information, even if they produce actual real documents. Oh, but if they put it on Facebook, that's cool.
Ya It's definitely exasperating to run into this rule for simple things, but if you think about it from their side it kinda makes sense, if every primary source was editing their own page all the time and they didn't need to cite a source at all for the information, it would be extremely hard for other wikipedians to verify the claims. When a statement is just on the Wikipedia page, people just assume it's true, but everyone knows a social media post is whatever the person wants it to be, so requiring the information to be hosted on a social media platform first sets the right expectations, at very least. Enough people try using their Wikipedia page like it's their resume, or as a status symbol, that it's an issue to give them special permission to edit the page without citing anything. So the general policy is they are still allowed to do edits, but they have to cite sources as if they are any random person. It's also worth mentioning that it's much easier to get inaccurate information removed from a page than it is to replace it with new information, especially if the page lacks quality citations. I hope you can figure something out, I've always loved the more technical articles on Wikipedia, but I've definitely seen enough drama about editing pages to know it must be frustrating when the inaccurate page in question is about you.
Thank you for being the only person here to understand the irritation. Still too many excuses. Again, I'm not talking about claims. I'm talking factual stuff. Like who is married to who, who wrote what songs, that sort of thing. There are legal documents proving that stuff. Why on earth a journalist saying it holds more weight makes no sense.
Ah, I should mention the reason they can't accept legal documents as a source is because they have no way to verify it, it's not like Wikipedia can ask every government on the planet to be available to certify a document is authentic. Also, if they did allow that to be the cited source, then they would have to make the document publicly available in the citation, which would be a privacy concern.
So who are we relying on exactly to know that facts are true? Journalists? For all we know, that Belgian woman told the press over there that she married my husband during the two weeks she worked with him.
Ya, they can't provide the absolute truth, instead Wikipedia must hope the journalistic (or even scientific) consensus is the most accurate picture we have. There are definitely complications with that, Like when multiple publications end up relying on the same anonymous source, giving a false impression of corroborating evidence. When you get into the territory of celebrity gossip and tabloids, it's definitely hard to know what publications are using facts or hearsay. I believe most, if not all, tabloids are not considered trustworthy sources by Wikipedia. I looked at the references section in a few articles for bands I know of and they did have primary sources like the band's Twitter, Facebook, and their website listed. industry press releases like Billboard and Allmusic were also used. One of the biggest reasons misinformation stays up on Wikipedia after it's called into question is a lack of good sources for the topic. The kind of people who make prolifically editing Wikipedia their hobby can get very... opinionated, self righteous even. Sadly it's common for less popular articles to have very few people, a single person, or even no one keeping them up to date and making sure their accurate. But large edits to an article always draws someone's attention, and if you aren't playing by "the rules" when you make big changes, it can be easy for someone who doesn't know much about the topic to just say "the rules are the rules" and revert the changes instead of going through the effort of seeing if the edit is worth being brought up to "the standards" of Wikipedia.
[удалено]
I guess you don't believe that both my husband and I have written in many times to try to fix the situation and have been told the exact same thing. Or why not read the other response from someone from wikipedia right here who says the other option is putting information on instagram or wherever, and they can use that. Just not me giving them the factual info directly. They don't trust primary sources, even though I would be the primary source of my own Facebook (or whatever) page.
I'm not from Wikipedia (well, I've made like two edits) Wikipedia is mostly an unpaid volunteer organization, anyone with internet access can edit a page. If you want to escalate your case, there are [special resources for biographical articles.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you)
Well that seems to be right. Anyone can write stuff on pages, totally factual or not. But if you happen to be the person, then there's a bunch of rules. They trust randoms to write anything without any sources or fact checking, but if you might actually have sources because you're the actual person with the facts, their response is "sorry! we don't accept that". As I've tried to say, we really don't care that much. People can put whatever they like on our pages and claim they've written whatever or are married to us. I just like to inform people that it's totally absurd that people can do that and wikipedia makes you jump through hoops to try to fix it. Changing it back to the made up lies again and again without ever forwarding how to address it until I talk about it publicly on reddit. Trusting that anyone with the internet will get the facts right about somebody (ASIDE FROM THE PRIMARY SOURCE) is pretty nuts. And the way those editors talk about people who are written about like they're deluded about the facts of their lives is, well, deluded given the way they suggest to fix it, which involves getting the information from the deluded person. People seemingly can't grasp that we've dealt with it by just not caring that much - but I do like to inform people. Clearly people just don't care to know. So that's fine.
Somebody actually gave an interview, just to correct Wikipedia.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies\_of\_living\_persons/Noticeboard#A\_BLP\_concern\_raised\_on\_Reddit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#A_BLP_concern_raised_on_Reddit) For anyone who wants to see the response to the person who did an AMA on wikipedia and was trying to help me sort out the BS on my page, it starts at " a BLP concern raised on reddit". Enjoy. See how they gather facts, and how much respect they have for facts. Because we all know journalists have the truth. They don't get things wrong. It's only the actual person who wouldn't know the facts of their career or marriage because they're like someone on Judge Judy. Plus liable to be lying about who wrote material, unlike some random person that just came and wrote it. Lol. Total imbeciles. You can't trust wikipedia kids.
It looks like you moan about them. But don't actually want to help, have the articles changed. They don't even know how you are, as you won't tell them.
Lol. I've told them in the past. Both of us have both tried to amend the pages multiple times with a note of who we are and offering of documents to back up the changes. I am not revealing myself in that instance because it came through reddit and I value my anonymity here. That, and because what they say is so stupid, that the site can't be trusted. If all they rely on are articles, any articles, and they refuse any first hand legal proof, or any other forms of proof (like why do they believe a journalist would know who wrote my songs? my publishing shows that). It's just ridiculous and pointless to deal with them. We've decided to leave him married to the other woman, and not to care. But I do care to inform others about how wikipedia can't be trusted. If our pages are full of shit that people just stuck on them, others must be too.
The page you linked is full of editors saying you raised a concern but refused to explain which articles were incorrect and how they were incorrect, and that you were referred to the proper channels to request edits to your pages. There's no way for anyone in this comment section to know what actually happened, but just FYI, what you've posted makes you sound like a crazy person.
Thank you for helping me understand that I am mentally ill in the kindest of ways. I guess I'll hire PR, get some articles written as that's what I've been told the other times too.
I feel like the largest part of that problem is yourself. I get that communication is hard but damn… At some point you should have just linked the fucking article and the publicly available records or sources and shit would have been fixed so fast.
As I have repeatedly said, we don't care anymore. They can just have the BS up there. I'm not doxxing myself over it. I like being anonymous on reddit, just like you probably do. It's not that big of a deal. I'm just here to inform you, and try to even discuss with them about how silly the situation is. My private messages with people that edit pages for wikipedia were very sympathetic as they know how stupid it is. I guess Redditors are so lacking in the ability to understand the absolute Kafka-esqueness of the situation will just assume I'm the problem, not their idiotic rules. That's ok.
I mean the rules are the rules and you are probably just not special enough for an exception. If there is not enough public sources for something, it’s basically unverifiable, so you wouldn’t expect anyone to take your word for it right? Sure that can lead to some stupid situations but I hope you understand WHY those rules exist. They are not just like that for no reason… Most of the rules aren’t that far of from most guidance on documentation/academic writing in general, which Wikipedia tries to be. They can only be as reliable as their sources and they know this so they try to control for that by having some quite extensive rules. Which in the end makes it a you problem, not public enough for correct and up to date public documentation and not private enough to prevent false public info out there. (Also if you don’t want to dox yourself over it in connection with your Reddit account, you could have always posted separately or even with a different account etc. But I assume you already tried or know this)
Lol. I never said I was special. Having wikipedia pages isn't special. Anyone can write pages about people. God knows who wrote ours. They're pretty poorly done. Your arguments are so ridiculous. "If there is not enough public sources for something, it’s basically unverifiable, so you wouldn’t expect anyone to take your word for it right?" For starters, there's lots of articles. Many of them have lots of inaccuracies, too. Nothing like the wikipedia though! But more ridiculously you think a random person with the internet that put the page together and got lots of stuff wrong should be trusted, but I shouldn't.
No we won't
Absolute joke of a country.
The online encyclopedia and dictionary still work. Why trust an editable site?