Talk:Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Line 10:

:I've re-removed the section for pretty much the same reason as before - excessive detail with no external references demonstrating the notability or relevance of the issue. Above all else there's no notability - the references are all just to specific wikipedia pages, without a single secondary source. This wiki is not intended to be a place for original research and reporting, it is instead meant to compile externally verified and discussed consumer rights issues. We have significantly more relaxed sourcing guidelines than wikipedia, but we still do not allow for original research. Honestly at this point I'm really not sure there's a need for the section in the first place, as it seems like an internal moderation policy question for wikipedia, and a cursory google doesn't seem to indicate that there's even much in the way of controversy surrounding it. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 17:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

::[[User:Keith]] At one of the sources linked here there's the following comment:

::''Quite a few entries here have very specific personal information, that if likely put anywhere else on WP would lead to it being oversighted very quickly.''

::''I won't be linking the exact reports for obvious privacy reasons, but here are some privacy concerns I have noticed:

::One LTA report lists the vandal's location as being in a small town in the US with a population of roughly around 300 people. While IP addresses are hard to exactly track down without contacting the ISP, and that vandals in more populated places such as The Bronx and Mobile, Alabama (using actual LTA examples here) are also hard to track down, should we really have a very small town listed as a vandal's location? With the size of the town, and considering how easy this page is to find, it could potentially be very easy for a person with bad intentions to track that editor down.''

::''At least three LTA reports either have the usernames of what could be a full legal name or they use their full name as part of their modus operandi. While it may be useful in identifying socks, I'm pretty sure full names are oversightable. Some of these editors may be minors, which makes it even more dangerous. I'm surprised that some of the full names haven't been oversighted already.''

::''I would immediately email the oversight team if this was on any other page, however, with a page like LTA, I want to see consensus first, so I don't make any mistakes.''

::Maybe the FULU Foundation should consider acquiring [https://accountabilitywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Accountability Wiki] to serve as a sister project?[[Special:Contributions/15.254.3.204|15.254.3.204]] 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :I've re-removed the section for pretty much the same reason as before - excessive detail with no external references demonstrating the notability or relevance of the issue. Above all else there's no notability - the references are all just to specific wikipedia pages, without a single secondary source. This wiki is not intended to be a place for original research and reporting, it is instead meant to compile externally verified and discussed consumer rights issues. We have significantly more relaxed sourcing guidelines than wikipedia, but we still do not allow for original research. Honestly at this point I'm really not sure there's a need for the section in the first place, as it seems like an internal moderation policy question for wikipedia, and a cursory google doesn't seem to indicate that there's even much in the way of controversy surrounding it. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 17:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
+::[[User:Keith]] At one of the sources linked here there's the following comment:
+::''Quite a few entries here have very specific personal information, that if likely put anywhere else on WP would lead to it being oversighted very quickly.''
+::''I won't be linking the exact reports for obvious privacy reasons, but here are some privacy concerns I have noticed:
+::One LTA report lists the vandal's location as being in a small town in the US with a population of roughly around 300 people. While IP addresses are hard to exactly track down without contacting the ISP, and that vandals in more populated places such as The Bronx and Mobile, Alabama (using actual LTA examples here) are also hard to track down, should we really have a very small town listed as a vandal's location? With the size of the town, and considering how easy this page is to find, it could potentially be very easy for a person with bad intentions to track that editor down.''
+::''At least three LTA reports either have the usernames of what could be a full legal name or they use their full name as part of their modus operandi. While it may be useful in identifying socks, I'm pretty sure full names are oversightable. Some of these editors may be minors, which makes it even more dangerous. I'm surprised that some of the full names haven't been oversighted already.''
+::''I would immediately email the oversight team if this was on any other page, however, with a page like LTA, I want to see consensus first, so I don't make any mistakes.''
+::Maybe the FULU Foundation should consider acquiring [https://accountabilitywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Accountability Wiki] to serve as a sister project?[[Special:Contributions/15.254.3.204|15.254.3.204]] 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)