How to "destroy" Wikipedia

[Dysklyver]

Of course there a ton of vandals and disruptors, but everything they do gets reverted. It recently it occured to me, if I was trying to destroy Wikipedia, how would I do it?

Idea #1 - Physically destroy Wikipedia.
This would undoubtedly be the most effective method, it would involve a very large amount of whatever explosives Americans feel it is their constitutional right to carry several large truckloads of. These would be parked next to the Wikipedia servers, then having somehow compelled the employees to leave the building. KABOOM.

Wikipedia must be aware of this possibility, as they recently built a backup facility in a different location at great cost. So additional trucks would be needed to make the backup go KABOOM too. However due to Wikipedia's prominence, there are dozens of mirrors, hundreds of other sites including the Internet Archive host mirrors and dumps. Google also holds complete copies. Wikipedia could be restored from these sources very easily. There isn't enough explosive to make everywhere Wikipedia is stored go KABOOM, rending the idea impracticable.

Idea #2 - Make Wikipedia illegal.
If you can't destroy it yourself, get the Government to do it! All that required is to take extreem danger Dutch law and make it European law, then make it world law! This is actually already happening to some extent, so should be easy. This requires four major key elements, firstly make CC licences illegal so the content model fails. Step two, make IP's personal information so IP editing becomes difficult and a massive attribution problem is created with past edits. Step three, introduce a link tax so Wikipedia has to pay for references. And finally, make Wikipedia responsible for all copyvios it hosts, and impose a massive fine on any violations.

However, as much as this is happening to some extent already, laws take a really long time to pass. This would take forever.

Idea #3 - Use MicroBotMassiveNet to destroy the site.
Maybe destroying the software and content would be enough, however to completely wreck it would not be easy. Your standard script kiddies with their worms and rootkits would not have much destructive effect here, but there is another option. First, obtain bitcoin, then contact The Shadow Brokers (T-H-L) and give them bitcoin. Receive much powerful cyberweapon. Point cyberweapon at Wikipedia, enjoy fireworks!

The main problem with this is that unless you have a NSA grade cyberweapon, you can't do this. That means that unless you are a Russian spy, or rich, this is not a particularly easy task. It also has the same problems as idea #1, in that only one backup content dump needs to survive for the devs to restore Wikipedia after the event.

Idea #4 - Use the devs.
Pretty simple really. Hack a developer account. Then run sudo rm -rf /* or an equivalent SQL or a script to achieve the same result. This *should* permanently delete Wikipedia at the backend. Obviously it encounters the issue of "can be restored from backup".

So there you have it, every way I can think of to prematurely wipe out Wikipedia.

[C&B]

The only method by which it won't subsequently be backed up, then, is #2-the law and finance. That's capitalism for you.

[Poetlister]

Is there a need to destroy Wikipedia physically? How about a massive campaign to discredit Wikipedia so much that nobody would use it? Or building an alternative that is so much better that people use it instead? Neither would be easy, but nor are any of Dysklyver's ideas.

[Eric Corbett]

Is there a need to destroy Wikipedia physically? How about a massive campaign to discredit Wikipedia so much that nobody would use it? Or building an alternative that is so much better that people use it instead? Neither would be easy, but nor are any of Dysklyver's ideas.

Both of your ideas have the distinct advantage over Dskylver's musings in that they might conceivably work.

[Kumioko]

I don't think any of these are really very likely.

Starting with 1. Since the WMF projects are on the cloud and backed up redundantly, in multiple places, nothing short of a massive EMP burst, such as from a solar flare would really do much. Since that would probably also kill all or most of the people on the planet, not much point to that.

2. Wikipedia or other projects are already banned in about 1/5ths of the worlds population and inaccessible to about another 2/5ths due to blocks, lack of internet access, or other factors. So really, the majority of the 2/5ths that that remain are westernized cultures like the US, UK, India and a few others. So focusing on these would bare the most fruit. I do think that there is a lot of lawsuits that could be done by either individuals, corporations or even government for things like copyright infringement, libel or even the proliferation of child porn on commons.

3. I think this one is possible but it would only be temporary. Sure you could probably take the site down for as much as a couple weeks, but most likely they would have it restored in a matter of hours.

4. I also think this one is very possible but again it would only be a temporary problem. Using a dev account could cause a tremendous amount of damage and could be a lot harder to fix, but my guess is it would still be temporary.

IMO what needs to happen is a multi vector attack. You need to erode away the people's trust in the project, you need to erode away the editors desire to edit and the admins ability to do what they do. The current climate of admin abuse and edit mistreatment and disenchantment on the rise, this one is already well under way as we have seen from the decline's of editors, readers and admins.

You also need to erode the donors. Make it bad press or bad business to donate to the WMF because they do whatever makes them look bad. My guess is focus heavily on the child porn and copyright violation issues. Those are all very easy to prove and evoke strong emotions.

Ideally you want to do multiple of these at the same time starting with the lawsuits. If a bunch of people start suing the WMF and even editors, editors are going to leave, people will be afraid to edit, donors will stop giving money and the WMF will starve financially. That, to me is really the only realistic way to bring them down. It really doesn't even matter if people win or lose the lawsuits, but they cost money and although the WMF has plenty at the moment, lawsuits can be expensive and maintaining cases concurrently would be a drain on their resources.

[Eric Corbett]

But simply bringing Wikipedia down without at the same time offering a better alternative is not really very constructive, which is why I much prefer Poetlister's suggestions. People ought to be persuaded away from Wikipedia, not forced away.

I'm by no means convinced that the world would be a better place without Wikipedia, but I am convinced that it would be a better place with a better Wikipedia, whether that comes from reform of the present offering - which seems unlikely - or a superior alternative.

In fact, instead of someone setting up yet another Wikipedia criticism site, why not set up the perfect alternative to Wikipedia and let people choose?

[Randy from Boise]

Lucky I wasn't sipping coffee when I read this, I would have made a mess...

All that required is to take extreem danger Dutch law and make it European law, then make it world law!

Give my regards to Sancho.

RfB

[Kumioko]

But simply bringing Wikipedia down without at the same time offering a better alternative is not really very constructive, which is why I much prefer Poetlister's suggestions. People ought to be persuaded away from Wikipedia, not forced away.

I'm by no means convinced that the world would be a better place without Wikipedia, but I am convinced that it would be a better place with a better Wikipedia, whether that comes from reform of the present offering - which seems unlikely - or a superior alternative.

In fact, instead of someone setting up yet another Wikipedia criticism site, why not set up the perfect alternative to Wikipedia and let people choose?

I agree and I think that's already happening.

Whether they want to admit it or not, readership and editors are linked. If you run the editors out, as they have been, then the readers will also leave.

If I had the financial resources to start an alternative I would (I got my powerball ticket last night so we'll see if I get that 225 million).

[C&B]

Lucky I wasn't sipping coffee when I read this, I would have made a mess...

All that required is to take extreem danger Dutch law and make it European law, then make it world law!

Give my regards to Sancho.

RfB

[MadManz]

This might be relevant: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9407&p=219755

[Eric Corbett]

Lucky I wasn't sipping coffee when I read this, I would have made a mess...

All that required is to take extreem danger Dutch law and make it European law, then make it world law!

Give my regards to Sancho.

RfB

That did seem a little revealing.

[Eric Corbett]

But simply bringing Wikipedia down without at the same time offering a better alternative is not really very constructive, which is why I much prefer Poetlister's suggestions. People ought to be persuaded away from Wikipedia, not forced away.

I'm by no means convinced that the world would be a better place without Wikipedia, but I am convinced that it would be a better place with a better Wikipedia, whether that comes from reform of the present offering - which seems unlikely - or a superior alternative.

In fact, instead of someone setting up yet another Wikipedia criticism site, why not set up the perfect alternative to Wikipedia and let people choose?

I agree and I think that's already happening.

Whether they want to admit it or not, readership and editors are linked. If you run the editors out, as they have been, then the readers will also leave.

If I had the financial resources to start an alternative I would (I got my powerball ticket last night so we'll see if I get that 225 million).

It would cost nothing like that amount of money. Unless of course your real reason for setting up the project was to line the pockets of as many software engineers as you could hire, ideally using someone else's money, and give them the opportunity to enhance their career prospects by playing with whatever is today's next big thing. Blockchains for instance, although better if you had a crystal ball to predict next year's next big thing, as blockchains are so 2018.

[Kumioko]

You might be right but my guess is it require at least a couple hundred thousand to start. There in the US there is a ton of money that is available for educational and historical purposes in the form of grants and it would be possible to justify getting grant money for a Wikipedia alternative, at least for certain subjects.

Government grants is something the WMF has steered away from so it doesn't appear like they are working for the government, but it's available nonetheless. That in combination with standard donations like the WMF receives and even advertising that the WMF has refused to do are also possibilities.

[Eric Corbett]

You might be right but my guess is it require at least a couple hundred thousand to start. There in the US there is a ton of money that is available for educational and historical purposes in the form of grants and it would be possible to justify getting grant money for a Wikipedia alternative, at least for certain subjects.

Government grants is something the WMF has steered away from so it doesn't appear like they are working for the government, but it's available nonetheless. That in combination with standard donations like the WMF receives and even advertising that the WMF has refused to do are also possibilities.

I don't think it need cost anything like that amount of money to start, but of course it would depend on what your vision for the site would be, and which expensive internet ornaments you'd like to have adorning your site. Would it be Jimmy, or would it be Larry? Either way, a couple of hundred thousand wouldn't even pay the wages.

A lot of people still seem wedded to the idea of a wiki, despite all the evidence suggesting that's probably a poor idea. And does the world really another copy of 5.6 million articles the vast majority of which are crap? An alternative to Wikipedia should be very different from Wikipedia, building on whatever strengths it has and eliminating its many faults. Maybe blockchains could be used to give some level of confidence in the content? Is it really a viable concept to be aiming for the sum of all human knowledge anyway, while at the same time setting up fences with arbitrary notability guidelines? Is some kind of mutually trusted federation of sites the answer, each with a different specialism? Should an alternative be internet based at all? Should it be an independent site, or should it be some kind of AI-based amalgam of the best of the internet sources already out there?

Who knows. All I'm saying is that setting up a new Wikimedia site - or even a better Everipedia - and copying across 5.6 million articles to it isn't creating an alternative to Wikipedia, it's simply duplicating it. The problem with too many software projects is that developers are impatient to build something before they have any real idea of what it is that that they ought to be building.

[Vigilant]

Hypothetically speaking...

$250K USD would fund 10 man years of high end engineering effort in Bucharest.

I'd hire a team of seasoned professionals.
Security researchers, penetration testers, bot experts, malware authors...

I'm certain I could bring the entire enterprise to its knees in a year.

[Guido den Broeder]

Idea #5 - do nothing

Probably fastest and less costly than other tries. Wikipedia is pretty much dead already according to usual criteria. The corpse merely needs to rot some more and then it will be gone. Host a party to dance on its grave.

[Kumioko]

Idea #5 - do nothing

Probably fastest and less costly than other tries. Wikipedia is pretty much dead already according to usual criteria. The corpse merely needs to rot some more and then it will be gone. Host a party to dance on its grave.

Yep, pretty much agree here.

[Dysklyver]

Idea #5 - do nothing

Probably fastest and less costly than other tries. Wikipedia is pretty much dead already according to usual criteria. The corpse merely needs to rot some more and then it will be gone. Host a party to dance on its grave.

Yep, pretty much agree here.

Well it's the most practical and requires the least effort, so win win.

[Eric Corbett]

Hypothetically speaking...

$250K USD would fund 10 man years of high end engineering effort in Bucharest.

I'd hire a team of seasoned professionals.
Security researchers, penetration testers, bot experts, malware authors...

I'm certain I could bring the entire enterprise to its knees in a year.

What would you be hiring them to do?

[Randy from Boise]

Hypothetically speaking...

$250K USD would fund 10 man years of high end engineering effort in Bucharest.

I'd hire a team of seasoned professionals.
Security researchers, penetration testers, bot experts, malware authors...

I'm certain I could bring the entire enterprise to its knees in a year.

What would you be hiring them to do?

Write and install malware, apparently.

Myself, I'd rather that WMF hire Vig to run the engineering department... But they like spending their money on ding-dongs.

RfB

[Vigilant]

Hypothetically speaking...

$250K USD would fund 10 man years of high end engineering effort in Bucharest.

I'd hire a team of seasoned professionals.
Security researchers, penetration testers, bot experts, malware authors...

I'm certain I could bring the entire enterprise to its knees in a year.

What would you be hiring them to do?

Write and install malware, apparently.

Myself, I'd rather that WMF hire Vig to run the engineering department... But they like spending their money on ding-dongs.

RfB

Some highlights from a five minute brain dump:

* Map the entirety of WMF controlled compute and storage nodes
* Inventory of vulnerabilities on WMF servers
* Catalog of all users, highlighting advanced permissions, activity level, last login, cross referencing to other online accounts if possible
* IRL profiles of all advanced permissioned users, social media accounts, phone, email, addresses, relatives, PII
* Profiles for every WMF employee and contractor. In depth work history, social media, PII, prior arrest records, indebtedness, personal difficulties
* Network map of WMF office LAN. Install a device on their internal network with promiscuous capture and intermittent upload.
* Penetrate as many connected device on the internal WMF network as can be easily breached. Developer machines in particular.
* Penetrate and root as many public network facing machines as possible.
* Password testing on all advanced permissioned accounts. Stewards and crats in particular.
* Uploading of corrupt JPG and other image files with custom built malware to break image codecs and give root access to user/editor machines. Install the corrupt images in common templates via compromised admin accounts.
* At the same time, on a holiday weekend:
- Physical security system, badges, access, etc have all accounts removed and are locked
- All physical door locks on the SF office are JB welded
- Compromised internal WMF machines begin DDOSing other non-compromised internal machines
- Developer accounts spawn new superuser developer accounts, delete all other internal accounts that are accessible
- All compromised admin accounts begin indef blocking users, sequentially from most edits down
- All compromised steward and crat accounts emergency deadmin all non-compromised admin accounts
- The front page is modified to an FBI take down notice ala backpage.com and locked
- The highest activity pages are page moved and merged together repeatedly
- Any backups that can be reached are wiped
- Email servers send FBI notices to every user with an available email account alleging criminal behavior
- SWAT every local developer and exec at home
- Once the WMF is able to enter the building, drop the local transformer to remove power to WMF offices
- Report all WMF employee and corporate Apple phones as stolen to Apple and request device locking
- Login to all compromised editor accounts, scramble the password, remove email and other contact information, logout
- Send pineapple and ham pizzas to the WMF office, although, that may be a step too far.

That's not something I would do, but it's an easy plan to see.

[Dysklyver]

- Send pineapple and ham pizzas to the WMF office, although, that may be a step too far.

The cherry on the Devils handiwork.

[Eric Corbett]

Myself, I'd rather that WMF hire Vig to run the engineering department... RfB

Thanks for the laugh.

[Kumioko]

Myself, I'd rather that WMF hire Vig to run the engineering department... RfB

Thanks for the laugh.

I laughed to, not only because they wouldn't hire him but more because he's not foolish enough to work for the WMF.

[Poetlister]

Myself, I'd rather that WMF hire Vig to run the engineering department... RfB

Thanks for the laugh.

I laughed to, not only because they wouldn't hire him but more because he's not foolish enough to work for the WMF.

I expect that were he to turn his mind to it, he could rapidly improve things. He might even produce a decent visual editor. The "hasten the day" brigade woud be appalled.

[Kumioko]

Indeed we would! :-)

[Vigilant]

Myself, I'd rather that WMF hire Vig to run the engineering department... RfB

Thanks for the laugh.

I laughed to, not only because they wouldn't hire him but more because he's not foolish enough to work for the WMF.

They pay shit.
There are no stock options.
It's a dying platform.
They have an inordinate amount of internal political backbiting.
They've hired terrible people for a decade and promoted them to the level of their incompetence.
They have a staggering amount of technical debt.
They have no engineering processes to speak of.
They have no senior technical leadership.
They have pissed on and pissed off their customer base, for no good reason, repeatedly.
Their decision making processes are wildly broken.
Their funding is tenuous at best.
They have massive legal exposure around PII, copyright laws, EU privacy laws, etc


What's not to love?

[Eric Corbett]

Well, if all of that's true, then nothing needs to be done to bring on the death of Wikipedia, as it will inevitably collapse as its very foundations crumble.

[Poetlister]

It's a great paradox that despite all of the terrible things that have been said about Wikipedia and the WMF, most of them true, Wikipedia seems to be at least treading water and the WMF gets ever more donations. Is it just that "There's one born every minute"?

[Vigilant]

Well, if all of that's true, then nothing needs to be done to bring on the death of Wikipedia, as it will inevitably collapse as its very foundations crumble.

How will it die naturally when the money spigot is still on?

[Eric Corbett]

Well, if all of that's true, then nothing needs to be done to bring on the death of Wikipedia, as it will inevitably collapse as its very foundations crumble.

How will it die naturally when the money spigot is still on?

The power of advertising. Make sure that everyone knows that hardly any of their donated money is used to keep Wikipedia running.

[MadManz]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9962

[No Ledge]

They pay shit.
There are no stock options.
It's a dying platform.

They don't pay me anything, not even that stuff.

America Online paid stock options, while they were a dying platform. They were worrying about being Y2K compliant when they should have been worried about their lack of Internet compliance. It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to figure out they needed Time Warner more than Time Warner needed them.

IBM was a dying platform... replaced by Intel and Microsoft.
Horse and buggy was a dying platform... replaced by oil-powered motor vehicles.
Oil-powered motor vehicles are a dying platform... replaced by... uh, civilization, we have a problem.

So, the question is, if Wikipedia is a dying platform, what is going to replace it. Some bitcoin-powered fork?

If the answer is nothing is going to replace Wikipedia, then, civilization, we have a problem.

I'm not looking forward to 1984 becoming reality, just a few decades behind schedule.

Five major media corporations having monopoly power to make the "truth" whatever they want to make it, completely controlling the government (bye-bye net neutrality) eventually, inevitably, consolidating into one media corporation that controls all information. The inevitable end result of capitalism... "corporate communism", our government and economy will be meaningfully indistinguishable from China's. Facebook is already starting to censor the dissidents, right?

[Dysklyver]

I think Wikipedia will be replaced with an English version of Baidu Bake.

The only question is whether Google or Amazon will make it first.

[No Ledge]

Good answer. That kind of makes sense. Probably Google, since they control the search-engine space (as Baidu (T-H-L) does in China). "Baidu Baike (T-H-L) censors its content in accordance with the requirements of the Chinese government. All editors need to register an account before editing, and administrators filter all but the simplest edits before they go public."

So, when the time comes, if Wales and Company don't go along with demands to censor content and require all editors to register, as demanded by Google or the US government, then Google will simply censor Wikimedia sites from its search engine results, replacing them with its Baidu-like replacement, and both they and the government (which will be increasingly indistinguishable) will be happy to take over control of the space.

So, with that likely outcome, are y'all still sure you want to "destroy" Wikipedia?

[Midsize Jake]

So, with that likely outcome, are y'all still sure you want to "destroy" Wikipedia?

We have other threads about whether or not it would be a good thing to "destroy" Wikipedia, and unfortunately those threads also get derailed by people operating under the assumption that the goal is to have Wikipedia go "POOF!" and suddenly disappear without a trace with no alternative or succession plan. Since that's unrealistic (i.e., even "dead" websites tend to stick around for a while before their owners shut them down), it might be useful to have a thread on the subject in which that kind of derailment isn't allowed to happen - though that might require a series of ruthless posting-deletion sprees by the moderators which would probably lead to a lot of grumbling. (Still, we could at least try it, I suppose.)

This thread is, or should be, about how Wikipedia might be attacked (not necessarily by any of us) in an effort to shut it down for a non-negligible period of time. As such, it may not be "useful" per se, but I see no point in derailing it with another discussion about the real-world implications of Wikipedia's demise, sudden or otherwise.

[Poetlister]

I think Wikipedia will be replaced with an English version of Baidu Bake.

The only question is whether Google or Amazon will make it first.

Google has already tried, with Knol (T-H-L). It failed.

[No Ledge]

This thread is, or should be, about how Wikipedia might be attacked (not necessarily by any of us) in an effort to shut it down for a non-negligible period of time. As such, it may not be "useful" per se, but I see no point in derailing it with another discussion about the real-world implications of Wikipedia's demise, sudden or otherwise.

So this is the "BEANS" thread, eh? Kind of like posting recipies for dirty bombs... not a "useful" topic of course, and shutting down discussion of the real-world implications of someone reading the recipes and acting on them.

[No Ledge]

I think Wikipedia will be replaced with an English version of Baidu Bake.

The only question is whether Google or Amazon will make it first.

Google has already tried, with Knol (T-H-L). It failed.

They didn't try hard enough.

Any contributor could create and own new Knol articles, and there could be multiple articles on the same topic with each written by a different author.

Sounds more like Wordpress (T-H-L). I suppose that was what the Internet was like before Wikipedia. Multiple sources covering the same topic competing with each other on level ground to get their version of the topic to float to the top of Google search, generally without collaborating with others to produce their version.

That has no appeal for the sages of the world, who want to control what the "cirtifed" reliable article at the top of the search results says.

Seems that Baidu has cracked the code for how to "destroy" Wikipedia in China, and it's not rocket science to figure out how they did it.

[Vigilant]

So, with that likely outcome, are y'all still sure you want to "destroy" Wikipedia?

We have other threads about whether or not it would be a good thing to "destroy" Wikipedia, and unfortunately those threads also get derailed by people operating under the assumption that the goal is to have Wikipedia go "POOF!" and suddenly disappear without a trace with no alternative or succession plan. Since that's unrealistic (i.e., even "dead" websites tend to stick around for a while before their owners shut them down), it might be useful to have a thread on the subject in which that kind of derailment isn't allowed to happen - though that might require a series of ruthless posting-deletion sprees by the moderators which would probably lead to a lot of grumbling. (Still, we could at least try it, I suppose.)

This thread is, or should be, about how Wikipedia might be attacked (not necessarily by any of us) in an effort to shut it down for a non-negligible period of time. As such, it may not be "useful" per se, but I see no point in derailing it with another discussion about the real-world implications of Wikipedia's demise, sudden or otherwise.

Force the WMF to hire a senior Google or Apple executive as CTO.
Watch them go to town on the execrable staff and culture.

Destroying the WMF internally would effectively end most of the pernicious practices foisted on the users by this cabal of ne'er do wells.
Imagine:
* Hiring community managers from Blizzard (WoW) to manage all advanced permissioned users.
* Having program managers with actual real world experience delivering working products on time to people who want them.
* Forcing the extremely top heavy management dingbats to justify their decisions.
* Actual accountability within engineering for hiring, performance and behavior with merit based promotions and pay raises.
* Having technical decisions that are in line with best practices in Silicon Valley.
* Having 50% attrition in the San Francisco office leading to offshored development at significant discount and quality improvement.
* An end to the sycophantic practice of hiring no-talent, high liability nincompoops through the IRC channels.

While this doesn't 'destroy' wikipedia, it fundamentally transforms it into something less profane.

[Midsize Jake]

...Kind of like posting recipies for dirty bombs... not a "useful" topic of course, and shutting down discussion of the real-world implications of someone reading the recipes and acting on them.

That's not a particularly fair analogy, now is it? Even if Wikipedia were to suddenly disappear due to some sort of external attack (not necessarily perpetrated by anyone here), nobody would be killed, there wouldn't be entire urban areas rendered unlivable, and I doubt there would even be a significant uptick in fear-levels among the population. Depending on how long it lasted, for most people it would just be an inconvenience and a few monologue jokes on late-night TV.

And I don't mean to "shut down" any discussion of the subject, I'm just saying we have other threads about Wikipedia's "endgame" (or we could always start a new one), and this specific thread would probably benefit from not becoming one of those. But if there's general disagreement with me about that, then don't worry about it - by all means, continue.

[No Ledge]

I was alluding to the five minute brain dump, among the ideas listed there was "SWATing ppl at their homes".

"Transforming it into something less profane" -- that's something I generally agree with.

It should be done before Google / Amazon / the government takes the issues on more directly, with possible unfortunate negative changes coming along with the positive ones.

[Vigilant]

I was alluding to the five minute brain dump, among the ideas listed there was "SWATing ppl at their homes".

"Transforming it into something less profane" -- that's something I generally agree with.

It should be done before Google / Amazon / the government takes the issues on more directly, with possible unfortunate negative changes coming along with the positive ones.

All points on the Gaussian.

[Poetlister]

Seems that Baidu has cracked the code for how to "destroy" Wikipedia in China, and it's not rocket science to figure out how they did it.

Obviously, if you have the Government on your side and it can impose its will on ISPs, things are a lot easier. But there is much talk of fleets of LEOs (low earth orbiter satellites) being used to carry Internet traffic. That might makke blocking Wikipedia harder.

[Dysklyver]

Seems that Baidu has cracked the code for how to "destroy" Wikipedia in China, and it's not rocket science to figure out how they did it.

Obviously, if you have the Government on your side and it can impose its will on ISPs, things are a lot easier. But there is much talk of fleets of LEOs (low earth orbiter satellites) being used to carry Internet traffic. That might makke blocking Wikipedia harder.

Trouble is they say these satellites make blocking harder, and people like Paul Bedson come along and explain how magic blockchain does the same thing, but it actually makes it far easier. Blocking the blockchain is like blocking tor or torrents, a ridiculously easy protocol filter.

LEOs however, are just flying American ISPs and thus it would be easy to block/regulate Wikipedia globally via a single order to one ISP instead of 280+ ISP's spread over multiple jurisdictions.

Anyway, I think we have concluded that the best way to destroy Wikipedia is to wait till capitalist tech companies decide to turn it into a consumer product. This will probably happen slowly over time, but could be accelerated by laws/regulation on content. For example this "partnership" which seems to be Google replacing Wikipedia Indonesia.

[Poetlister]

Trouble is they say these satellites make blocking harder, and people like Paul Bedson come along and explain how magic blockchain does the same thing, but it actually makes it far easier. Blocking the blockchain is like blocking tor or torrents, a ridiculously easy protocol filter.

LEOs however, are just flying American ISPs and thus it would be easy to block/regulate Wikipedia globally via a single order to one ISP instead of 280+ ISP's spread over multiple jurisdictions.

It's not really sporting to criticise Paul Bedson; it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I think that several companies will launch these LEOs.

[Anroth]

Wait until a UK advanced permissions user abuses CU etc then start Norwich Pharmacal'ing every UK resident advanced permission user for their (the original CU) identity. Starting with Jimbo.

Granted it wouldnt kill it, but it would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

(Psst, the very nature of how CU is conducted is not compliant with GDPR)

[Kumioko]

Wait until a UK advanced permissions user abuses CU etc then start Norwich Pharmacal'ing every UK resident advanced permission user for their (the original CU) identity. Starting with Jimbo.

Granted it wouldnt kill it, but it would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

(Psst, the very nature of how CU is conducted is not compliant with GDPR)

Yeah I think we have discussed this before. The CU/GDPR thing is a lawsuit, or at least high drama, issue waiting to happen. It's really not a matter of if but when and when it does happen, it will be spectacular!

[Jim]

...it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You're right, to an extent, but, to be fair to the fish, I think that their presence in the metaphorical barrel is generally assumed to be involuntary. If they understood that swimming around in any given barrel was likely to result in getting shot then they probably wouldn't just keep leaping back into it.

[Lir]

Just do what I've been doing for years. Add 'facts' that aren't easily verified. Source them. Cite them. Write fake facts well. Squish them between lots of other facts. Change wording in such a way that it obscures something, becomes unclear. Be patient. Use different IP addresses. Eventually, it either becomes clear that Wikipedia can't be trusted (it can't), or it forces Wikipedia to realize the current model isn't working and it needs to vastly improve article quality.

Make Wikipedia editors check the citations for every little detail, and laugh when they don't.

Honestly, it's fun to insert something blatantly untrue and see how long it lasts. Once it's there over a decade, you know it might still be there in a century. Bonus points if you get another article, website, or academic paper (!) to include your fake fact.