671
Um ... This doxing threat seems like a really dumb move, on par with daring Anonymous to take you down. Really, if you want to play Internet hardball, there are folks that would love to show you how it works. (Not me!)
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
671 points (99.9% liked)
Privacy
2011 readers
689 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
The Heritage Foundation is located at:
214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C., U.S.
What does the heritage foundation have against Wikipedia?
It prints the truth more often than not.
They don’t like them publishing facts:
https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/
The best counter to bias is in an openly edited project is contributing corrected information with high quality sources. So instead of spending their time doxxing wikipedia editors, how about actually contributing quality data?
What high quality data? They have nothing, that's why they are doing this bullshit.
Are you really saying that conservative groups should start publishing facts?
I'm guessing you don't quite understand how these people work. Most of their policies are crap and most people are still smart enough to understand so they lie. They lie a lot. They lie about just about everything.
See Fox News, for example. Whenever fox News tells a truth, an angel gets its wings and let's just say that angels learned to dig like worms instead.
See influencers like Ben Shapiro whom I just saw fantasising about his sister btw
See president cheeto, who would excuse himself if he ever said a truth
Truth and facts are poison to these people
Are you really saying that conservative groups should start publishing facts?
Yes.
I also understand how they work. That doesn't change the fact that they should change to start publishing facts.
Some of their policies are acceptable (on paper). I'm generally a fan of lower taxes (ironically, the progressive income tax was created under Republicans Roosevelt and Taft), smaller scope of federal government, and reducing barriers to economic development. And that used to be what conservatives in the US stood for, at least on paper. These days they're merely obstructionist and don't seem to actually have a plan themselves, adding as much or more to the national deficit compared to Democrats.
I'm long past believing anyone with power will actually act on their ideological convictions. Democrats are supposed to be the pro-worker party, yet Biden gave railroad workers a pretty crappy deal. Republicans are supposed to be "fiscally conservative," yet spending rose dramatically during Trump's first term and is rising this year too (despite claiming to make fiscal cuts), and here's the official Treasury page stating we've already spent 3.5T this year (fiscal year starts in October, so only half that time was under Trump).
See influencers like Ben Shapiro whom I just saw fantasising about his sister btw
Yeah, that was fake.
Yeah, I just saw that too. Hard to see these days with the idiocies that people like him post
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
No matter what you think of Wikipedia, if the heritage foundation have actually threatened to dox editors then that’s despicable.
"No matter what you think of Wikipedia" sounds like Wikipedia is extremely controversial. I've never met a person who has anything against Wikipedia. How insane and out of touch with reality do you have to be to have something against Wikipedia?
The only people I've seen that dislike it are people who want to hide things (like Holocaust deniers) or people that have some weird beef with people that run it or edit it.
Wikipedia is quite controversial tbh because essentially anyone can make edits that people then see and take as fact, even if they are incorrect and fake. These false/fake edits can stay live for hours/days/weeks.
This is why Wikipedia IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE and is not allowed to be used as a source at basically any school or university etc. What is written in Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt, and it should basically be used as a link aggregator. Read the wiki page, follow the sourced articles, get your information from them.
Wikipedia has often been criticised, rightly so, for not doing enough to prevent activist-style edits, not even from repeat offenders.
There’s nothing “out of touch with reality” to want seemingly the main source of information for many internet warriors to be better at vetting updates and the people making them. In fact I would argue the one that is out of touch with reality is you if you think that Wikipedia is above criticism.
What makes Wikipedia unreliable is also what makes it useful, so they have to strike the balance somewhere. As you point out, it's broadly rejected as source reference itself, so I don't agree that Wikipedia is "controversial" as much as a known quantity.
The editing process is under constant review and is updated to address problems, while adhering to the design principles of the effort. It's not as if they are ignoring the concerns you share. In fact, they hire people explicitly to think about and address these issues.
That’s fine, I was simply responding to the poster calling me “out of touch with reality” for saying that Wikipedia has known issues and controversy surrounding it.
Not everyone thinks that Wikipedia isn’t a valid source, as the poster I replied to shows. That’s the main issue.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Anyone got a list of the heritage foundation leaders and big players?
It's only fair
Does Heritage dox its own people too?
I'll note too that even absent Heritage Foundation threats, this can be useful to spur development of the project (i.e. for people who don't want a permanent account but don't feel comfortable having their IP permanently, publicly attached to edits). Probably the reason it hasn't been done in the past is it's almost certainly going to make it easier for bad actors to fly under the radar. Before, you either had to show your IP address (which can reveal your location and will usually uniquely identify who edited something for at least a little bit; you also can't use a VPN without special permission) or you had to register a single account (where if you created multiple, a sockpuppet investigation would often find out).
So there's an inherent trade-off, but I think right-wing threats of stochastic terrorism really tipped the scales.
TL;DR: Wikipedia has been doxing its own editors since inception.
load more comments
(12 replies)
view more: next ›