Now an Ars Technica article quoting a cryptic #Wikimedia statement saying there are “material inaccuracies” in the reports.
“There was no finding in our investigation that the Saudi government ‘infiltrated’ or penetrated Wikipedia’s highest ranks”
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
“There was no finding in our investigation that the Saudi government ‘infiltrated’ or penetrated Wikipedia’s highest ranks”
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
“And there are in fact no ‘ranks’ among Wikipedia admins … While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region.”—#Wikimedia statement
Full #Wikimedia statement on the Saudi Arabia story now published on the Wikimedia-l mailing list:
lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/lis…
lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/lis…
The Wikimedia Foundation is technically correct of course: admins are admins. But Arabic Wikipedia only had 26 administrators, and the Foundation banned 7 of them. When there are only 26 administrators for the entire Wikipedia site, that makes any one of the 26 "high-ranking".
The Ars Technica article now contains an update quoting DAWN Executive Director @sarahleah1 saying the #Wikimedia Foundation is playing technical word games. She's right, of course (see tweet above).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
