• wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 hours ago

      They would have to delete their “sockpuppet investigations” pages and so on first before they can move there, otherwise they would violate GDPR.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Not necessarily delete, just rein in, maybe not make it full public.

        Fraud detection and security are legitimate interests and are exempt from GDPR consent.

        • wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Yeah, anonymous IP editing might be depreciated as well in favor of temporary accounts or so on. Maybe the enforcement approach could (and should) be based on disruptive behaviors rather than on persons themselves, meaning that if a user, who was previously blocked for vandalism, comes back on another account and refrains from any disruptive actions, their new account shouldn’t be blocked and their edits should be allowed to stand or stick.

          • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            You can keep personal data without consent for security and fraud detection. What Wikipedia does is perfectly compatible with GDPR.

            Edit: case in point, Wikipedia is already subject to the GDPR, it’s a very high profile website, and it hasn’t been sued for violating it.

            • wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Except for those publicly visible sock-shaming and investigations pages, mark my words they’re going to be their Achilles heels one day. I’ve already asked some GDPR lawyers about it a long time ago and they agreed with me on that.

              • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Wikipedia has always been subject to EU laws regarding personal dignity rights, like the right to be forgotten for example. The GDPR is not even relevant for 99% of those cases, and they predate GDPR and even then web by decades. There have been court cases about it, and Wikipedia complies with court decisions. It’s not an Achilles Heel it is the normal balancing act between the public’s right to be informed and the individual’s rights to a private life.

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    When this Orange Turd leaves office I have a few ideas for who should lose tax exemption as well.