The Guardian'sInternet Wormhole column examines some Wikipedia pages about the fate of everything, including the disappearance of theY chromosome in theTimeline of the far future. At least we have aBoltzmann brain to look forward to.
TheGuardian article starts with719 BC and continues to2026, and then just keeps on going. From the 24th century onwards, apparently, "things start to get really trippy: a 'negative equinoctial paradox' in2353, every person in Japan havingthe same surname by2531, and 'the 639-year-long performance ofJohn Cage's organ workAs Slow as Possible' concluding in2640".
Then, it moves on toTimeline of the far future and, for the "truly adventurous", theUltimate fate of the universe, where readers can handily choose their favorite apocalyptic scenario betweenBig Freeze,Big Crunch,Big Bounce,Big Rip orBig Slurp. Just take your time and enjoy it. –S
Asreported by404 Media – the article has also beendiscussed in audio format on YouTube (at 31:15 – 50:00) – theWikimedia Foundation "is building new tools that it hopes will help Wikipedia editors stay anonymous in part to avoid harassment and legal threats." Despite the "new" claim, most of the specific examples described in the article have either existed or been in the works for a long time already.
Italian online newspaperIl Post alsocovered the news(in Italian), explaining how:
Wikipedia [...] is notoriously written and edited by a community of volunteer users; everyone, with a bit of training, can contribute to it. Normally, editors are anonymous users who draw little attention: in recent years, however, physical and legal threats have risen up, especially against those who edit aboutpotentially controversial topics, such as Wikipedia articles related to science and politics.
— Il Post (translated and re-adapted)
Two recent examples of these instances include three editors who are currently involved in theAsian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation court case – seepreviousSignpost coverage – and another one over at theFrench Wikipedia who has reportedly faced multiple threats by a journalist for his edits to the article of newspaperLe Point – see this issue'sNews and Notes.
Still, the most worrying signs so far have come from the United States: theSignpost previouslywrote about theHeritage Foundation's supposed plan to "identify and target Wikipedia editors abusing their position", and publishedan Op-ed by userGorillaWarfare on efforts by figures likeElon Musk and outlets likePirate Wires to discredit Wikipedia and its editors, as well as pressure from right-wing activists likeLibs of TikTok; this last matter has also beendiscussed by Lila Shroff inThe Atlantic(free subscription required). The editorial board of theNew York Post, on February 5, directlyexhorted "Big Tech" to "block Wikipedia until it stops censoring and pushing disinformation", at least partially based on its objections to Wikipedia's sourcing policies, and presented alongside a slew of bias complaints. While some are colorable and some are risible — and all certainly deserving at least a response — direct calls for suppression are nonetheless significant and dramatic.
That being said, as noted by404 Media, the WMF has already acknowledged the general trends at play here in the "External Trends" section of their2024–2025 annual plan, which states:
Human rights threats are growing. Physical and legal threats against volunteers and staff who fight disinformation continue to grow. Accusations of bias and inaction by those whose preferred narratives do not prevail on Wikipedia may be encouraged and amplified by purveyors of disinformation.
[...]
Law is weaponized in important jurisdictions. Bad-faith lawsuits, by people who don’t like the verified information appearing onWikipedia pages, are succeeding in some European countries. Some incumbent leaders are abusing their powers to silence and intimidate political opponents.
Concerns from Wikimedia executives only appear to have intensified ever since, as proven by several recent public declarations lined up by404 Media. Duringan online meeting with theBoard of Trustees on January 30, Wikipedia co-founderJimmy Wales said that he considered rising threats to Wikipedia by Musk and other figures as "something we need to grapple with", while the WMF CEO,Maryana Iskander, told the Trustees, "We're all just trying to understand what is happening not only in the United States, [but across the world], so the best we can do is monitor, check-in on staff, and try to understand what's needed". Iskander also added that the Foundation was going to "do a risk assessment for community conferences forWikimania", in order to ensure the safety of people gathering at in-person events.
Two Wikimedia lawyers,Phil Bradley-Schmieg andJacob Rogers, shared more details on the WMF's most plausible plans to enhance user protection, especially in regards tounregistered users. During the aforementioned meeting, Bradley-Schmieg mentioned the Foundation's ongoing work on the"Temporary Accounts program" – begun in 2019, previously under the name "IP Masking" – which would hand logged-out users a temporary username to hide their IP address, so that it could be accessible "only to people who are really engaged inanti-vandalism". See also priorSignpost coverage:"News from WMF" (2024-11-06),"Mandatory IP masking" (2020-11-01).
In aseparate meeting withCommunity Resilience and Sustainability, also held on January 30, Rogers suggested the possibility to extend the use ofsockpuppet accounts to a wider number of non-English Wikimedia projects, while also noting that the WMF had been working to limit the amount of data they retain on any given user – for instance, IP addresses associated with edits are deleted or anonymized after 90 days. According to the Foundation'smost recenttransparency report, in the first six months of 2024 it received 26 formal requests for information on users, six of which came from the United States, the highest number of any jurisdiction. They provided information in just two cases, one of which was from the US, and the other from Sweden.
As summarized by404 Media, Rogers also said that WMF has "created a legal defense program that will in some cases fund the defense of Wikipedia editors who are attacked through the legal system, as long as that editor or staffer was contributing to a Wikimedia project in good faith" (presumably a reference to the"Wikimedia Foundation Legal Fees Assistance Program," launched in 2012). The Foundation has recently fought cases in India (the aforementioned ANI vs. WMF)andGermany.
During one of the meetings, upon being asked if the Foundation would consider moving its headquarters out of the US – since it’s currently based inSan Francisco – Rogers said:
[Such a decision] would probably not do very much, because the projects would remain accessible in the United States, and many things would still be subject toUS law even if the foundation moved its headquarters to a different jurisdiction.
[...]
I think a move would be extremely expensive and cost something in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. [...] I see that as one of the most significant, expensive, and extreme possible options. You would only do that if it was like, the only solution to a major problem where doing that would make sense.
Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the Heritage Foundation responded to a request for comment by404 Media. –O,S,B,H,J
.png)
An editor has apparently partially submitted to demands of theCyber Crime Investigation Cell of theMaharashtra Police, to remove allegedly derogatory remarks about Hindu kingSambhaji from Wikipedia. Editor Ratnahastinstated, "I have been sued, legal issues refers to the troubles I'm facing. It is not a threat," after removing edits they had previously made and promising not to revert edits others have made (including those who reverted Ratnahastin's self-reverts). Healso said that he had previously contactedTrust and Safety for assistance.
Sambhaji was the king of theMaratha Empire who led the war against the MuslimMughal Empire in the 1680s. He is revered by many Indians, in much the same way that citizens of many other countries revere their own patriotic or national heroes.
Soon after a new biopic about Sambhaji, titledChhaava, was released worldwide on February 14, the Indian press – e.g.The Hindu,Hindustan Times, andIndia Today – began reporting on complaints about the English Wikipedia article about Sambhaji. According to the sources, Chief Minister ofMaharashtraDevendra Fadnavis instructed thelocal police to have the "derogatory remarks" removed from Wikipedia.
The film, like most biopics, is not meant to be a neutral piece of non-fiction; it was adapted from the historical novelChhava byShivaji Sawant. As reported byaHindustan Times story, the director of the film had his own discussions with politicians about a dance scene, which can only be seen now in themovie trailer. The folk dance, known aslezim, is athletic and energetic; in the trailer, it's also emotional, perhaps excessively so, but not pornographic or otherwise immoral. TheHT report about the controversy is vague about the reason for the removal of the dance scene, and the somewhat more-extravagant scenes in the HT's own video about the dance scene's removal have now also been locked out of the web. Much of this information arrived bit by bit, and was being discussed and digested atWP:ANI as early as February 18.
On February 21,severalIndiansourcesreported that four or five Indian editors have been "booked" or had "a case registered" against them in court.
Ratnahastin began removing information that same day, while mentioning legal problems in his edit comments. Athis own user talk, Wikipedia co-founderJimmy Wales was questioned about the matter. He responded:
[W]hen legal threats against individual users are involved, it is wise for the WMF to be very circumspect about what statements they issue and what actions they are taking. User privacy matters a great deal, and user safety (both against such threats but also the potential social media witch hunt that can easily emerge) is paramount. It's generally a mistake to assume that because the wider community can't be brought into confidential discussions and actions of the legal team, those discussions and actions aren't taking place.--
— User:Jimbo Wales13:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
.jpg)
