Due to the new laws. The Wikipedia foundation is suing so they don't have to do this but we will see
>...Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.
>If enforced on Wikipedia, Category 1 demands would undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors, expose the encyclopedia to manipulation and vandalism, and divert essential resources from protecting people and improving Wikipedia, one of the world’s most trusted and widely used digital public goods.
>For example, the Foundation would be required to verify the identity of many Wikipedia contributors, undermining the privacy that is central to keeping Wikipedia volunteers safe. In addition to being exceptionally burdensome, this requirement—which is just one of several Category 1 demands—could expose contributors to data breaches, stalking, lawsuits, or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes.

>>106112973 (OP)
This one is actually good. Wikipedia is filled with corporate plants and kike subversion.

>>106112973 (OP)
>trusted
when did wikipedia became trusted? widely used sure but surely everyone was taught to never use wikipedia as a valid source right?

>>106112973 (OP)
Is this in the uk?

>>106112988
The UK law forced Wikipedia to id check all of their contributors world wide as long as they are operating in the UK due to knowledge or something

If you write only objective truth and don't censore early life sections, you will be okay with your name being known, it is exactly the same as contributing to other great projects like Linux, you already must dox yourself to have your patches accepted.

>>106112973 (OP)
Is there an archive of the wiki?

>>106113272
Yeah it's about 100gb

>>106112981
>I am John Smith, I totally did not change my name, pinky promise [spoiler], goy[/spoiler]

Just block access to anyone from the UK.
Britcucks can buy a subscription to Britannica.

>>106113272
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download

>>106114684
>Britannica
It's American these days lol. Based out of Chicago if memory serves. I remember checking this when noticing the articles on race were complete nonsense, only to find the author was some black lady from an African American studies department.

Thankfully, the 1911 Britannica is preserved online, ironically by the shitlibs of Wikipedia.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Negro

>>106112992
They should stop operating in the UK. But this would be a PR disaster. So there will be a backroom deal/addition that will grant Wikipedia an exception, while smaller sites will be hammered into oblivion.

What's next? Should I post my driver's licence in here too?

>>106114685
cheers goyim

>>106112973 (OP)
Good.

>>106112987
"Wikipedia is not a source" doesn't mean "everything on Wikipedia is false", it means it's not an academic source you can cite in a paper for example.
Most of what's on there is backed up by sources.
Of course there are gonna be some inaccuracies on some topics but that's unavoidable

>>106112973 (OP)
So like, it's a US company, and the US has no reason to comply with demands when it's (theroretically) protecting it's rights to free speech. Can't they tell the constable to fuck off like we did 250 years ago?

>>106112981
You think this will clear up Wikipedia, but all it'll do is ensure Israelis and Americans will be anonymous and able to brigade on Wikipedia, and everyone else won't be.

As a general rule, avoid ANY and ALL government control over the internet. It's the only way to be sure things won't be used as a framework of control.