Yes, and it’s been the root of many issues. Blockchains can take some steps that wiki can’t to help harden the situation given the mechanism for submitting changes, but they aren’t perfect either.

Turns out a lot of your followers don’t agree. Wiki has a lot of passionate defenders… something can be good AND have flaws.

Keep up the good work.

Full agree. Let’s pass that info on the the right wing news networks consumers (also the various music blogs, but that’s more of a person vendetta) + any news that quotes “anonymous sources”

Also fair. News sites get facts from wiki though.

I admire the fan base of wiki today. You remind me of a swiftie.

There is only one wiki, but you can draw similarities to early crypto DAOs being taken over. Rule by consensus is vulnerable to the consensus being over run.

Not at all. I am saying that fundamentally, a truth by consensus model is vulnerable to false truths. That could be exploited to sway public opinion and policy. Just because it has been around doesn’t mean there isn’t vulnerability with it. How old was Facebook when its data was exploited in 2016?

Fair, but people thought FaceBook data wasn’t a big deal until it got scrapped and used in an election to target messaging.

What’s the threat model? Something on wiki that is untrue but appears to be true sways public opinion and policy. Is it likely? Prob not, but chance isn’t 0%.

I get it! I promise I’m not trolling. I’m glad you check the citations. It’s not a perfect system. There is room for exploitation. I think a minority of casual users “don’t trust until verify citations.” Most probably don’t even “trust and verify.” They just trust, and that leaves space to exploit.

It is a mistake to cite your assumed knowledge as a database developer? Isn’t this what wiki does on some level?

Im surprised that as a database developer, you are missing my point. Do you open up an api for unauthorized users to modify your databases? Of course not. Do you not understand the challenges of doing so?

I’m not on Wikipedia right now. We can have a friendly conversation about it, as I am open to discussion. If you trust wiki, look up “CIA security triad.”

It’s like a “many people say” Trumpism, but it’s a website, and we trust it a little more. Fine line, gets hairy. Just pointing out the vulnerability.

Or, to relate to your political point which I like, one party introduces laws based on things that haven’t happened. A platform like wiki could be used to support such suggestions.

Yes, in my original post. Have you heard the saying “cheap,fast or good, pick two?” It’s like that, but for information security. Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability.

Thank you for your validation

This is a fair point, wiki doesn’t suck, just pointing out the glaring vulnerability in the room. They’ve done well to keep individuals from changing things long term. An orchestrated or well timed effort as a means to an end? Not sure, and I won’t be conducting a test. IJS, not a great mechanism

One person’s challenge is another’s nightmare. Anecdotally, wiki has come up over beers with infosec professionals, and their assessment was “nightmare.” Particularly when the wiki data is used as basis in academia and news media.

I would say so. Wiki as a brand is only as trustworthy as the integrity of the data on the site. The wiki security team has a tall order allowing sign up to edit + highly available data. Statement of fact, not a judgement.