T. D. Adler

A run-down of my controversial ban from Wikipedia: @tdadlerwp/regarding-my-ban-from-wikipedia-a921f7df3263" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">medium.com/@tdadlerwp/reg…

Never change wikipedia

@lobsterlooker This saga is my personal favorite.

finally at water 7

NEW, by me: ‘Dumbest Question in the World:’ Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales Storms Out of Interview over ‘Co-Founder’ Issue breitbart.com/tech/2025/11/1…

@lobsterlooker I figured this one out. Just type x.com/messages and you can get to them.

cant access dms ok then

Wikipediots when their once-Dear Leader @jimmy_wales tells them to stop attacking Israel like they’re the Izz al-Din al-Qassam:

NEW, by me: Wikipedia Editors Attack Co-Founder Jimmy Wales Following ‘Gaza Genocide’ Page Criticism breitbart.com/tech/2025/11/1…

NEW, by me: Wikipedia Administrator Holding Confidential Data Access Privileges Confirms He Engaged in Paid Editing breitbart.com/tech/2025/11/0…

@lobsterlooker This isn't filler. It's actually important to the plot.

perfect fucking filler that helps set Zorro's power level

i like this one ("s05e05" if that means anything)

NEW, by me: Wikipedia Page Claims ‘Adult Human Female’ Constitutes ‘Hate Speech’ breitbart.com/tech/2025/10/3…

Grokipedia and Wikipedia are like different dimensions of reality. This reveals the extent to which Wikipedia is not a purveyor of Neutrality™, but a version of reality shaped by a specific worldview and built on a system suited to meet the needs of the early-2000s internet. This revelation is probably Grokipedia's biggest accomplishment: it's produced a gestalt shift. In one moment, you see Wikipedia as the arbiter of information online. In the next you see it as one of the arbiters. That tiny distinction—a prepositional phrase—contains a universe of difference. To understand it, we have to see this in a wider context. Around 2016, the Anglosphere underwent the same shift with regard to the mainstream media. Like Wikipedia, the mainstream media long insisted that it owns the neutral perspective. This is why it references non-aligned news outlets as "right-wing news source TKTK" but will never reference fellow mainstream media outlets with any qualifier whatsoever. You will never see NYT report on "left-of-center broadcaster network CNN"; and CNN will never say "left-wing news outlet The Guardian." It took the insanity of.... + COVID-19 pandemic – "flatten the curve"; "lab origin is a conspiracy theory"; "vaccines stop transmission"; "Great Barrington Declaration signatories are kooks" + BLM chaos – "mostly peaceful demonstrations"; "protesting during a pandemic is a public health imperative" + Russiagate – "Trump is working for the Kremlin"; "kompromat in the Steele Dossier"; "Alfa Bank server-ping Morse code", etc ....for the media to be dislodged from its seat of epistemic power. This was like an old feudal system collapsing as a result not of external pressure, but internal decay. Now, to the almost certain horror of the ancien régime the revolution is spreading. The fluid dynamics that create new channels and runnels in response to obstruction, leading to the creation of fresh tributaries and streams, cannot be resisted. The rise of parallel institutions is almost physical law. This was bound to happen, since it's not by coincidence that Wikipedia runs on the media's epistemic operating system. The "Reliable Sources" list that declares most (left-of-center & left-wing) mainstream media outlets to be "Generally Reliable" and disproportionately many right-of-center or right-wing outlets to be "Generally unreliable" is what powers Wikipedia. It's a kind of mutualism: Wikipedia needs the media to determine what's reliable; the media needs Wikipedia to cement its claims into (perceived) ground truth. But this is also a remarkable vulnerability. Once trust in media gave out, it was only a matter of time before the same would begin to happen to Wikipedia. In this sense, Grokipedia is a watershed. But the process has long been under way. It is the result of a long and deep process that includes @elonmusk's scrutiny; the reasoned criticism of @lsanger; the courage of @JustapediaF and other online encyclopedias; the work of excellent reporters like @bandlersbanter and @tdadler; academics like @shlomitlir; and the efforts of countless unseen Wikipedia editors who could see with their own eyes what was happening and, in their way, have taken action. What comes next? Change. It won't be quick. It won't be simple. But it will have a tremendous impact. But there's also danger. What we saw with the loosening of the media's grip on information is that conspiracy theorists are out there, spinning their lies for profit. Hate groups are out there, weaponizing social animus with malign intent. They're waiting for their moment—for circumstances to be ripe. For now, it appears that Grokipedia will stand as one bulwark against these bad actors. Grokipedia's content appears reasonably rooted in an Enlightenment-inspired knowledge framework, one that sees truth as the work of mutual, ongoing approximation in a single direction, and not as a mechanism of control, a post-modern construction, the product of "power dynamics"—and certainly not as "global knowledge infrastructure" (as Wikimedia Foundation describes itself in its classically bureaucratic, statist terms) but simply knowledge.

A comment on my latest piece sums up all the internal Wikimedia drama rather nicely:

NEW, by me: Wikipedia Foundation Board Member Suspends Activities Following Election Controversy, Conduct Complaint breitbart.com/tech/2025/10/2…

A man recently stormed a Wikipedia conference and held a gun to his head as he unfurled a flag identifying himself as an "Anti-Contact Pedophile." Turns out, other editors had been pushing Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to ban this guy's account, Gapazoid, for months. WMF refused. Instead it issued a statement: “Having carefully weighed the evidence, we found no indication that Gapazoid’s contributions amount to advocacy or encouragement of illicit activity.”

'Gapazoid' The Suicidal Pedo Who Rushed Wikipedia Conference Stage With Gun Was Ex-Editor zerohedge.com/political/gapa…

UPDATE: On Oct. 24, a spokesman for the Oversight Committee told JNS the same thing that Carlie Baker, Rep. Mace's press assistant did, adding that the committee remains in communication with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation told JNS on Oct. 23 that it “responded to the House Oversight Committee’s Aug. 27 inquiry and has since been in regular contact with committee staff, as recently as today.” “Any reporting to the contrary is flatly inaccurate,” the foundation said. (JNS sought comment from the foundation about whether it thinks that it satisfied the committee’s document request.)

"Various studies . . . suggesting it leans moderately left . . . . others have found it to be generally down the middle." I have read many studies of Wikipedia's bias and cannot recall one claiming it is "generally down the middle" politically. All claim a left-wing bias.

NEW, by me: Wikipedia ‘Supreme Court’ Member: Man Charged with Rushing Conference Stage Previously Banned Under Site’s Pedophilia Policy breitbart.com/tech/2025/10/2…

Transparency is one of Wikimedia's core values.

NEW, by me: Report: Wikipedia Owners Miss House Committee Document Request Deadline breitbart.com/tech/2025/10/2…

NEW, by me: Wikipedia Enforcement Committee: Site ‘Code of Conduct’ Should Ban Bible Verses Opposing Homosexuality breitbart.com/tech/2025/10/2…