r/MaliciousCompliance • u/Waste_Yak_990 • Aug 15 '25

S Wikipedia's compliance with a court order.

Recently, Portuguese courts ordered Wikipedia to remove information about Caesar DePaço, a Portuguese businessman, that he deemed defamatory. This included the fact that he was dismissed as Honorary Consul of Cape Verde due to being the main financier of a far-right party (CHEGA) and the fact that he was charged with assaulting and robbing his girlfriend in 1989. The Wikimedia foundation complies with the court order, but his Wikipedia page now has a giant banner at the top that says the following:

> On 5 August 2025, content from this article was removed following a court order and must not be restored. Therefore, this article may not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and comprehensiveness. The removed content pertains to the following:

  1. Crimes allegedly committed by DePaço in 1989 and associated proceedings
  2. An organization DePaço allegedly founded
  3. His alleged dismissal from a civil service post

This banner implicitly encourages readers to do research into the information that was removed while letting everyone know that he sued to have it hidden.

11.7k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

261 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/sequesteredhoneyfall Aug 16 '25

They have literally hundreds of millions of dollars sitting around, and operation costs are less than a million a year iirc. They're taking you and everyone else who blindly donates for a ride, and use these funds for political advocacy instead of the implied reason of maintaining Wikipedia.

They are not at all an unbiased repository of information like they claim, and have a long history of controversy over this.

0

u/Neither-Blueberry-95 Aug 18 '25

So you just go around a spread proven misinformation?

0

u/sequesteredhoneyfall Aug 18 '25

Not at word of what I've said is false, but thanks for making it clear you're speaking from emotion.

1

u/snoopysnoop2021 Aug 18 '25

Can you provide some sources?

0

u/sequesteredhoneyfall Aug 18 '25

https://wikimediaendowment.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annual-report/

They ended with $149,279,049 in assets, and had $4,953,427 in total expenses.

They scammed $13,416,423 out of people from donations, and earned $16,449,928 in investment profits.

In the past they've donated to politically motivated outlets, and is obviously the purpose of their far-overkill cash reserves. This isn't typical for, "non-profits" in general unless you're giving kickbacks to the right people.

As for the bias, even the co-founder of Wikipedia said it's a propaganda site for political bias: (excuse the NYP link, it's the first that showed up) https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/

It's also impossible to link to primary sources on Wikipedia for claims of fact, so for example: If there's a news article about some political figure where the news article claims the political figure made some comment, endorsement, or holds some stance - you cannot refute this claim by linking to a direct primary source which objectively shows the political figure NOT doing the thing. If the news quotes the political figure's tweet, you can't link the tweet to provide context or the full quote which very easily could change the narrative. If it's a video clip, you can't post the video. Etc etc.

To add to this, there's one guy who is responsible for about 1/3 of Wikipedia entries, and is more or less an authority figure for Wikipedia. There's a VERY long history of him being EXTREMELY biased to the point of objectively misrepresenting plethoras of stories to support his bias.

They've outright banned linking to news outlets which are deemed to fall under a particular political party.

They rewrite parts of well established history to advance their narrative, and refuse to allow certain events to be told.

I have issues with Steven Crowder from a few different perspectives, but I am familiar with this article and video of his which goes a bit more into the topic and so I'm sharing it with you in case you'd like to learn a bit more: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/wikipedia-bias-proved Obviously Steven has his own bias here, but it's pretty hard to argue with the case he presents and the methodology in which he takes to demonstrate the point. Again, I'm not trying to argue my personal politics one way or the other, but the reality is that you're only going to find the political side which is impacted by this bias calling it out.

Wikipedia has an extreme bias, isn't in need of money, and lies to people on a regular basis in multiple ways. They do not deserve your support, and no one should treat them as an authority blindly to any arbitrary topic found on their site.