[flagged]
"Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone."
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
91–100 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#92[dead]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#93[flagged]
A polemic! It must all be true.
Last revised by deleted account 1 month ago
Damn Wikipedia assassinating critics now? Where will it all end
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#94[flagged]
It's an account created to avoid doxxing myself. My Wikipedia username is easily linked to my main HN account. I still rarely make minor Wikipedia edits now and then, and don't want my account banned. Anyone who's edited Wikipedia long enough will recognize the pattern of what I'm describing. It's not a misrepresentation.
I would really like to read some concrete examples.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#95> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns. This is getting ridiculous.…
[flagged]
Well, considering they have a very high ranking guy in the Putin regime who considers that to be his full time job, google "Vladislav Surkov", they seem to be doing a fairly effective job of it so far.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#96Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#97Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
[flagged]
Despite anything he may say about himself, Larry Sanger is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "the founder of Wikipedia". He was a paid employee of the project in 2001; his involvement with the site ended in early 2002 when funding for the position ran out. His experience with the site nearly 25 years ago does not make him an authority on how it is run today.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#98> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns. This is getting ridiculous.…
[flagged]
They'd be the exact same.
It's like like Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics was a wish list.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#99The English Wikipedia is a massive target for influence campaigns. I don't think there are any other communities as resilient as it. Just an example: There's certain individual or group that edited under the name "Icewhiz", was banned, and now operates endless sockpuppet accounts in the topic area to influence Wikipedia's coverage on the Middle East. One of them was an account named "Eostrix", that spent years making…
There are counterexamples where this has failed/continues to fail, the gamergate article is famously non-neutral, only accepting primary sources from journalists directly involved in the controversy. This is rather than true secondary sources with less extreme and biased views, like is supposed to be the rules there. You can switch from the english one to other languages and get completely different content with very balanced point of views because the other languages weren't controlled by the influence campaign.
So, is it better than reddit? I agree, probably. That bar doesn't seem very high though.
Part of the issue with gamergate discussion is that there's a lot of vapid perspectives along the lines of "it's just video game journalism who cares" which allows an infinite amount of bad behavior, dishonesty and manipulation in the name of an abstract greater good. I believe it was used as a prototype for future wikipedia manipulation for "more important" topics.