Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#111

Post by SanjayMehta »

duskwuff wrote: post #97
Alupis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Wikipedia’s article on Sanger calls him cofounder and credits him with its name:

“ Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/ ⓘ;[1] born July 16, 1968) is an American Internet project developer and philosopher who co-founded Wikipedia along with Jimmy Wales. Sanger coined Wikipedia's name, and provided initial drafts for many of its early guidelines, including the "Neutral point of view" and "Ignore all rules" policies.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#112

Post by sterlind »

miltonlost wrote: post #50
xqcgrek2 wrote: post #43

[flagged]

what drift? What do you consider "neutrality"?

the Overton window has shifted sharply Right. if you've shifted along with it, the institutions that haven't shifted at all look like they've moved sharply Left.

Wikipedia hasn't shifted particularly Left since 2020. Centrists are just blind to shifts of the Center. it's the political equivalent of the equivalence principle.

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#113

Post by acdha »

krupan wrote: post #103
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #45

[flagged]

It does, but both side's followers are blind to it when their side does it. Or they think it's ok for their side to do it. I'm not sure which is scarier

You’re painting with an awfully broad brush, omitting both the magnitude of the difference and far overstating the homogeneity of one of those sides.

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#114

Post by hollerith »

vFunct wrote: post #110

I have a question on non-profits in general. What exactly is the advantage of being incorporated as a non-profit, when all you have to do to not be taxed as a for-profit corporation is spend all your money each year and not show any profit? It seems you'd have more privacy as a for-profit corporation, since you don't have to disclose donors.

If I donate to a 501(c)(3) organization, the donation gets very favorable treatment by the tax code, reducing my taxes (provided I have income that can be cancelled out by the donation).

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#116

Post by ty6853 »

r053bud wrote: post #109
tzs wrote: post #69

> 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.…

We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work

I mean yes? Democracy is a pretty poor model for governance. IMO peak enlightenment happened circa the 17th or 18th century when classical liberalism decided government should be based on individual liberties and anything outside of that is decided democratically not because it is a good system but because votes are roughly a tally of who would win if we all pull knives on each other because we didn't like the vote.

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#117

Post by droopyEyelids »

vFunct wrote: post #110

I have a question on non-profits in general. What exactly is the advantage of being incorporated as a non-profit, when all you have to do to not be taxed as a for-profit corporation is spend all your money each year and not show any profit? It seems you'd have more privacy as a for-profit corporation, since you don't have to disclose donors.

Eligibility to receive grants & tax deductible donations, public perception & credibility

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#119

Post by tialaramex »

cogogo wrote: post #35
warkdarrior wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not funny. My family is bilingual english/spanish and my wife is a green card holder but not a citizen. Doesn’t seem far fetched. But if we go down… it won’t be without a fight.

I recommend fleeing not fighting. Over 100 000 people fled Germany in the 1930s, which might have seemed like an over-reaction, except, well, you know what happened to many of those who didn't.

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#120

Post by jjmarr »

LightHugger wrote: post #99
jjmarr wrote: post #87

The 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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN