Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

151–160 of 1001 posts

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

#151

Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. There is a long legacy of authoritarian regimes attacking curious places, universities, historians, museums, books or any institution that grounds itself in reality which provide…

Aren't you making their point though? The ADL and other Jewish organizations have pointed out that aside from articles about Israel that articles about or mention Jewish topics generally have been editing with disinformation or that made Jews out to be the aggressors. I agree with you that in order to believe in the ideals of liberal democracy that we must have a core belief in truth. And it's absolutely true that th…

I agree 100%. It's exhausting fighting against antisemitic bias, and it feels like it's everywhere these days. My problem with Ed Martin is that what he is doing is clearly wrong. Hannah Arendt wrote a book about people like him.

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

#152

Wikipedia/Wikimedia could move to a country that allows this type of manipulation on their platform or figure out how to comply with the existing US law. Wikipedia could also stop operating as a 501c3 and incorporate. But the typical out for these organizations are that they are not responsible for what people post. I don’t feel like that is very responsible. They already have moderation on the platform. But Wikimedi…

or they could move to a country that respects the rule of law and continue operating as they do at present

may I suggest Switzerland

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

#154
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument is that Trump is being criticized more for being controversial than Obama. Honestly. Is Trump not more controversial than Obama?

No, that depends on your viewpoint. Those who come from a "democrat" background will certainly consider Trump to be more controversial than Obama while those from a Republican background will see Obama - especially second-term Obama - as far more controversial than Trump. Independents will vary on their interpretation but Obama is not likely to end up in the history books as the 'Change agent' he promised to be and w…

It's hard to take you seriously when you employ 'democrat' background and Republican as contrasting terms. Referring to the Democratic party and its supporters is more easily effected by saying [the] Democrats. This sort of baity rhetoric undermines any aspirations to objectivity.

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

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:/…

"Co-founder" is debatable, but he certainly wasn't "the founder" of the site.

Regardless - whether you choose to describe Sanger's early involvement with Wikipedia as a "founder" or not, 2002 was a long time ago, especially online. The site which he was involved with was very different from the one which exists today.

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

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you making their point though? The ADL and other Jewish organizations have pointed out that aside from articles about Israel that articles about or mention Jewish topics generally have been editing with disinformation or that made Jews out to be the aggressors. I agree with you that in order to believe in the ideals of liberal democracy that we must have a core belief in truth. And it's absolutely true that th…

I agree 100%. It's exhausting fighting against antisemitic bias, and it feels like it's everywhere these days. My problem with Ed Martin is that what he is doing is clearly wrong. Hannah Arendt wrote a book about people like him.

The fact that my comment is -2 on HN is a great example of the problem.

I'm working on a solution to the effects of this isolation, but it's not ready for a big announcement.

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

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you making their point though? The ADL and other Jewish organizations have pointed out that aside from articles about Israel that articles about or mention Jewish topics generally have been editing with disinformation or that made Jews out to be the aggressors. I agree with you that in order to believe in the ideals of liberal democracy that we must have a core belief in truth. And it's absolutely true that th…

I agree 100%. It's exhausting fighting against antisemitic bias, and it feels like it's everywhere these days. My problem with Ed Martin is that what he is doing is clearly wrong. Hannah Arendt wrote a book about people like him.

Could one of you point me to antisemitic bias on wikipedia just so I have a concrete example at hand?

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

#159
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What comes after will be more transparent, more fair, and more integrated with society. Can you walk me through how you see this playing out, step-by-step? I want to believe!

Over the last thousand years, humans have become more educated and more connected. Violent deaths have been steadily falling. Over the last hundred years, American military and paramilitary forces, and their vendors, have subverted transparency and democracy to turn America into a military dictatorship. There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come)…

> There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come) will reverse the thousand year trend of increased education and decreased violence.

We're talking about long-term cycles of change here so it is difficult to opine with certainty leaving a lot of room for differing opinions. Unfortunately, however, I think the end of Pax Americana will usher in increased conflict and violence, particularly in the West which has experienced a long period of peace due to American dominance.

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

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this

And a minority of those who did vote voted for this.
Post reply on HN