[flagged]
Are you assuming bias/opinion is one-dimensional and the "median American" stands for the Truth?
No but thanks for asking.
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
201–210 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#202[flagged]
ok but what’s the crime? also english wikipedia is actually for english speakers.. so it includes countries that aren’t america. there’s a reason they didn’t name it american wikipedia.
Yeah I agree there doesn't seem to be a crime. I was addressing the tone of the comment thread.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#203Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#204> 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
[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#205Wikipedia needs decentralized hosting infra, away from any single country. It is way too important.
Start backing it up now. Partisan influence could be as minor as forcing some edits or as major as pulling their DNS. Every authoritarian in the world follows this same playbook. Over started looking into kiwix. IA is at risk too.
You can download backups of Wikipedia articles at dumps.wikimedia.org. For the IA they had a plan to move to Canada back in 2017.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#206The 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]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#207[flagged]
Can you give particular examples of the particular worldview that they are trying to push?
10 seconds on Google:
https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically...
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Damn Wikipedia character assassinating critics now FTFY. If you go dig deeper at foundation.wikimedia.org you'll inevitably come across an Israeli court document describing systemic smear defamation and libel campaign mounted by toxic editors against an academic, which lasted around a decade.
You're trying too hard, much like the writer of this polemic.
[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority that did vote, voted for this. The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Given the standards of media literacy and civics education, there's no evidence that a higher participation rate would have changed the outcome.
Plurality, not majority. It may be pedantic but it's an important difference.
I was going to say that it was a majority this time, but it seems like the results shifted as more votes were counted after election night, and he ended up with 49.8%. Still, unbelievably, pretty close to a majority.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#210The 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…
The infamous "Philip Cross" always comes to mind.