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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by kurtreed2 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #135
kurtreed2 wrote: post #127

Earlier 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.

You should make an account on Wikipediocracy (which is frequented by many Wikipedia editors and insiders) and express all your paeans about Wikipedia's supposed infallibility, and see how fast you'd get dressed-down.

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

#212

Post by [deleted] »

0x457 wrote: post #162
hollerith wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

hmm, please correct me if I'm wrong, but donations just decrease your tax liability by the amount you've donated. It's the same as if you donated your pre-tax dollars to 501(c)(3) org.

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by sedev »

I am going to say a thing I say a lot: please edit Wikipedia. It is easier to do than you probably think! Wikipedia's biggest constraint is no longer money or server space, it's editor time (especially since LLM-based garbage is a force multiplier on disruptive editing that does not have a corresponding improvement to good-faith editing). Any topic area you know about and/or care about can benefit from your attention. Fixing typos is valuable. Adding photos is valuable. Flagging vandalism is valuable. Please edit Wikipedia.

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

#214

Post by akio »

rchaud wrote: post #188
candiddevmike wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this

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.

The majority did not vote for Trump, and I question how many of the minority that did vote for him voted for this, specifically. Almost certainly not all of them, given his approval rating is now well below his popular vote share.

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

#215

Post by Tycho »

sgnelson wrote: post #197

Serious question, after the past few months, how can anyone deny that America is heading in a totalitarian direction? Those of you who believe that all of the many actions that have happened in the past few weeks are "okay", please explain your perspective without resorting to "whataboutism" or cherry picking only one or two of the things that have occurred lately. Because from what I'm sitting, this is not behavior…

[flagged]

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

#216

Post by Narkov »

rchaud wrote: post #188
candiddevmike wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this

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.

> The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries.

Australia has entered the chat.

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

#217

Post by thallium205 »

sedev wrote: post #213

I am going to say a thing I say a lot: please edit Wikipedia. It is easier to do than you probably think! Wikipedia's biggest constraint is no longer money or server space, it's editor time (especially since LLM-based garbage is a force multiplier on disruptive editing that does not have a corresponding improvement to good-faith editing). Any topic area you know about and/or care about can benefit from your attention…

Why is their editor so awful to use?

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

#218

Post by brightball »

sedev wrote: post #213

I am going to say a thing I say a lot: please edit Wikipedia. It is easier to do than you probably think! Wikipedia's biggest constraint is no longer money or server space, it's editor time (especially since LLM-based garbage is a force multiplier on disruptive editing that does not have a corresponding improvement to good-faith editing). Any topic area you know about and/or care about can benefit from your attention…

I always wonder why certain topics are locked.

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

#219

Post by moritonal »

sedev wrote: post #213

I am going to say a thing I say a lot: please edit Wikipedia. It is easier to do than you probably think! Wikipedia's biggest constraint is no longer money or server space, it's editor time (especially since LLM-based garbage is a force multiplier on disruptive editing that does not have a corresponding improvement to good-faith editing). Any topic area you know about and/or care about can benefit from your attention…

I created a page, it got declined because the guy who two films have been made about didn't count as important enough. I kind of get it, but still, did kill the energy slightly.

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

#220

Post by makeitdouble »

ty6853 wrote: post #116
r053bud wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Democracy is not 2 parties doing voter suppression and gerrymandering as a filter to pass the result to an electoral college.

The US system was never designed to be fair to individuals in the first place, pointing at it as a failure of democracy is IMHO pulling the actual issues under the rug.

Post reply on HN