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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by sedev »

brightball wrote: post #218
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.

For most things the talk pages will explain why it is restricted, but if someone forgot to put a notice there, there's also a giant list of "the following topic areas reliably attract disruptive editing and get people angry, so admins move much more quickly to restrict editing than they would otherwise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Ac...

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

#232

Post by acdha »

Tycho wrote: post #215
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]

Citation needed for anything on the scale we’ve seen - for example, the topic of this discussion is a non-profit having their status threatened for non-specific reasons which appear to be constitutionally-protected speech. If it’s “fairly obvious”, you should have no trouble providing examples of something equivalent to this legal threat.

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

#233

Post by flask_manager »

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 have in the past, but three things put me off doing so now;

Pages where I can spot inconsistencies are often controversial, with long dense discussion pages, edits here are almost impossible beyond trivial details. I dont mind fixing trivia, but not if the actual improvement I think I can make is rejected.

There is a bit of a deletionist crusade to keep some topics small, for example, Ive had interesting trivia about a cameras development process simply deleted. Maybe it is truly for the better, but it is not really that easy to add to the meat of the project, without someone else's approval.

Third, the begging banners really feel a bit gross; I know the size of the endowment, and how long it would be able to sustain the project (forever essentially)... It really feels like the foundation is using the Wikipedia brand to funnel money to irrelevant pet causes. This really puts me off contributing.

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

#234

Post by toast0 »

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.

The second sentence is mostly accurate, but the first implies something else.

If your taxable income was $50,000 and you donate $10,000, and (some other conditions) your taxable income would now be $40,000; same as if you managed to move the money pre-tax.

However. If you donate aprechiated capital assets, you get two benefits. Your taxable income is offset by the value of the asset, and the capital gains disappear. It's much better than selling the asset and donating the proceeds; and it's handy if you don't have good records for your cost basis.

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

#235

Post by nntwozz »

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.

The general election in 2022 had 84,2% of eligible voters in Sweden.

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

#236

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

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

#237

Post by tonymet »

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 tried volunteering and contributed a few thousand edits, and ended up brigaded into hours of silly reviews by sock puppets and their crony admins. The bureaucracy is nuttier than a Monty python sketch. Endless futile debates on talk pages.

It’s not supposed to have many rules (according to the Jimbo gospel), but admins apply policy pages as law , and given how many inane and convoluted policies there are, you can be censured for practically anything with the right quote. You can see these sockpuppet brigades watching and pouncing on the edit history of any semi controversial page.

It’s a pathetic monoculture that lacks any self awareness or sense of introspection. Critical discussions are quickly shut down and the authors are put into a penalty box.

Leadership needs to address the power dynamics, and come up with a better self regulating structure. Editors need to identify themselves and their agenda. Networks & brigades need to be monitored and shutdown using activity tracking.

Wikipedia’s social network is operating with 1990s era protocols but their influence via syndication on every common news surface means they are way too influential. Google, Alexa, LLMs and mainstream media all syndicate Wikipedia content as gospel. But the content is completely unregulated.

And don’t get me started on Wikimedia Foundation.

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

#239

Post by pesus »

moshegramovsky wrote: post #166
giraffe_lady wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/editing-hate-how-anti-i... Read it for yourself.

I'm not sure the organization that defended Musk's Nazi salute is a reliable source on antisemitism.

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

#240

Post by sapphicsnail »

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.

How can someone talk about democracy peaking when the franchise was extended to a tiny minority of the population. You don't give a damn about individual liberties, you only care that the "right" people have liberty.
Post reply on HN