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

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:17 AM UTC

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…

Post by rayiner » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:21 AM UTC

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.

Post by SR2Z » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:23 AM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #263

intermerda wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not defending it, but just saying that being on RT doesn't necessarily imply anything. I'm not sure who's claiming that here. The RT appearance in question is about him spreading disinformation and Russian propaganda on the eve of Ukraine invasion.

It's pretty constant on hn. People paint everything from country X, holistically, with some broad and blunt moral brush. It reads like a cartoon. Everything from China is loaded with secret spyware snooping on you for countless unspecified evils - everything out of Russia by anyone is part of some secret global propaganda network. I point it out as absurd and reductive whenever I see it and people dogpile on me like…

Post by arrowsmith » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:24 AM UTC

gotoeleven wrote: post #244

flask_manager wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abo…

It really feels that way because that's what they're doing. There's a legit non-profit internet encyclopedia barnacled with a bunch of generic left wing political stuff, except the barnacle is bigger than the boat.

Post by arrowsmith » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:25 AM UTC

thallium205 wrote: post #217

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?