Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331
post #324
post #188

Earlier 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.

We regularly have 92% - 93% participation in federal elections here in Australia. Having one next weekend, and already record numbers of pre-poll votes.

And those that don't vote have to show a very good reason, or pay a fine, or face gaol.

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

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ed Martin made 198 TV appearances on RT in 2023 and 2024. How many RT TV hits did Larry King do? How recently did King appear on RT?

( Larry King died in Jan 2021.)

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

#333
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 on a completely uncontroversial page that documented a certain idiom and examples of where it was used.

My edit was reverted, twice, because apparently there is no such thing as a notable source for lines from a 1980s British TV episode, not even a fan website that has a transcript for all of them. Gave up after that.

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

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s basically impossible to engage in meaningful voter suppression in a country where election results can be cross-checked against high-quality polling. “Gerrymandering” also has no effect on Presidential elections. And in 2024, Republicans won a larger share of the House popular vote than their share of House seats.

Voter suppression is the act of limiting the pool of voters. That includes putting large swaths of the population behind bars or flagged as non eligible to voting, putting barriers to voter registration etc. It can never be 0 and every country will have a minimum requirement, but the degree to which it is done in the US is far ahead of most western country. Gerrymandering has an effect on the criteria for voter eligi…

No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting. Society determining that categories of people shouldn’t vote (children, felons, non-citizens, etc.) isn’t voter suppression, it’s simply establishing qualifications for voting. The goal isn’t to get to 0 or try to get as close to 0 as possible. People who should vote should be able to vote, while people who shouldn’t vote shouldn’t be able to vote.

In the modern era, we should probably narrow the franchise, instituting civics tests and restricting voting to natural born citizens. Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.

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

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% of voter age Americans made a decision. That includes not registering to vote or not voting. Pretend I want a snack, I can choose between a cookie and an apple. If I dislike both then I also have the option to not get a snack. Neither is selected. This is different from not voting because a candidate still wins.

If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it. There is no incentive when there are known costs...at least since the wild inflation of the 80s when it got prohibitive to lose a shift and the slow dissolution of union jobs. This is the result of the tyranny of indifference. Those that benefit continue to promote and benefit, those that do not, are disenfranchised. It's a co…

>If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it.

I agree but it doesn't actually matter. 97% can vote by mail, early, or another method besides election day according to this article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/map-early-voting-mail-ballot-st...

>There is no incentive when there are known costs... is the result of the tyranny of indifference.

What is the cause of the Indifference in your opinion ?

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

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

One time sure, 150+ on the Russia propaganda network ? I’m drawing my own adult conclusions about it: “The friend of my enemy is my enemy”

That’s not how foreign policy and international politics work. Every country would be enemies with every other country in that case.

All the pro-Palestinian anti-Israel country would be enemies of the US then, including Japan. You’d be supporting Trump’s tariffs and anti-China us or them stance then towards every country that has friendly business relations with China, which is everybody at this point. Heck, even Taiwan and China are friends more than Westerners would like to think. Meanwhile, America is friends with countries like Saudi Arabia and countries that keeps a blind eye to the funding of terrorism in America

There’s a reason the famous saying is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” rather than “the friend of my enemy is my enemy”

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

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this

100% of voter age Americans made a decision. That includes not registering to vote or not voting. Pretend I want a snack, I can choose between a cookie and an apple. If I dislike both then I also have the option to not get a snack. Neither is selected. This is different from not voting because a candidate still wins.

[dead]

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

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh look! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack They creatively censored it under the title “2012 Banghazi Attack”

The article is nonsense. It links to Obama's Wikipedia page and complains Obama's page doesn't talk about Benghazi. But Obama's Wikipedia page links to a huge article about.... Benghazi. So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page? Weak sauce.

> So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page?

No. His complaint is:

> The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi

Visit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Read:

> Libya

> Main articles: 2011 military intervention in Libya and 2012 Benghazi attack

> In February 2011, protests in Libya began against long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Arab Spring. They soon turned violent. In March, as forces loyal to Gaddafi advanced on rebels across Libya, calls for a no-fly zone came from around the world, including Europe, the Arab League, and a resolution[378] passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate.[379] In response to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 on March 17, the Foreign Minister of Libya Moussa Koussa announced a ceasefire. However Gaddafi's forces continued to attack the rebels.[380]

> On March 19, a multinational coalition led by France and the United Kingdom with Italian and U.S. support, approved by Obama, took part in air strikes to destroy the Libyan government's air defense capabilities to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly-zone,[381] including the use of Tomahawk missiles, B-2 Spirits, and fighter jets.[382][383][384] Six days later, on March 25, by unanimous vote of all its 28 members, NATO took over leadership of the effort, dubbed Operation Unified Protector.[385] Some members of Congress[386] questioned whether Obama had the constitutional authority to order military action in addition to questioning its cost, structure and aftermath.[387][388] In 2016 Obama said "Our coalition could have and should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind" and that it was "a mess".[389] He has stated that the lack of preparation surrounding the days following the government's overthrow was the "worst mistake" of his presidency.[390]

The link is there (I don't know how long it's been there but don't care to investigate), but there is no text about the Benghazi attack on the US Embassy - just other topics. Many people can and would criticize Barack Obama and his then-Secretary of State for inaction to protect the embassy from an attack the embassy saw coming.

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

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>everything out of Russia by anyone is part of some secret global propaganda network. Who has claimed all Russians are part of a large propaganda network. This is about a government news network.

[flagged]

Russia interfered with our elections and is actively hostile to us. It's not a meme, it's real.

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

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their silence now is cowardly.

In before this thread is also flagged for being "political".

The only moderator action taken on this submission was to prevent it from being downweighted by community flags – 5 hours ago.
Post reply on HN