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

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

Post by bawolff »

ummonk wrote: post #276
moshegramovsky wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree 100%. It's exhausting fighting against antisemitic bias, and it feels like it's everywhere these days. My problem with Ed Martin is that what he is doing is clearly wrong. Hannah Arendt wrote a book about people like him.

At a time when students are having their visas revoked merely for writing Op-Eds critical of Israel, it's rather ridiculous to see the pro-Israel side acting like you're the ones being persecuted everywhere.

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

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

#362

Post by bawolff »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #318
emacsen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, almost any time Zionists are mentioned, they're mentioned in a negative light and with genuine disinformation, such as that Zionism is the belief that Arabs needs to be destroyed. That is like saying the Civil Rights movement in the US was about killing white people. They also position things in such a way that implies antisemitic things, such as saying that Zionism is only 200 years old, or discussing the…

>Basically, almost any time Zionists are mentioned, they're mentioned in a negative light and with genuine disinformation, Your first statement is a sweeping generalization that you can't prove

I don't know if that statement is true or not, but it certainly seems like a specific enough statement that could be proved or disproved given enough effort.

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

#363

Post by nailer »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #60
nailer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Accusing others of whataboutism is a way to dodge the real point: if identical behavior is excused for allies but condemned for opponents, the outrage isn't about ethics it's about weaponized partisanship. Edit in response: The broader conversation is about weaponizing government power against political opponents, ActBlue was just one example give in many being discussed. You narrowed to ActBlue to have something you…

While ActBlue was the first example mikeyouse bought up, and it happens not reflect very well on the Democrats, we can just as easily discuss Harvard racially discriminating and violating title 9 to control campus admissions, hiring and speech if you like.

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

#364

Post by hiddencost »

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…

[flagged]

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

#365

Post by Spivak »

hackyhacky wrote: post #281
pachorizons wrote: post #145

Remember as you read more and more news like this that many of the owners of Y Combinator supported this.

Who, specifically, are you referring to; and what have they done or said to make you believe that they support this?

Wealthy people who could be coined liberal-tarians or just your average tech bro political grab bag largely backed Trump out of financial interest and who, imo, deluded themselves that the administration would be unsuccessful at "the bad stuff" much like his 2016 run.

No amount of shouting from the rooftops that this time was actually different convinced anyone. I can't really blame us collectively, we resoundingly voted for this— it's as much of a mandate you're likely to ever get in the US and we're in the find out stage of fucking around.

Looking back on old social media posts the theme is that everyone, supporters and not, were high on copium that Trump would do and the was just obviously crazy and wouldn't actually happen or were a joke.

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

#366

Post by asveikau »

kristopolous wrote: post #194
NelsonMinar wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Martin was also at the coup attempt on Jan 6 and on that day said "Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews". https://archive.ph/jekzQ

[flagged]

> Amy Goodman

Source for that? My impression is that Democracy Now!, while it has a clear perspective and set of biases, has been fairly independent. I don't think Goodman herself would be involved with them, but I think some of her sometimes guests have been.

In general I agree with folks replying to you that RT is not trustworthy and someone being involved with it is a red flag.

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

#367

Post by [deleted] »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #195
emacsen wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No I mean literally we are part of an organization focused on preventing and ending genocide broadly. Israel-palestine is one of them but there are several others ongoing and several more that may escalate into genocide in the next few months or years. I do see why you have a hard time with wikipedia.

[deleted]

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

#368

Post by ncr100 »

foogazi wrote: post #310
kristopolous wrote: post #194

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”

Yes. 150+ times is akin to Funding an individual, rather than seeking to add a unique perspective.

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

#369

Post by hayst4ck »

xlinux wrote: post #302
hayst4ck wrote: post #84

Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. There is a long legacy of authoritarian regimes attacking curious places, universities, historians, museums, books or any institution that grounds itself in reality which provide…

So everything wiki mods believe is truth? What about those who never even got a chance to speak out? It's always controlled by. Winners write the history. Now Americans decide what's truth and fact

Wikipedia has at least 15 million articles in languages other than English and around 7 million English articles.

Are you asserting that it is standard that Americans are writing and moderating all of these articles in other languages?

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

#370

Post by j4coh »

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…

Why use a non-example to mention it though?
Post reply on HN