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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by watwut »

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.

Whatbexactly are values you consider enlightened and did you ever bother to read history, specifically the parts about how society functions not just where armies went?

I assure you French prior, dueing and after French revolution was not pinacle of great governance. More like, the low.

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

#382

Post by Hamuko »

j4coh wrote: post #379
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’ve tried, but every article even the most inconsequential seems to have an angry bird in the roost enforcing whatever their particular vision of the article is.

It's even worse when you add a source and you get reverted for reasons quite clearly disproven in your source. I had to make a single edit three times because it got undone twice by two separate administrators. A less stubborn person would've just given up on the first baseless revert and never edited Wikipedia again.

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

#384

Post by psychoslave »

alephnan wrote: post #336
foogazi wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Tai…

"les états n'ont pas d'amis, que des intérêts."

States are very different beasts, unlike human individual which have clear skin borderies as a given, they are able to take parts of each other and assimilate them. Even when they are not in official direct opposition, rampant dirty plots are always going on in the parallel background of any the official sympathy to everyone, be it because even within a state there is a broad variation of contenders.

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

#385

Post by undersuit »

j4coh wrote: post #379
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’ve tried, but every article even the most inconsequential seems to have an angry bird in the roost enforcing whatever their particular vision of the article is.

Edits are public so other members of the community can eventually make a case against or for the actions of a dedicated maintainer. Keep trying.

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

#387

Post by Someone »

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 that did vote, voted for this

Nitpick: Trump got less than 50% of the votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...)

More importantly, I think quite a few who voted for Trump didn’t vote for this extreme version of Trump.

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

#388

Post by grues-dinner »

Perenti wrote: post #331
mpesce wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correction: those that don't enter a polling station. What you do in there is up to you. You can cast a vote, spoil the ballot, cast a "donkey vote" (numbering the options in the order printed), leave the ballot empty, as long as it goes in the box.

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

#389

Post by shermantanktop »

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…

Sometimes focusing on each of the individual puppets distracts you from who is pulling the strings.

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

#390

Post by SonOfLilit »

mjrpes wrote: post #56

Here's the letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcp... No claims, no evidence. No sources, except "it has come to my attention" and "information received by my office".

This is legal communication written by a lawyer and intended to be read by lawyers.

Consistently, the first thing every lawyer has said to me when preparing for any interaction with third parties that had a legal aspect was "never volunteer information you were not explicitly asked for". Of course lawyers would practice this among themselves. The law requires him to suspect something wrong to investigate, so he states "I hereby formally suspect something wrong". If the investigation leads to a court filing, the law would then require him to submit evidence, so he will strategically decide which evidence to submit and submit it. Why would he commit in advance to what evidence he believes relevant if not required by law?

But also, if reading the letter as if written in good faith - which I find hard to do - those are all true reasons to suspect something wrong (it is common knowledge and well established that Wikipedia is a very influential source of knowledge, and that there are attempts at foreign influence), and great questions to ask to investigate whether the Foundation is making a reasonable effort to fight it if you were a regulator or auditor or other investigator, all of which have great answers already written up that prove the foundation is doing a very good job at establishing and maintaining processes to ensure the neutrality of its articles. In my headcanon, Wikipedia's lawyer responds simply with a list of URLs.

Post reply on HN