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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by gitremote »

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…

State media in fascist dictatorships don't reflect the diversity of their people. It is untrue that humans of any nationality have free speech and a free press as a check against their government's actions. It is untrue that any country's government is legally obligated to transparency that is required in a democracy.

When people say that Russian and Chinese state media are propaganda, it is not always because they are racists. Many people say this because they make a distinction between a government and the people, and understand the difference democracy makes.

It's great that you're trying to emphasize with people in other countries. Empathize deeper and think through how it must be like to live in such a political environment to their full conclusions.

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

#403

Post by mulmen »

ellen364 wrote: post #395
sgc wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That an enormous sample size. Statistically a complete participation should be very close, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim it would be different. Regardless of whether Trump would have won or not, that is a clear indication of evenly split public sentiment. So we still get to justly reap the fruits of our collective choices. There is no exoneration by whimsically dreaming of improbable alternatives.…

The electorate self-selected into voters and non-voters, it wasn't a random sample. Some chose to go to the polls and some chose to stay at home. Voter preferences don't say a lot about the preferences of non-voters, who've already shown they choose differently.

There’s also one party that disproportionately targets specific voter demographics for suppression.

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

#404

Post by paradite »

webstrand wrote: post #300
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…

I made an edit last year, it immediately got reverted and I got a banner on my user page for vandalism. I complained about that, other people agreed with me but the person who reverted my edits never responded. So there it sits.

Seems like the story of Stackoverflow.

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

#405

Post by mulmen »

rayiner wrote: post #272
mulmen wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also no evidence that increased turnout would have had the same result. What seems to be overlooked in these conversations is the skill with which American voters have been disenfranchised by partisan forces. It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

In fact there was an extensive analysis of the election by Democrat pollster David Shor, who found that 100% turnout would have resulted in an even larger Trump win, by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202... This has been the pattern for awhile now. The pool of politically unengaged people are especially Trumpy compared to regular voters: https://abcnews.go.com/538/vote-back-trump…

This is very interesting but how would turnout and choice change if historically disenfranchised and suppressed communities had equal access to the polls?

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

#406

Post by qingcharles »

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 been an editor since 2004. It's getting really, really hard now. Like, it is really off-putting and no longer enjoyable.

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

#407

Post by happosai »

txcwg002 wrote: post #287
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…

According to its cofounder, Wikipedia abandoned truth long ago. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

Imagine sharing this link unironically thinking the content makes great sense.

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

#408

Post by klntsky »

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 don't want to contribute to this giant propaganda machine by making it more valuable. Structural problems must be fixed first.

"If your solution consists of 'everyone should just X', you don't have a solution"

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

#409

Post by flanked-evergl »

hayst4ck wrote: post #360
flanked-evergl wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organizations can't have commitments to truth. Only people can. And there is no mechanism that ensures that editors and admins have a commitment to truth.

OK, I can't argue with that. Timothy Snyder might make a similar correction, "markets can't be free, only people participating in the market can be free" is something he says frequently. If only people can have commitments to truth, which organization, institution, or media do you think has a leader that seems to have a commitment to truth, especially truth in their institution? Who is our gold standard of "as good a…

I think for very scientific and technical matters that is entirely divorced from politics Wikipedia is fine, not great, but entirely serviceable.

For everything else I won't trust it, which sadly includes matters of war and history, as almost all causal claims about the world rests on counter factuals, and therefore does not merely depend on what is.

Politics also concerns what ought to be, not what is, and most editors of Wikipedia do not agree with me regarding what ought to be or even how one should determine what ought to be.

Wikipedia would do better if they could figure out a way to manage bias rather than try to eliminate it. I don't want to be overly critical. Wikipedia is useful, but it's really very far from ideal and I would not want my tax money going anywhere near it.

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

#410

Post by vasco »

undersuit wrote: post #385
j4coh wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds like stackoverflow defenders. I'm another person who tried about 5-7 times over the years to do larger improvements all for it to go to waste. Minor edits many times survive but even those I stopped doing because of the sour effect of the larger ones getting denied.
Post reply on HN