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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by hayst4ck »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #409
hayst4ck wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 edit…

Do you have any examples to show why I shouldn't trust it in regards to political topics or history?

You also really avoided the "what's better"/"what's a better model" question.

Social consensus, consent, and political mandate aren't ideas that can be hand waived away, they matter and they effect you and they are deeply impact by what people perceive to be true.

So the question still stands, if you mention a topic like Mao's cultural revolution, where should I go to get a primer and verify that the way you're talking about it appears to be grounded in reality.

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

#452

Post by j4coh »

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.

Honestly I have more valuable things to do with my time.

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

#453

Post by noosphr »

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'll add: please edit in areas where you are an expect. Over the last 20 years I have racked up a few thoudand edits, rewrites, new articles, etc.. Don't contribute to the low effort noise everyone is screaming about. In a century an edit in transcendental number theory with a citation is going to be a lot more important than whatever the current culture war is.

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

#454

Post by zelphirkalt »

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…

Years ago I tried adding a weblink directing to a community, to an article about a game, where there were already weblinks to other communities, which were in no way any more official or proper than the community I linked to, but this edit never made it into the page, because someone played gatekeeper there, probably a person of the already linked communities. Since then I don't even bother editing wiki any longer. It is gatekeeping by people with their own agenda. What else I read about edit wars did not inspire confidence either.

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

#455

Post by ArinaS »

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…

On Wikipedia people like Icewhiz are called "long-term abusers", and there's a public list with more than a hundred of them - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA.

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

#456

Post by Paracompact »

qingcharles wrote: post #406
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.

Curious, as a longtime editor, what's gotten harder for you recently?

As a casual, very infrequent editor, I echo everyone else's complaints that it's intimidating to have your additions reverted by the old guard who seem to have an increasingly particular vision of the site.

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

#457

Post by Matthyze »

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…

Since so many commenters here have bad experiences, I'll provide a counterweight. I've made numerous edits and have run into little to no resistance. I'm sure asking people on a forum does not evoke a representative response.

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

#458

Post by kzrdude »

r053bud wrote: post #109
tzs wrote: post #69

> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns. This is getting ridiculous.…

We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work

Do you think it's legitimate when the administration transgresses constitutional limits? With legal eyes nobody voted for that, you can't vote inside the system to break the system, office holders are expected to follow the law once elected.

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

#459

Post by spacechild1 »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #417
NelsonMinar wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RT is not legit. It is Russian propaganda. When those people participated they were collaborators.

This applies to all state owned media. The US is unique that even privately held corporations push propaganda. The most gratuitous example is NYT, as documented by Ashley Rindsberg in his book “The Gray Lady Winked.”

> The US is unique that even privately held corporations push propaganda.

How is that unique to the US?

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

#460

Post by satanfirst »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #422
simonw wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes that letter is alarming. > In view of public criticisms, including those expressed by Wikipedia Co-Founder Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, regarding the opacity of editorial processes and the anonymity of contributors, what justification does the Foundation offer for shielding editors from public scrutiny? Larry Sanger has been criticizing Wikipedia for more than 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Cri…

The Heritage Foundation has been open about their desire to strip Wikipedians of anonymity, this is just the government putting that plan into practice: https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wikipedia-project-2025-...

Their entry on Wikipedia is well worth a read:

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

Kind of explains a lot in the balancing act in Trumps rise to power while trying to look like a marionette for various interests this term. They should remember Hitler's rebellion from his masters.

Post reply on HN