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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by squarefoot »

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-...

If the HF is behind this, then Wikipedia is doomed beyond any legal defense. Back it up entirely and move it overseas.

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

#463

Post by globular-toast »

LordGrignard wrote: post #141
hodgesrm wrote: post #54

In my humble opinion Wikipedia is the single best thing thing to emerge from the Internet boom. Its name is a wordplay on one of the most important intellectual projects of the Enlightment.[0] The DC prosecutor letter reads like something straight out of the totalitarian playbook.[1] Please donate now to show your support. It's time to fight back against this crap. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die…

Hi I don't know if you know it but Wikipedias not that poor or hard pressed... Atleast, the whole "donate or we broke" narrative that they build every few months is complete bullshit https://youtu.be/3t8GUbzVxmQ?si=sa_oHe3DA_QmpGcE

Neither is Google, yet there is still probably multiple ads on that video you linked.

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

#464

Post by card_zero »

YZF wrote: post #380
bawolff wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just feels like it's too big and there are too many interests that want to distort things. I was surprised to see some article recently removed effectively rewriting history and directing to some alternative version. I just checked again and it's been restored but it just seems like the wild west. In fairness, this does mean the system is working.

Yeah- Maybe it's "eventually working". It's hard to trust when it seems so fluid. Maybe there needs to be some mechanics to make it harder to change. Something like being able to suggest changes/corrections but having those come out on some schedule after a review? (thinking software release process here). Quarterly Wikipedia releases? Creating some "core" of Wikipedia that is subject to tougher editorial standards?…

Mechanics like that exist for when warring over a page escalates. See the old essay (20 years old now!) "The Wrong Version": https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version

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

#465

Post by tmtvl »

Perenti wrote: post #330
rchaud wrote: 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.

Everybody votes in Australia (not sure how rich, but in top 20 for sure). If you don't you have to show cause or pay a AUD$50 fine. I know some think this is anti-freedom, but it does prevent farces like the current USA. Historically there have been problems in the past (30 years ago) but these days the Australian Electoral Commission (Independent from government) revise electoral boundaries to ensure no more gerryma…

In Belgium attendance is mandatory as well. I think it's a positive as it means complacency ("my side has already won, no reason to go out and vote") is never a factor in the outcome.

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

#466

Post by raphman »

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…

To offer a counter-example to the many anecdotes about being gatekept(?) by veteran Wikipedia editors: I have the opposite experience.

I occasionally contribute to various topics, and in many cases experienced editors silently fixed formatting errors I made, allowing me to focus on contributing to Wikipedia without having to keep up with the best practices.

I also participated in a deletion discussion once, and - despite being inexperienced and in the minority position (keep) - the experienced editors considered my arguments and responded to them.

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

#468

Post by antegamisou »

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…

> Fixing typos is valuable. Adding photos is valuable. Flagging vandalism is valuable. Please edit Wikipedia.

Wise that you omit adding other credible sources that do not agree with the main editor's views. What you're describing sounds like already preserving their work, no matter if it happens to be provide info based on multiple convergent sources or not.

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

#469

Post by Tycho »

acdha wrote: post #261
Tycho wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall right-leaning social media sites like Gab, Parler, r/TheDonald, Infowars being taken offline. I can’t read the WP article because it’s paywalled, however I have been suspicious of Wikimedia for a long time. I used to donate to them thinking I was helping to keep the severs running, then being alarmed to find the money was going on all sorts of nonsense. The former CEO (Maher) was blatantly a political/intell…

Those sites weren’t taken offline by Democratic officials, they had to find new hosting after breaking the contracts they entered into with private companies. They were still free to move elsewhere, as they did, whereas in this case Wikipedia is being threatened with penalties for remaining in the country. I would also note that the last straw for companies like Parler was involvement in a violent attempt to overthro…

There was the whole IRS targeting of conservative groups under Obama.

And I’m sure the “government overthrowers” (lol) also used Facebook and Twitter, yet only these other ones were taken down. We later found out, of course, that the likes of FB and Twitter had embedded censorship teams working hand-in-glove with the security state and advocacy groups.

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

#470

Post by LightHugger »

sedev wrote: post #206
LightHugger wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are counterexamples where this has failed/continues to fail, the gamergate article is famously non-neutral, only accepting primary sources from journalists directly involved in the controversy. This is rather than true secondary sources with less extreme and biased views, like is supposed to be the rules there. You can switch from the english one to other languages and get completely different content with very…

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN