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

541–550 of 1001 posts

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

#541

Post by stogot »

technothrasher wrote: post #524
webstrand wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only few times I tried to make small edits, typo corrections, or similar, they just got immediately reverted as vandalism. So when I found a page that is largely wrong about a relatively obscure historical figure that I actually know a lot about and have plenty of source material for, I didn't really feel motivated to put the work in to clean it up.

I made a small edit to fix a mistake once and it didn’t get called vandalism but I sort of got a harsh message telling I did it wrong and didn’t follow processes

There must be some admin-level expectations of how things should be done but the editor flow gives you zero warning or indication. This was a while back so maybe they changed the flow

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

#542

Post by concordDance »

addandsubtract wrote: post #226
NelsonMinar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their silence now is cowardly.

In before this thread is also flagged for being "political".

This entire thread is worthless social media junk food.

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

#543

Post by roenxi »

foldr wrote: post #495
roenxi wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ex-CIA head Brennan famously remarked in an MSNBC interview [0] that when he says something is a Russian information operation that includes dumping accurate information. So really it isn't enough to identify something as Russian propaganda - it is necessary to analyse whether it is propaganda of the accurate and informative variety, or the inaccurate variety. Propaganda really just means someone is arguing a viewpoi…

The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint. It’s good to be aware of media bias, but it’s reductive and cynical to view all media as propaganda.

> The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint.

If it isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down? Why would they be funding something that was pushing viewpoints that undermined Britain? This is simple incentive analysis stuff, this organisation isn't being funded for billions of dollars because the Brits happen to just be uniquely dedicated to the cause of the truth even if it hurts their interests. They're British! They're one step removed from the people who invented espionage, there is a long history of information warfare here.

RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda. The US has been running this experiment for centuries now, it has been well established that the government-sponsored perspective isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's.

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

#544

Post by intermerda »

hackyhacky wrote: post #521
fzeroracer wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the good news is that there's a very convenient link at the bottom of the page here on HN for the AI startup school [1] which is host to a bunch of people that you should recognize. [1] https://events.ycombinator.com/ai-sus

Not an answer to my question.

It is actually, unless you are unable to parse information without being spoon fed to you.

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

#545

Post by regularjack »

maigret wrote: post #539
PeterStuer wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keri Smith, a former hardcore SJW activist, has documented how she and others daily targeted people through Wikipedia edits for preparing a cancel. It's quite fascinating the extend of organization and process they used. For instance, they would not directly edit the target's page, but start working 2 links removed from it, compromise the "friend of a friend of a friend", and then work towards the actual target and f…

What is SJW? Please avoid using unclear acronyms.

[flagged]

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

#546

Post by albumen »

maigret wrote: post #539
PeterStuer wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keri Smith, a former hardcore SJW activist, has documented how she and others daily targeted people through Wikipedia edits for preparing a cancel. It's quite fascinating the extend of organization and process they used. For instance, they would not directly edit the target's page, but start working 2 links removed from it, compromise the "friend of a friend of a friend", and then work towards the actual target and f…

What is SJW? Please avoid using unclear acronyms.

Social Justice Warrior. The acronym has been around for a long time.

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

#547

Post by bowsamic »

maigret wrote: post #539
PeterStuer wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keri Smith, a former hardcore SJW activist, has documented how she and others daily targeted people through Wikipedia edits for preparing a cancel. It's quite fascinating the extend of organization and process they used. For instance, they would not directly edit the target's page, but start working 2 links removed from it, compromise the "friend of a friend of a friend", and then work towards the actual target and f…

What is SJW? Please avoid using unclear acronyms.

Social Justice Warrior but it’s worth noting that actually the acronym has cultural connotations that the words alone do not

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

#548

Post by morkalork »

sgnelson wrote: post #197

Serious question, after the past few months, how can anyone deny that America is heading in a totalitarian direction? Those of you who believe that all of the many actions that have happened in the past few weeks are "okay", please explain your perspective without resorting to "whataboutism" or cherry picking only one or two of the things that have occurred lately. Because from what I'm sitting, this is not behavior…

When you take a step back and look at what is happening as a whole, it's definitely not looking good.

I was going to start listing examples but that's not the point now. And even if something specific is undone weeks after because of outcry it's still a steady two steps forward, one step back, progression in a nasty direction.

I've read some books, seen some documentaries, learned some history. What's happening is very obvious and anyone who doesn't also see it is either ignorant or in denial.

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

#549

Post by intended »

LightHugger wrote: post #472
acdha wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any specific examples? You mentioned the Gamergate article but your assertion that it doesn’t reference non-primary sources needs some citations that all of the academic and media sources were directly involved. Since it was a harassment campaign involving journalists, there’s a big question about what a policy would need to look like to prevent someone from attacking a journalist and then saying Wikipedi…

[flagged]

> Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? > A1: What sources can be used in Wikipedia is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard.

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

#550

Post by andybak »

PeterStuer wrote: post #532
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…

Keri Smith, a former hardcore SJW activist, has documented how she and others daily targeted people through Wikipedia edits for preparing a cancel. It's quite fascinating the extend of organization and process they used. For instance, they would not directly edit the target's page, but start working 2 links removed from it, compromise the "friend of a friend of a friend", and then work towards the actual target and f…

Skimming this: https://www.kerismith.net/

and seeing some of the people she proudly mentions - it seems like she's just switched cults.

Post reply on HN