Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is SJW? Please avoid using unclear acronyms.

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

Usually hijacked and paid by quatar, russia or china. Its always fascinating how fast that im against injustice at home chute leads to "i support a monstrous regime abroad".

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

#662
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.

I hesitated while reading this part, because I wholly agreed with the first 2 sentences. Do you mean physically difficult in terms of barriers to voting or making a less direct comment about the usefulness of that vote? If the former, I think I disagree compared to other countries ( and the levels of paperwork needed ). If the latter, I would be interested to hear some specifics.

Physically more difficult. Purging voter rolls. Moving polling locations. Voter ID requirements. Restrictions on mail in ballots. Etc.

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

#663
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdote != evidence. Also, your anecdote is specifically about a social media article about an attempt to use social media spaces to harass people. Seems extra “special case” to me.

[flagged]

"Gamergate was actually 8chan communists fighting sensasionalist journalism but their message was then twisted and used against them to push people into far-right MAGA."

Amazing... I can't tell if you are trolling or seriously think this.

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

#664
post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in a real court, I can see the verdict and the laws that were broken. All in complicated, but readable english. Thats not really true either. There is a lot to unpack to understand court cases. Just the hearsay rule and its exception would fill a book. Jurisdiction, double jeopardy, means rea, “reasonable man”, Brady disclosure, fruit of poisonous tree, presumption of regularity, habeas corpus, SLAP, reasonable…

Right: and at least in the court system a whole lot of people are being paid a whole lot of money to help move that progress along. Almost all of Wikipedia's community administration is done by volunteers working for free!

Unavoidably, some of the administration is probably done by undisclosed paid editors who administer to gain goodwill as a defense against allegations of paid editing.

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

#665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voter suppression is the act of limiting the pool of voters. That includes putting large swaths of the population behind bars or flagged as non eligible to voting, putting barriers to voter registration etc. It can never be 0 and every country will have a minimum requirement, but the degree to which it is done in the US is far ahead of most western country. Gerrymandering has an effect on the criteria for voter eligi…

No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting. Society determining that categories of people shouldn’t vote (children, felons, non-citizens, etc.) isn’t voter suppression, it’s simply establishing qualifications for voting. The goal isn’t to get to 0 or try to get as close to 0 as possible. People who should vote should be able to vote, while people who shouldn’t vote shouldn’t be abl…

> No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting.

Next you will tell us all how easy it is for all Americans to get drivers ids / similar licensing right?

> Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.

Ah. There it is.

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

#666
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think those accusations need to be taken seriously while they're being hyped by people like Jim Jordan. If they have evidence of wrongdoing they should forward it to the DoJ and write it up in an indictment, where it can be reviewed by a court and jury that will evaluate the claims made therein.

I have no idea who Jim Jordan is but your logical fallacy is nut picking.

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

#667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia isn't immune to influence campaigns - honestly, no open platform is - but the key difference is how seriously the community takes it. The amount of volunteer effort that goes into investigating sockpuppets, enforcing sourcing standards, and maintaining some kind of neutrality is incredible when you step back and think about it.

Neutrality? I’ve never seen an English language wikipedia article on a politically controversial topic that wasn’t the DC establishment/State Dept official take. They listed Greyzone as an unreputable new source because it’s pro-Palestinian. When you Google the usernames of those who voted to ban them pro Israeli think tanks from DC come up. Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to politics. If you’re lucky you can find…

> Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to politics.

What isn't a joke when it comes to politics? The only way to be informed about politics I have found is to regularly read news from several different media sites paying careful attention when they talk about the same issue. This way you learn their biases and how to interpret their news articles, you get the ability to guess what really happens, not just their takes on it.

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

#668
post #284
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…

Why? Bots reverse every edit.

You can usually just revert the revert if your edit was legitimate. I think the bot will say this too in the message it sends you.

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

#669
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…

The Portuguese Wikipedia does not allow the existence of details on corruption allegations against Portuguese or Brazilian politicians.

There are moderators who take care of cleaning those up, then starting harassment against users who have posted these things.

I've seen one particular page, when a corruption allegation was blown up against a politically connected individual, be set up for permanent deletion (the only way to remove a page so it can't be remade).

They have all the time in the world and its clearly a full time job for them to do this, so its very hard to deal with as an individual editor. Hence the result has been that the Portuguese wikipedia has very little information on the corruption of Portuguese politicians, while the English language is full of it.

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

#670
post #346

Remember as you read more and more news like this that many of the owners of Y Combinator supported this.

The only YC figure who espouses any position on U.S. federal politics is Paul Graham, who loudly campaigns against the current administration almost every day on Twitter.

That's such a weirdly blatant lie.

Jared Friedman endorsing DOGE

https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1886672263216504853

Garry Tan hanging with a DOGE flunky

https://x.com/jgebbia/status/1907181994695332295

Post reply on HN