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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by plorg »

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.

It's a term for anyone from a centrist liberal to a Greenpeace activist, with the implication that having left-of-median politics and understanding race and demography as anything other than biological essentialism makes you an utter loon. It is really only used by people who would describe themselves as "anti-woke".

The person he's referencing, specifically, got really pilled by evangelical Christianity and believes that anyone advocating for liberal causes has created a religion out of nebulous cultural values, unmoored from god. She blames the "cult of SJW" for the kind of character assassination she claims to have done, that it was the force of rootless bolshevism that was responsible for her supposedly destroying lives and careers by making up(?) relationships and cultural crimes on whole webs of Wikipedia articles.

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

#732

Post by xyzzyz »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #665
rayiner wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This "IDs are hard to get by in US" narrative is really funny to anyone who lived in Europe, where IDs are harder to get by than in US, while being required for more purposes and activities. I have yet to see anyone saying that voter ID requirements are voter suppression to also bite the bullet and say that Europe is a totalitarian hellhole compared to the US, the land of the free.

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

#733

Post by psychoslave »

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…

Totalitarian mindset is not incompatible with the notion of absolute truth. It just want to be considered the single source of truth. You can believe whatever you want as long as it leads you to always comply to the government official statements, even in your most hidden intimacy. That, is totalitarism.

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

#735

Post by whatshisface »

dlubarov wrote: post #700
whatshisface wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the obstacles to getting that point of view across is that very few of the people in countries with a majority religion (which is most countries) see criticism of their government's history as criticism of their religion. I've never really heard a Christian complain about the treatment of the thirty years war in history books, and that's presented in an extremely negative light. The equation you're making does…

It's not documenting historical facts about Israel that's problematic, it's using that history to justify calls for the destruction of Israel. Does anyone cite the Thirty Years' War to advocate for the destruction of Germany?

One issue that occurs is when person A is criticized for documenting historical facts on the basis that since person B has in other contexts used them as a pretext for something wrong, person C, after finding out about the historical facts, might independently come to the same conclusion as person B. The effect is to treat person A's documentation activity with the same approach as person C's eventual choices.

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

#736

Post by moomin »

plorg wrote: post #731
maigret wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is SJW? Please avoid using unclear acronyms.

It's a term for anyone from a centrist liberal to a Greenpeace activist, with the implication that having left-of-median politics and understanding race and demography as anything other than biological essentialism makes you an utter loon. It is really only used by people who would describe themselves as "anti-woke". The person he's referencing, specifically, got really pilled by evangelical Christianity and believes…

I’m calling Frank Abnagale on this woman until proven otherwise.

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

#737

Post by [deleted] »

emacsen wrote: post #186
giraffe_lady wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the jews I know are through anti-genocide activism and they have a different view of this. I wanted to check because it is important to me that I not engage in antisemitism. Thanks for the info.

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#738

Post by virgulino »

kranke155 wrote: post #669
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…

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 onl…

I agree. The pages on Brazilian politics are often grotesque propaganda. There was even a famous case in which a slanderous and fraudulent edit on two journalists' pages was traced back to an IP address in Dilma's Presidential Palace (Dilma was Lula's hand-picked successor).

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

#739

Post by YZF »

int_19h wrote: post #507
YZF wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like a decent list. I'm not an American but some of these processes seem to be happening in other places. 1. Is all of us, on the "right" or the "left". Let's not do this. 2. Here you could say maybe the government is doing a little. But I would still say most of the lies and conspiracies that are reverberating in our society are not originating from there. This is like 95% on all of us (or social media).…

You seriously don't believe that pardoning people like Enrique Tarrio for violent crimes perpetrated openly in pursuit of political goals doesn't encourage violence?

I've had to read up on him since I'm not that familiar with this topic.

I guess at some level? But in comparison with actual authoritarian regimes/societies this seems to be in the noise.

> Encourage or condone violence to advance political goals: Dehumanize opposition and/or out-groups to justify violence against them.

Again, I don't think we're seeing this happen. Has Trump given some extreme element a sense that they can get away with things they couldn't previously? Sure. That was also the case in his first presidency. Is this a society shaping phenomena. Not really yet. Could we be in a long term change that will end up with a non-democratic US? Anything is possible. Everyone needs to uphold democratic values.

Post reply on HN