To be honest, many of the people who critize wikipedia.. just do not want to fork the content. it would be possible. they all like the work people put into it. but as soon as it does not fit the worldview anymore... are there manipulations? sure. then more people should watch it. and wikipedia should have a better process on controversal topics in own areas. but the whining is abysmal.
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
751–760 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#752Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of those probably wanted Biden to win but don't want to antagonize Trump after he won. If I had to guess there at least Sundar and Bezos didn't want Trump to win Elon and his loud hangers-on in the VC community have made SV look a lot more MAGA than it is
Trying to psychoanalyze billionaires from afar is a losing game. If we're going to judge these folks, judge them by their words and actions.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#753The 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…
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#754The 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…
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#755Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 .
It's going to be a Achilles heel for Wikipedia one day, mark my words. Those LTA pages often contains a lot of personal information which would violate GDPR in Europe, at least based on what I've heard from NOYB so far. Some editors have expressed their concerns about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse... ?
Therefore, if legal problems arise with these pages, they probably will just delete the legally problematic info and hide every edit done before.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#756Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn’t mean what everyone is familiar with it. For example I’ve been around since internet slang first developed a life of its own. And yet I wasn’t immediately familiar with SJW either.
By the time you commented you could have at least searched for the acronym or asked AI.
But even if I were, you’re not accounting for the cumulative benefit saving others from having to research the same acronym.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#757Earlier quoted context omitted.
The electorate self-selected into voters and non-voters, it wasn't a random sample. Some chose to go to the polls and some chose to stay at home. Voter preferences don't say a lot about the preferences of non-voters, who've already shown they choose differently.
It shouldn't be that hard for you to show some evidence things would be different then. There is nothing indicating a stronger preference to vote has anything at all to do with which direction you lean. More and less does not equal right and left, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it is relevant. Yet polling indicates things would have gone pretty much just as they went.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#758Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, but if everyone does it, it is very inconvenient to read and in some case leaves unnecessary space for misunderstanding. Usually, acronyms are followed by the full wording the first time they are mentioned.
> Usually, acronyms are followed by the full wording the first time they are mentioned. I'm sure they did at the time this (SJW) acronym got popular. That was maybe 10-15 years ago.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#759Curtis Yarvin has a riff that goes something like this: Liberal Wikipedia, Communist Wikipedia, and Fascist Wikipedia will all actually agree on the vast majority of topics: Physics, botany, the solar system, chemistry, math, statistics etc. However they'll be worlds apart on history, economics, anthropology, sexuality, politics, previous leaders and so on. Our Wikipedia is the world seen through the eyes of the New…
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#760The 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…
> But it didn't matter, because an anonymous individual also spent years pursuing Eostrix, assembling evidence Wait, why? If the edits were so clean and uncontroversial, what was suspicious? Sorry for asking, the wiki talk-page links very chaotic to read.
Icewhiz is a bad example because a lot of the evidence is non-public now (there's a cabal of CheckUsers approved by the Wikimedia Foundation who deal non-public cases). A simpler one is Lieutenant of Melkor/CaradhrasAiguo. Lieutenant of Melkor was banned in 2014, CaradhrasAiguo was made in 2015, and in 2020 someone linked the two accounts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investiga...
> Editor interaction tool shows 2691 common pages. This is because both have been AWB power users in several same topic areas. However, there are numerous specific commonalities with extreme detail related to American cities, Chinese cities, weather templates and airports.
> Both used navigational popups to revert edits which resulted in a non-standard date format in the edit summary.
> LoM created many US city weatherbox templates. CA has been the only editor to do major updates in many of them.
> Both have done major work with pushpins related to Chinese maps. 'Pushpin' is found in many edit summaries of both editors.
> Both often removed bold text from non-English words. Both used edit-summaries with "debold" which I don't think is a real word.
> Both updated snow days and precipitation days in US city infoboxes with almost identical edit summaries.
> Both have an interest in classical music. CTRL+F for Beethoven, Mozart or Chopin in the editor interaction tool.
They're also both named after Lord of the Rings characters. "Caradhras" is a mountain, "Melkor" was the most powerful Valar and later went by the name "Morgoth". Sauron, the antagonist of LotR, was his lieutenant.