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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by [deleted] »

Agraillo wrote: post #628
ncr100 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. 150+ times is akin to Funding an individual, rather than seeking to add a unique perspective.

I'd argue that there's another perspective, more complimentary to US politics. There's obviously a list of "experts" aligned with RT narrative which they use depending on the topic. No media like RT wants someone from this list to be too visible and appear too often, whether they are pay-rolled shadowy or not. So it looks like not so many "experts" are eager to be on alert on this list.

[deleted]

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

#762

Post by iwontberude »

myself248 wrote: post #694
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…

I've done a fair bit of editing over almost 20 years. Some of my photos are featured in small articles, and I've only had a few of my edits reverted, always for sensible reasons. It's easy to get started, and the pitfalls (chiefly, adding commentary without a source) are well documented. So on that basis, I agree. Please edit. It's easy. Start small. That said, I've watched entire articles vanish under the banner of…

I tried to get interested in Wikipedia and the crazy level of gatekeeping over topics these editors had no clue about was frustrating to me. They don’t know what is notable and they have no business telling people what to do in many instances (esp with more obscure topics).

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

#763

Post by thunderfork »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #713
mulmen wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I willing to give you moving polling locations, but with that minor concession. Can you explain to me like I am 5 why those are bad things? For a simple person like myself, one would think, data accuracy, voting system integrity, and verifiability would be of use and value to everyone.

[dead]

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

#764

Post by munchler »

peakskill wrote: post #734

Wikipedia IS ideologically captured and a propaganda target. This is not up for debate. What it needs now is a bipartisan, sybil resistant algorithm like X’s community notes’ in order to accept/reject edits.

> Wikipedia IS ideologically captured and a propaganda target. This is not up for debate.

What an absurd claim to make without any evidence. Citation needed.

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

#766

Post by freen »

santoshalper wrote: post #485
LightHugger wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think your view of gamergate is absolutely fucking delusional. I watched it all go down in real time like many of us did. Saying Gamergate was about ethics in games journalism is roughly as accurate as saying the US Civil War was about "states rights". In that it is kinda sorta technically true if you ignore 99% of what was actually happening.

Gamergate folks are incredibly silent about other “ethics in Journalism” issues…

Same with all those “free speech wing of the free speech party” folks.

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

#767

Post by dharmab »

stogot wrote: post #541
technothrasher wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've had my edits similarly mass reverted with an unkind message.

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

#768

Post by firesteelrain »

hnlmorg wrote: post #756
firesteelrain wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time you commented you could have at least searched for the acronym or asked AI.

I wasn’t the one who asked. But even if I were, you’re not accounting for the cumulative benefit saving others from having to research the same acronym.

Let’s get real, they can search. HN doesn’t have a repo of acronyms and this isn’t a technical document where you need to spell out the acronym on first use

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

#769

Post by drowsspa »

tmtvl wrote: post #465
Perenti wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Brazil as well. I think a good side effect, or perhaps the main intended one, is that governments aren't allowed to supress voters and have to make sure everyone has easy access to the voting booths. Every election there are mandatory pieces on TV about how people are voting even in the most remote of places.

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

#770

Post by arjie »

webstrand wrote: post #300
flask_manager wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have in the past, but three things put me off doing so now; Pages where I can spot inconsistencies are often controversial, with long dense discussion pages, edits here are almost impossible beyond trivial details. I dont mind fixing trivia, but not if the actual improvement I think I can make is rejected. There is a bit of a deletionist crusade to keep some topics small, for example, Ive had interesting trivia abo…

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.

For reasons unknown, I am much better than many at navigating this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40655989

https://x.com/arjie/status/1847046183342297498?s=46

If you share with me what your change is I might be able to get it done.

Post reply on HN