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

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861

Post by LightHugger »

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.

You mean you watched people writing misinformation articles smearing people in realtime, or were you actually on the hubs where gamergate was organized? There is a big difference between these things, and no there were not people organizing for "misogyny campaigns" the discussion was 99% corruption and ethics focused. Especially in gaming circles of 2014 which were very progressive.

Quite frankly i find people who think there were actually some kind of organized misogyny campaigns in 2014 to be a form of insane, like something breaks inside a person because they need a bogeyman so badly that it becomes a core of their being even though it's incredibly irrational. At the time journalists would just take random twitter people who weren't affiliated with gamergate and hold them up as if they represented the movement. Reminds of me the tactics used against occupy wall street honestly. It's not a rational or reasonable belief.

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

#862

Post by mulmen »

rayiner wrote: post #529
mulmen wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very interesting but how would turnout and choice change if historically disenfranchised and suppressed communities had equal access to the polls?

Such as?

I’m sorry I don’t understand the question.

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

#863

Post by kurtreed2 »

ArinaS wrote: post #755
kurtreed2 wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... ?

On Wikipedia, every edit can be hidden so that even admins can't access it.[1] Therefore, if legal problems arise with these pages, they probably will just delete the legally problematic info and hide every edit done before. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight

There are actually some proposals to mass-delete the LTA pages but they all came to a naught.

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

#864

Post by telotortium »

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.

It's really pretty easy to at least get an ID card in the US. Taking a deep red state's requirements (Mississippi) [0]:

"""

Any persons six (6) years of age or older may apply to the Department of Public Safety for an identification card.

All applicants must provide the following:

- A completed and signed Application.

-Original Birth Certificate or any acceptable document. (No Photocopies Accepted)

- SSN Card or an official government correspondence displaying full 9 digits. (click here)

- Two proofs of Residency.

- Legal Documents are required if going by new name.

"""

These are all very standard. The only ones I could see people having trouble with is proof of residency, but the accepted forms[1] are very numerous (over 20). Anyone that isn't intentionally trying to stay off-grid should be able to provide at least two, especially because you're allowed to use proof for a parent, legal guardian, or spouse as long as you can establish your relationship to them. You can even get your roommates to attest that you live with them to use their proofs of residency.

[0] https://www.driverservicebureau.dps.ms.gov/Drivers/Identific...

[1] https://www.driverservicebureau.dps.ms.gov/node/303

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

#865

Post by kurtreed2 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #849
kurtreed2 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a start you can look at the following page. https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchWikipediaDie/wiki/scandals

I read through like half of those, and they generally paint a picture of Wikipedia acting well in regards to external controversy, or (mostly robustly) responding to manipulation attempts.

If you scroll down to the bottom of that page you'll see a different story.

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

#866

Post by Tycho »

Riverheart wrote: post #635
Tycho wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the illegal immigration question. Tens of millions of people are in the country, knowingly in violation of the law. Many foreign criminal gangs are operating in the country. Yet the federal government was prevented from even constructing a simple wall to stop the situation getting worse. Not only that, but other authorities in the country are even declaring “sanctuary cities”, openly contravening the efforts…

The wall was a waste of tax payer money and purely theatric since it hasn’t helped. Saying illegal immigration is a problem today basically acknowledges as much if it weren’t also backed up by statistics. https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-didnt-work No, illegal immigration is not the same as an invasion by another nation. I don’t condone harboring criminals but if they are indeed criminals they should be tried in…

If you take a step back, your position is basically that it is ok to let people break the law, ok to help them break the law even, and if you want to enforce the law, you should only do it to a degree that amounts to futility, not with any serious chance of preventing tens of millions of people getting away with illegally inhabiting the country.

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

#868

Post by kurtreed2 »

krisoft wrote: post #845
kurtreed2 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed a survivorship bias since we have no good other sample in the form of competitor to compare to, like how Pepsi is to Coca-Cola. Which part of my statement you find difficult to understand?

> Which part of my statement you find difficult to understand? I understand your whole statement perfectly. It is just wrong. My understanding is not the problem here. We are not comparing them to other samples. We say that out of the currently existing X they are the best. Imagine a town with 3 bakeries. Lets call them A, B, and C. Bakery A gets shut down by the health deparment and B goes bankrupt. Then we can, rig…

I think the goalpost is being moved. Your initial criteria was all about the resilency against state-sponsored disinformation attempts and the gaming of systems. For that criteria we don't have a comparable sample to look into when evaluating Wikipedia's.

By comparable, I'm meaning an alternative or competitor that had gained equal prominence as Wikipedia, in terms of Google search results, and the eyes of the whole world, again like what Pepsi is to Coca-Cola and vice versa. We would have something to compare to in terms of the criteria if Google has given their favoritism to one or more other platforms, instead of just Wikipedia.

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

#869

Post by roarcher »

nulld3v wrote: post #668
bagels wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why revert edits in the first place then? Do they think people are editing Wikipedia by accident?

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

#870

Post by Tycho »

acdha wrote: post #659
Tycho wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was the whole IRS targeting of conservative groups under Obama. And I’m sure the “government overthrowers” (lol) also used Facebook and Twitter, yet only these other ones were taken down. We later found out, of course, that the likes of FB and Twitter had embedded censorship teams working hand-in-glove with the security state and advocacy groups.

> There was the whole IRS targeting of conservative groups under Obama. There was a lot of talk about that but I note you left out the part where it wasn’t real. The IRS investigated both liberal and conservative groups, but only the conservative groups lied about being singled out as part of a defense strategy. https://web.archive.org/web/20180225112702/https://www.treas...

I don’t think so https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/354680-a-lesson-on-a...
Post reply on HN