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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by krisoft »

kurtreed2 wrote: post #868
krisoft wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Your initial criteria was all about the resilency against state-sponsored disinformation attempts and the gaming of systems.

I believe you are mistaking me with someone else. Please pay attention to the usernames when you are re-reading the thread.

What i’m saying is what you describe as survivorship bias is not survivorship bias.

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

#882

Post by sedev »

terribleperson wrote: post #419
moritonal wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I created a page, it got declined because the guy who two films have been made about didn't count as important enough. I kind of get it, but still, did kill the energy slightly.

The notability requirement is a real bane, but it also kind of makes sense when there's really insufficient manpower for the articles they already have. But then, maybe they'd have more manpower if they loosened the notability requirement.

The general notability guideline is another thing that's effectively downstream of "there's not enough editor time to keep everything up to basic standards." If Wikipedia had 10x the editor-hours it does now, notability requirements would de facto loosen, because there would be enough editor-hours to keep the extra articles useful. Seriously, editor time is the major bottleneck of Wikipedia.

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

#883

Post by makeitdouble »

xyzzyz wrote: post #732
myvoiceismypass wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> where IDs are harder to get by than in US

Is it ? If we're talking national IDs, most EU countries have it mandatory, so there's no requirement other than officially existing as a person.

If we're talking voting registration ID, many countries auto-enroll their citizen the moment they're adult or naturalize, and procedures are only required when your info changes or you explicitly get barred from voting (I don't even know when that happens, minor offences will not trigger that)

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

#884

Post by yew »

munchler wrote: post #764
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.

Evidence is socially constructed. It's the view of the public that neckbeards and debate-bros should be expunged. This isn't a debate.

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

#885

Post by [deleted] »

jfengel wrote: post #794
gigatexal wrote: post #498

This admin has no shame. They’re burning everything good/stable about the US because of an unstable, megalomaniac idiot happened to win the presidency.

He didn't just happen to win the presidency. He brought with him both houses of Congress on his coattails, and he had previously filled the Supreme Court (already heavily laden with his partisans). He's not the one with no shame. It's tens of millions of Americans who are even now cheering this action on. Many of them on this web site. If we have a megalomaniac idiot, it's because it reflects who we are.

[deleted]

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

#886

Post by pseudalopex »

Spivak wrote: post #365
hackyhacky wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who, specifically, are you referring to; and what have they done or said to make you believe that they support this?

Wealthy people who could be coined liberal-tarians or just your average tech bro political grab bag largely backed Trump out of financial interest and who, imo, deluded themselves that the administration would be unsuccessful at "the bad stuff" much like his 2016 run. No amount of shouting from the rooftops that this time was actually different convinced anyone. I can't really blame us collectively, we resoundingly v…

> we resoundingly voted for this— it's as much of a mandate you're likely to ever get in the US

Trump received a minority of the popular vote. The 1.5% margin was slim compared to recent elections even.

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

#887

Post by Kim_Bruning »

moshegramovsky wrote: post #166
giraffe_lady wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could one of you point me to antisemitic bias on wikipedia just so I have a concrete example at hand?

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/editing-hate-how-anti-i... Read it for yourself.

Oh, that's VERY interesting. Thank you very much. Needs to be checked a bit more thoroughly, but the ADL report and the D.C. U.S. attorney's letter seem to have significant thematic overlap. It could well have served as one of the sources.

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

#888

Post by LordGrignard »

globular-toast wrote: post #463
LordGrignard wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi I don't know if you know it but Wikipedias not that poor or hard pressed... Atleast, the whole "donate or we broke" narrative that they build every few months is complete bullshit https://youtu.be/3t8GUbzVxmQ?si=sa_oHe3DA_QmpGcE

Neither is Google, yet there is still probably multiple ads on that video you linked.

the difference is Google isnt pushing the narrative that its about to stop existing if you don't watch this ad

my problem is with wikipedia lying to us by saying it will shut down if you don't donate: which is false because their situation simply isnt that dire

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

#889

Post by yew »

moshegramovsky wrote: post #173
outside1234 wrote: post #115

Is this the start of the shakedown by Trump to start allowing misinformation?

I fear the answer is yes. Did you hear about the "gala dinner" for the top 220 holders of his meme coin? I wish I was joking. Power corrupts...

> Power corrupts...

"And absolute power is kind of neat."

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

#890

Post by refurb »

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…

This is my issue. Go to any wikipedia page that is in the least bit topical and you'll find a heavily slanted view and a discussion page too long to read where people fight over minutia.

The only pages that seem useful are the technical ones.

Post reply on HN