[flagged]
--
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
921–930 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#922Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Tom. You're burning your credibility here fast as the new moderator. dang derived his respect as an admin from not getting into fights in the threads. It additonaly tarnishes your credibility as you're doing this in defense of your employer. You look like a rage-poster who has the same response copied and ready to go from thread to thread. Please take a moment to step back and examine if this is the image you want…
Thanks for the comments. Where we get it wrong, I'm happy for it to be pointed out so we can improve. That's always been the case with HN moderation, and it's what I like about the work. The community demands that we operate to a high standard, and is quick to call us out when we get things wrong. That's the way it should be. Where it stops being OK is when people make false (or extrapolated-to-the-point-of-absurdity…
[dead]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#923Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it finally got through, were they nice to you at least? (They'd better have been!) And, it probably wasn't administrators, unless you specifically looked. You do sometimes have to be a bit insistent, you're quite right. If someone reverts you, it's often not personal. Ask on the talk page why they reverted, and if no one says anything for 24 hours (definitely wait this long), just try your edit (or a better one!…
> When it finally got through, were they nice to you at least? Not really. They continued to grumble about being "stuck" with the data on the talk page because they couldn't find any source to refute it, and the last edit one of them made about it was "Since I can't find any source to refute this (everyone seems to use it without question), let's at least sort the data correctly". > And, it probably wasn't administra…
Oh dear. If you want to point me at the talk page in question, I'll take a look!
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#924Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Tom. You're burning your credibility here fast as the new moderator. dang derived his respect as an admin from not getting into fights in the threads. It additonaly tarnishes your credibility as you're doing this in defense of your employer. You look like a rage-poster who has the same response copied and ready to go from thread to thread. Please take a moment to step back and examine if this is the image you want…
It is not "getting into fights", and does not "look like rage-posting", to politely correct a falsehood.
Thank you. I do try to be polite and friendly about it. Maybe that doesn't come across to everyone.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#925I 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 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.
What's the issue with naming the person if you think there should be an encyclopedic article about said person?
If it's about anonymity / not wanting to publicly link your HN and Wikipedia profiles, well fine, but the fact that there are two films about a person does not say much.
People can make films about themselves, too.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#926Earlier quoted context omitted.
The media in liberal democracies reflect the diversity of their people more than state media in a fascist dictatorship that jails dissenters, critics, and oppresses ethnic and/or gender and sexual minorities. Human rights, free speech, and a free press are the bare minimum before you tackle other problems like affinity bias in hiring. You are engaging in the logical fallacy and propaganda tactic called whataboutism.*…
I know about Whataboutism. Thanks. It’s a perfectly reasonable rthetorical strategy.[1][2] You are engaging in the logical fallacy of making a true statement about fascist dictatorships which is skewed to, by implicit comparison, imply that the thing in question is the case elsewhere (elsewhere here being liberal democracies because that’s the most common comparison and also where most people in these discussions liv…
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is just as colonialist as the US invasion of Iraq.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#927I 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 tried making some contributions and ended up getting totally put off by passive-aggressive rules-lawyering and BS. There is a certain sort of person who edit-squats pages and fights remorselessly over every change and it just wasn’t worth the time and emotional energy to try to get over that hump.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#928The 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.
[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#929Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could one of you point me to antisemitic bias on wikipedia just so I have a concrete example at hand?
Basically, almost any time Zionists are mentioned, they're mentioned in a negative light and with genuine disinformation, such as that Zionism is the belief that Arabs needs to be destroyed. That is like saying the Civil Rights movement in the US was about killing white people. They also position things in such a way that implies antisemitic things, such as saying that Zionism is only 200 years old, or discussing the…
The question was about antisemitism (hatred of Jews or Semitic people), not about Zionists, and you completely failed to point to a single example of antisemitic bias on Wikipedia, which is what you were asked to do.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#930Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's such a weirdly blatant lie. Jared Friedman endorsing DOGE https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1886672263216504853 Garry Tan hanging with a DOGE flunky https://x.com/jgebbia/status/1907181994695332295
Normally I'd rather not reply this kind of comment, but so as not to let it just sit here and be presumed to be the slam dunk it purports to be... 1) Yes, Jared posted (nearly three months ago) that DOGE reminded him of (and indeed is the same entity as) USDS, a program launched by Obama in 2014 – evidently a program that Jared liked and supported. 2) Yes, Garry was photographed with Joe Gebbia, a notable YC alum who…
[flagged]