71–80 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preach. How much time and money will Wikipedia have to waste defending this? Don’t these people have anything better to do? Like lowering prices for everyday Americans instead of running up baseless legal bills?
[flagged]
This seems like just an attempt to change the news cycle, because there's no rule anywhere saying Wikipedia needs to be unbiased, any more than does Fox News or PragerU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that'd be a very easy 1A case.
> Yeah that'd be a very easy 1A case. The Trump admin was very creative when it came to Harvard and figured out many different pressure points to push all at once. Don't expect it to be too simple. The guys running this have thought about avoiding the easy dismissal: https://www.ortecfinance.com/en/about-ortec-finance/news-and... Just look at how the recent flag burning EO was worded in order to get around 1A concern…
The Wikimedia Foundation does not depend on US government funding and even if the US somehow made life difficult for donors, they are sitting on a substantial endowment fund that can float them for a long time.
And at some point, if the harassment gets to be too much, Wikimedia can just up and leave. There's no reason that the Wikimedia Foundation needs to be headquartered in San Francisco, it could just as easily be in Oslo or Paris. That's a huge advantage that Harvard didn't have.
This is McCarthyism. You take a polarizing word, then you attack your enemies by claiming they are that thing, and couch the whole thing in an "investigation" whose outcome is predetermined. There is no merit to discussing if the target is that thing, it doesn't matter. It's an ideological attack. If you take it on its face then the attackers win because you're treating them as if they were honest participants in a d…
It’s not a partisan fight, it’s a fight over whether or not nations, parties, or groups have a right to re-author reality through data to fit their desires.
This seems like just an attempt to change the news cycle, because there's no rule anywhere saying Wikipedia needs to be unbiased, any more than does Fox News or PragerU.
This seems like just an attempt to change the news cycle, because there's no rule anywhere saying Wikipedia needs to be unbiased, any more than does Fox News or PragerU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's time to move Wikipedia from the US to a safer haven
Real… luckily they can just hop the border into Vancouver - not as safe as Europe or east Asia, but certainly an easier ask. I wonder if they have any dedicated compute stateside, tho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that'd be a very easy 1A case.
> Yeah that'd be a very easy 1A case. The Trump admin was very creative when it came to Harvard and figured out many different pressure points to push all at once. Don't expect it to be too simple. The guys running this have thought about avoiding the easy dismissal: https://www.ortecfinance.com/en/about-ortec-finance/news-and... Just look at how the recent flag burning EO was worded in order to get around 1A concern…
If Trump wants Wikipedia gone he'll just sue them or open an investigation that never needs to ever go before a judge. Then in return for dropping the suit/investigation all they need to do is make sure that a friend of MAGA sits on the board and can make sure that certain edits get approved and others don't.
People who are surprised by this or still assuming that he can't/won't do something because of the law or norms or "but then the Democrats will do X" need to wake the fuck up.
These people are going to do whatever the fuck they want under whatever justification they can cook up, and they don't fear any repercussions because they are not planning to turn over their new-found power to anyone else.
I used to (and still am) one of the highest ranked editors you can be without becoming an administrator. Wikipedia has its problems, and I spent years fighting them- but I slowly realized there is no better way to do it. Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of truth: everything needs a reliable, secondary source[0]. This means the content has to be notable enough that a reputable source wrote about it, and you cannot refer…
But just look at what Trump is doing to the Smithsonian, one example is turning US Slavery History into something even all slaves loved. Or erasing Trump's 2 Impeachments.
You and everyone with even a little bit of smarts knows the articles that will be first targeted is US Slavery History and Trump's multiple Impeachments.