[dead]
Trump DOJ Threatens Wikipedia's Nonprofit Status over Alleged 'Propaganda'
31–36 of 36 posts
Re: Trump DOJ Threatens Wikipedia's Nonprofit Status over Alleged 'Propaganda'
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a seriously weird paper. They're showing different sentiment around left/right leaning people and claim lack of neutrality without even mentioning the possibility that maybe the criticised people were actually assholes. Think about the results this way: if you inserted enough praise for Hitler into Wikipedia, their result would show Wikipedia as being more neutral. What does that say about their chosen method?
The figures stretch back hundreds of years, ironically even to the team Democrats and Republicans were ideologically flipped. It shows a pretty clear bias. Just reading some of the articles confirms as such. Biden's son is credibly accused of peddling influence for cash with some of the proceeds going to his father and it's a 'conspiracy theory' (with citations from far left leaning papers and no counterbalance). Thi…
Nothing here addresses the issue I raised. How would you tell whether it's clear bias rather than genuine reflection on the people in the reviewed articles?
Re: Trump DOJ Threatens Wikipedia's Nonprofit Status over Alleged 'Propaganda'
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being competitive is not illegal and non-profits are not forbidden from creating better products. I don't understand what about that argument would be coherent.
How do I tell the difference between a profit-maximizing non-profit who says they contribute to the public using what I contributed 10 years ago to Wikipedia and thus not need to pay taxes under charity in 2025? Compared to actually helping? I would hate to be a non-profit surrounded by beggars it isn't sustainable.
There are a whole lot of propaganda-spreading non-profits with agendas which contribute much less to the public interest compared to Wikipedia. This should be the starting point of this discussion because it's apparent that in this case, the "right" propaganda isn't called out as propaganda.
Wikipedia could be a lot better but it could be a lot worse too - the current pressure tactic can only make matters worse. The key point here is that if Wikipedia cannot be tax free, nobody should be, just remove that as a legal possibility because it can be used to suppress some views and promote others simply by arbitrary definitions of "propaganda".
Re: Trump DOJ Threatens Wikipedia's Nonprofit Status over Alleged 'Propaganda'
#34Wikipedia is more vulnerable than you think, there are only around 840 administrators on the English Wikipedia, most of them who have been around for nearly 20 years. It would only take a few takedowns of major admins to disrupt the power balance on Wikipedia to a different viewpoint. The next level in the hierarchy, bureaucrats, only have 16 members. Many administrators, including one quite recently got demoted for…
What do you mean "different viewpoint"? Isn't it supposed to be neutral? Are you inadvertently making the administration's point?
Neutrality and factuality is a viewpoint. The other viewpoint is making Wikipedia a platform for propaganda and revisionisy history.
Re: Trump DOJ Threatens Wikipedia's Nonprofit Status over Alleged 'Propaganda'
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
It...defeats the entire point of nonprofit status? Are you talking about legal status or mission? Special legal status is afforded to nonprofits because (ideally) they are pursuing something that is in the public's best interest, providing some kind of service that the government does not. Should the red cross pay taxes because they pushed private blood banks and first aid companies out of business? Taxes (ideally) a…
You are correct to question the premise. I don't care about Wikipedia, I am asking about some systemic decisions from decades ago that most people take for granted these days. The Red Cross doesn't need defending because the AMA backs it up due to tax deductions and medical licensing/lobbying overlap. Yet, in this political thread, Wikipedia moderators argue that their curation is the value and that it's not politica…
If you don’t like it you don’t have to use it. Freezing Wikipedia in 2017 would be pretty bad really.
Re: Trump DOJ Threatens Wikipedia's Nonprofit Status over Alleged 'Propaganda'
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The figures stretch back hundreds of years, ironically even to the team Democrats and Republicans were ideologically flipped. It shows a pretty clear bias. Just reading some of the articles confirms as such. Biden's son is credibly accused of peddling influence for cash with some of the proceeds going to his father and it's a 'conspiracy theory' (with citations from far left leaning papers and no counterbalance). Thi…
Nothing here addresses the issue I raised. How would you tell whether it's clear bias rather than genuine reflection on the people in the reviewed articles?
Because it is statistically impossible. As I said, the parties have totally flipped at least once. Bias beyond that point makes no sense.
Democrats were pro slavery if you go back far enough. Bias still exists back then.