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

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601

Post by immibis »

jjmarr wrote: post #150
kurtreed2 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can look into Shira Klein and Jan Grabowski's report about how the Polish ultranationalists have distorted the Holocaust topic area on Wikipedia ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2... ) if they want to find a counterexample. To the best of my understandings so far, I think Icewhiz is a good guy, just that he doesn't have strong grasp about Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly regarding…

A month after that article was published (and shortly after the article was posted on Wikipedia), the Arbitration Committee opened a sua sponte case to review the topic area despite the substance of that article being "Icewhiz was right".[1] It resulted in bans of Icewhiz' enemies for distorting the Holocaust topic area. I think moderators on pretty much any other website would laugh and ignore an article like that a…

Link [2] doesn't appear to say what someone did wrong but you cite it as evidence for some people doing something wrong

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

#602

Post by immibis »

sedev wrote: post #213

I 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've tried this but my edit is either auto reverted for some bureaucracy violation, or the article requires extended confirmed status to edit at all.

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

#604

Post by watwut »

psychoslave wrote: post #394
watwut wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have principles.

Even "maximize the hegemonic monopolistic power of my claws" can be taken as mindset principles. Having principles is orthogonal to striving adoption of ethical fair well being for everyone.

Yeah, but they don't really seem to have that either.

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

#605

Post by rafram »

eGP9jDq_nw wrote: post #563
LightHugger wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are counterexamples where this has failed/continues to fail, the gamergate article is famously non-neutral, only accepting primary sources from journalists directly involved in the controversy. This is rather than true secondary sources with less extreme and biased views, like is supposed to be the rules there. You can switch from the english one to other languages and get completely different content with very…

[flagged]

You’re telling me there was a secret… listserv?! Truly, this conspiracy goes all the way to the top.

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

#606

Post by firesteelrain »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #291
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…

Did you read this post? "Reliable Sources: How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges Into the Public Record" https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...

Wow! I read the entire article. It sounds like this person may have a mental illness. It’s both their weakness and strength.

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

#607

Post by junon »

ArinaS wrote: post #455
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…

On Wikipedia people like Icewhiz are called "long-term abusers", and there's a public list with more than a hundred of them - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA .

This is my favorite:

> ... also known for hoaxing at List of Crayola crayon colors. Obsessed with inflatable, bursting, popping, and bouncing objects

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

#608

Post by roenxi »

foldr wrote: post #578
roenxi wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This logic will lead you to the conclusion that all news is propaganda. A lot of media groups are pretty transparently in existence for propaganda purposes, but the logic doesn't imply that. It could be a media organisation exists to make their owners money while meeting an under-served need in the community. That is why most businesses exist. It obviously isn't why the BBC exists because there are a whole bunch of…

It's mere cynicism to argue that the BBC must exist for propaganda purposes simply because the British government (very indirectly) pays for it. >we'll probably find out what the current vetting arrangements are in the 2040s We'll find out because the BBC is subject to public scrutiny. Good luck finding out about the historical vetting arrangements of CNN or Fox news! Or indeed, those of Russia Today. You only have t…

> It's mere cynicism to argue that the BBC must exist for propaganda purposes simply because the British government (very indirectly) pays for it.

So what's your complaint about RT? Because I'm seeing arguments here that suggest if it were subject to public scrutiny it isn't propaganda, if factions of the Russian government want to shut it down it isn't propaganda, if it says something critical of the Russian government it isn't propaganda. If it is funded by the Russians it isn't necessarily propaganda.

None of those arguments in defence of the BBC really get to the root of the issues, RT could sit on any pole of all those observations and it'd still be Russian propaganda. We don't need any of those details on how the sausage is being made. The issue is that the reason it exists is to push the Overton window in directions that are favourable to the state known as Russia - and the BBC serves the same purpose for Britain and hits the same triggers as RT for identifying propaganda.

> Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them.

I never put either of those things. They are both obviously untrue.

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

#609

Post by intended »

lukan wrote: post #448
Loic wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. More and more, especially in engineering, I am in contact with people who just want everything to be easy to understand in TikTok length video clips or short posts. Some things are hard to understand, dynamic systems especially, black or white answers do not exist. (Sorry for the slightly off-topic/meta rant. This hit a nerve by me.)

Well, I believe things with serious consequences like banning someone permanently - should indeed be presented clearly. Exactly because I know some organisations like to shield themself from criticism, by having a intransparent process.

You may believe your position is: > should indeed be presented clearly. Exactly because I know some organisations like to shield themself from criticism, by having a intransparent process

but

> Because it is extremely hard to figure out what is going on. Lots of mysterious abbreviations. Unclear timeline.

> But in a real court, I can see the verdict and the laws that were broken. All in complicated, but readable english. Which makes it clear (usually). But in wikipedia to understand a indefinite ban, I have to understand global wiki community dynamics first?

your position aligns with someone who desires decision with serious consequences to be easy to understand.

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

#610

Post by firesteelrain »

Arch-TK wrote: post #475
webstrand wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made an edit last year, it immediately got reverted and I got a banner on my user page for vandalism. I complained about that, other people agreed with me but the person who reverted my edits never responded. So there it sits.

If there's a dispute and the person you're having a dispute with never materialises to argue their side of the argument, you're fine to just revert the banner.

How are people supposed to understand these hard to follow and shifting rules?
Post reply on HN