Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes that letter is alarming. > In view of public criticisms, including those expressed by Wikipedia Co-Founder Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, regarding the opacity of editorial processes and the anonymity of contributors, what justification does the Foundation offer for shielding editors from public scrutiny? Larry Sanger has been criticizing Wikipedia for more than 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Cri…

The Heritage Foundation has been open about their desire to strip Wikipedians of anonymity, this is just the government putting that plan into practice: https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wikipedia-project-2025-...

To be more clear, it's operatives of the Heritage Foundation who now work in the government putting this into place. Does anyone think Trump actually does much day to day? He often seems completely unaware of what's going on in his own government. I invite anyway to watch his evening press conferences where he's handed a bunch of Executive Orders, is told what he's signing (he has no clue), and signs it.

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

#632
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…

> But it didn't matter, because an anonymous individual also spent years pursuing Eostrix, assembling evidence

Wait, why? If the edits were so clean and uncontroversial, what was suspicious?

Sorry for asking, the wiki talk-page links very chaotic to read.

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

#633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% of voter age Americans made a decision. That includes not registering to vote or not voting. Pretend I want a snack, I can choose between a cookie and an apple. If I dislike both then I also have the option to not get a snack. Neither is selected. This is different from not voting because a candidate still wins.

If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it. There is no incentive when there are known costs...at least since the wild inflation of the 80s when it got prohibitive to lose a shift and the slow dissolution of union jobs. This is the result of the tyranny of indifference. Those that benefit continue to promote and benefit, those that do not, are disenfranchised. It's a co…

stop. Voting is incredibly easy. Voting by mail is incredibly easy. Theres no reason you cant vote by mail. The reason people arent voting is because they dont want to/cant be assed

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

#634

Wikipedia website even says your donation goes to other projects. As a 501c3, they are banned from making political contributions. They should change from 501c3 and break off their political arm into another appropriately categorized IRS recognized model. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/wikimedia-foundation/recipi...

no, it's about using the power of the state to attack and hopefully silence your political opponents

something commonly seen in e.g. Venezuela, South Africa, and now the US

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

#635
post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A systematic effort to dismantle the federal government bypassing the legislature entirely, replacing federal employees with people who pledge loyalty to the president over the constitution, firing anybody who would hold him accountable, undermining the separation of powers in favor of an all powerful executive who treats executive orders as law, attacking media outlets and judges they disagree with and threatening t…

Consider the illegal immigration question. Tens of millions of people are in the country, knowingly in violation of the law. Many foreign criminal gangs are operating in the country. Yet the federal government was prevented from even constructing a simple wall to stop the situation getting worse. Not only that, but other authorities in the country are even declaring “sanctuary cities”, openly contravening the efforts…

The wall was a waste of tax payer money and purely theatric since it hasn’t helped. Saying illegal immigration is a problem today basically acknowledges as much if it weren’t also backed up by statistics.

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-didnt-work

No, illegal immigration is not the same as an invasion by another nation.

I don’t condone harboring criminals but if they are indeed criminals they should be tried in a court of law because that is the American way. On the other hand if these illegal immigrants are fleeing violence rather than creating it, have lived here for years and/or have kids born and raised in the US, then I can understand the grace afforded them by sanctuary cities as deporting them is not illegal but ethically questionable. Deporting someone who has never known anything but living in this country to another one they have no connection to because their parents brought or birthed them here illegally would be legal but would it be justice? I don’t think it would, I think it’s more complicated.

The true absurdity is thinking due process is optional in this country. How the party that purports an unwavering belief in the founding fathers, constitution, law, and American exceptionalism compromised so hard on a fundamental right is beyond the pale.

If it’s optional for these immigrants then it’s optional for every citizen if Trump deems it so; the precedent is set, just call someone the enemy and you’re good. Your only defense that this couldn’t happen to US citizens would be the courts and an adherence to societal and legal norms both of which Trump has shown clear indifference to.

Addendum:

Amazing, it already happened and got posted to HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43801959

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/ice-deports-3-u-s-citize...

“New Orleans, LA - Today, in the early hours of the morning, the New Orleans Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Field Office deported at least two families, including two mothers and their minor children – three of whom are U.S. citizen children aged 2, 4, and 7. One of the mothers is currently pregnant. The families, who had lived in the United States for years and had deep ties to their communities, were deported from the U.S. under deeply troubling circumstances that raise serious due process concerns.

In the case of the other family, a U.S. citizen child suffering from a rare form of metastatic cancer was deported without medication or the ability to consult with their treating physicians–despite ICE being notified in advance of the child’s urgent medical needs.“

Truly, justice in action, protecting us from criminal pregnant women and children with cancer. Probably MS13 gang members. What a great and powerful country we’ve become, Jesus would be proud /s

Look I’m not against law enforcement, I’m sure we have common ground somewhere, but how can I take the illegal immigration rhetoric seriously, take a hardline stance, if this is part of reality?

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

#636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re saying that people who owned land (and humans) as property had skin in the game while everyone else did not. Just stop.

There is no reason to conflate the two. To be frank, I explicitly stated land ( and not property as a more generic term ), which makes me question how much of a good faith of a conversation this is. My point stands on its own merits, but you seem to want to rely on cheap rhetorical theatrics a good chunk of the audience here can see through.

Okay, owning land then. My bad. All humans existing in the nation have skin in the game by the fact that they exist there. How do landowners have more of a stake?

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

#637
post #625
post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who specifically was the question.

This isn't really a hard list to compile. * Paul Graham * Mark Zuckerberg * The Ghost of Elon Musk before he fell down the alt right pipeline and now is no longer liberal-tarian. * Sundar Pichai * Jeff Bezos * Sam Altman * Jensen Huang * Tim Cook A who's who of people who felt their businesses were being threatened by the Biden administration with a starry-eyed view of how this next round might benefit them and being…

Many of those probably wanted Biden to win but don't want to antagonize Trump after he won. If I had to guess there at least Sundar and Bezos didn't want Trump to win

Elon and his loud hangers-on in the VC community have made SV look a lot more MAGA than it is

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

#638
"Trump appointee Ed Martin accuses the online encyclopedia of “allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.” April 25, 2025 at 6:54 p.m. EDT"

How about these wankers turn their attention to their own administration ...

Oh, pardon me ... what a ludicrous thing to suggest.

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

#639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that depends on your viewpoint. Those who come from a "democrat" background will certainly consider Trump to be more controversial than Obama while those from a Republican background will see Obama - especially second-term Obama - as far more controversial than Trump. Independents will vary on their interpretation but Obama is not likely to end up in the history books as the 'Change agent' he promised to be and w…

It's hard to take you seriously when you employ 'democrat' background and Republican as contrasting terms. Referring to the Democratic party and its supporters is more easily effected by saying [the] Democrats . This sort of baity rhetoric undermines any aspirations to objectivity.

You can look through (and may already have done so) my comment history for my explanation for putting "democratic" between quotes. In short it is because the party is not democratic and thus should not be called such. Had they been democratic they'd have run Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton, they'd have had primaries where there were none, they'd have allowed people like RFK and Tulsi Gabbard to have a shot at the candidacy (and might have won the presidency that way, more fool them). The "democratic" party is run by the DNC, not by its constituents. It does not listen to those constituents, the people or 'δημος' ('dèmos', Greek for 'municipality' or 'city', i.e. the people) in 'δημοκρατία'. If and when the party becomes true to its moniker I'll call them by their chosen name, until such a time they're the "democratic" party. Truth in advertising is a good thing after all.

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

#640
post #618
post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The British government has repeatedly tried and failed to shutdown the BBC. They have repeatedly withdrawn funding. MI5 have had agents deployed inside the BBC to try and subvert it. As of 2017, it runs by royal assent, and there is just about bukpus that the Parliament can do about it. Because at the same time, funding was moved to a trust, to prevent political interference - a trust that both main parties attempted…

My eye is drawn to the section: > The various foreign services of the BBC have always been tied, in some manner, to the national interest. In the 2017 Agreement, that means the Foreign Secretary. Article 33.6 (right) is subject to the Mission and the Public Purposes of the BBC as defined in the Charter, but it supersedes Article 3 (independence). > Taking account of the strategy and the budget it has set, the BBC wil…

> (9) In addition to the specific provisions of paragraphs (4) to (8), the relationship between the Foreign Secretary and the BBC for the provision of the World Service is based on the following principles-

> (a) the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence and integrity in the provision of the World Service, within the structure of the Charter and this Framework Agreement;

> (b) in particular, the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of delivering the World Service; and

> (c) subject to compliance with the Charter and this Framework Agreement the BBC may generate other sources of income for the World Service.

Post reply on HN