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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by tsimionescu »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #512
tsimionescu wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the wonderful time of enlightenment when all straight white Christian land-owning men's rights became recognized, not just the nobility's. Just a few short centuries from there, the rights of poorer white men, children, women, people of any other skin color, non-Christian, and LGBT people would be recognized too.

You jest, but skin in the game is argument is not irrelevant. It is called a franchise for a reason after all. You want a slice of the pie, you should be able to prove that you know what you are doing. Owning land was a good enough proxy then. We can argue what would be a good proxy now.

Having the laws of the nation apply to you means you have skin in the game when it comes to deciding what those laws are. Owning something, land or whatever else, doesn't give you even one iota more "skin the game" than those that don't.

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

#642

Post by southernplaces7 »

A worrying thing about this, along with a few other examples such as the case of Harvard, is how branches of the federal government are using tax regulations, legal structure status and grant rules as mechanisms for openly threatening certain types of tendencies and practices in what are basically independent organizations. I don't know how novel it is for the feds to do this, but it's a chilling technique that sets dangerous regulatory precedents on speech control in a legal system that "supposedly" protects free speech.

I could argue that it's ironic coming from the supposedly free speech-obsessed Trump government, but given how bloviatingly, mendaciously hypocritical that particular swine is, there's nothing surprising here at all.

Also, nice to see the WaPo actually covering this, considering Jeff Bezos more recent and not so subtle sucking up to Trump.

Edit: and Yes, this tendency I mention above is much more worrying than any idiotic authoritarian canard about "spreading misinformation and propaganda".

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

#643

Post by exceptione »

chii wrote: post #566
exceptione wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, you shouldn't. Because propaganda is effective. Humans are by default not influenced by logic, but rather respond on beliefs and emotions. This is one of the hardest thing to swallow for us people, we do see ourself as independent rational thinkers. We are sometimes able to, with effort. To understand it better, you should know that Russian propaganda is not designed to instill a certain belief, but rather to m…

> We are sometimes able to, with effort. and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort, because otherwise, people and democracy gets taken over. It's one's civic duty to ensure that you are not making choices based on lies or manipulations.

> and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort,

Agreed. But I would add that one shouldn't stick their head into stuff that is deliberately trying to steer you away from the truth and seeks to undermine your moral compass.

I think it would help people immensely if they first could filter their sources on intent and principles. The Guardian is a better source than the newspapers from North Korea.

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

#644

Post by ripe »

roenxi wrote: post #543
foldr wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint. It’s good to be aware of media bias, but it’s reductive and cynical to view all media as propaganda.

> The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint. If it isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down? Why would they be funding something that was pushing viewpoints that undermined Britain? This is simple incentive analysis stuff, this organisation isn't being funded for billions o…

> RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda.

False equivalence.

By your logic, any government support automatically makes an outlet propaganda. So, NPR and PBS would also be propaganda, since they get a small grant.

RT and other Russian-sponsored outlets, in case you didn't know, try to both push the state narrative, and push conflicting conspiracy theories in different markets to convince people that there is no objective truth.

Like, for example, claiming that reliable Western news sources are government propaganda...

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

#645

Post by skywalqer »

immibis wrote: post #595
lxgr wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience (of also roughly 20 years ago), the German Wikipedia is as dysfunctional as it gets. The primary goal of the admins seemed to be to gatekeep, in particular to keep “unencyclopedic” content out at all cost, e.g. by contesting the very existence of articles on individual episodes of TV shows, software, or video games, which are all completely uncontroversial on the English one. “Just because it’s relev…

[flagged]

Yeah, Palestinians are indeed Semites, however, the word antisemitism (for historic reasons) is used to refer specifically to hatred of Jews. It makes historical sense that Germans are afraid to criticize the Jews.

I probably disagree with your opinions, but the debate would likely be useless.

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

#646

Post by firesteelrain »

blibble wrote: post #634
firesteelrain wrote: post #627

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

I understand the sentiment but all they have to do is create a PAC for political stuff not under 501c3

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

#647

Post by nulld3v »

immibis wrote: post #601
jjmarr wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The "Findings of Fact" section has a bunch of examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Reques...

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

#648

Post by jzb »

sgc wrote: post #323
mulmen wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also no evidence that increased turnout would have had the same result. What seems to be overlooked in these conversations is the skill with which American voters have been disenfranchised by partisan forces. It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

That an enormous sample size. Statistically a complete participation should be very close, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim it would be different. Regardless of whether Trump would have won or not, that is a clear indication of evenly split public sentiment. So we still get to justly reap the fruits of our collective choices. There is no exoneration by whimsically dreaming of improbable alternatives.…

"I don't think it is that hard to vote"

Says a person commenting on HN that almost certainly isn't in a demographic that it has been made intentionally difficult to register, stay registered, and get time off an hourly job to stand in line for hours to vote.

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

#649

Post by maigret »

barotalomey wrote: post #622
hnlmorg wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t mean what everyone is familiar with it. For example I’ve been around since internet slang first developed a life of its own. And yet I wasn’t immediately familiar with SJW either.

In 2025, most online users have learned how to look things up using.. the internet.

Of course, but if everyone does it, it is very inconvenient to read and in some case leaves unnecessary space for misunderstanding. Usually, acronyms are followed by the full wording the first time they are mentioned.

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

#650

Post by maigret »

albumen wrote: post #546
maigret wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is SJW? Please avoid using unclear acronyms.

Social Justice Warrior. The acronym has been around for a long time.

Thanks. Seems to be a US-centric word from my understanding then.
Post reply on HN