[flagged]
Yes
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
681–690 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#682Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#683Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edits are public so other members of the community can eventually make a case against or for the actions of a dedicated maintainer. Keep trying.
Sounds like stackoverflow defenders. I'm another person who tried about 5-7 times over the years to do larger improvements all for it to go to waste. Minor edits many times survive but even those I stopped doing because of the sour effect of the larger ones getting denied.
[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#684Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Trying to psychoanalyze billionaires from afar is a losing game.
If we're going to judge these folks, judge them by their words and actions.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#685Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia has been captured by special interests. I recently watched The Silence of the Lambs, an Academy Award winning movie from the early 90s. Afterward, I skimmed the Wikipedia article to see if I missed any plot details. There is a whole section on how the movie is considered transphobic by some nobodies, how the director defends that it isn't, blah blah blah. Having just watched the film, the thought didn't eve…
That doesn't have anything to do with special interests. Literally nearly every Wikipedia page for a fictional work or creator will have a section on "controversies" or similar, if there have been any. Regardless of which political direction they go in. If it's been covered in the media or a book or whatever, it tends to be included. This is a good thing. It helps situate everything in a broader cultural context. Whe…
The problem is controversies can be embellished. In this case, the controversy focused on a minor detail among hundreds of others in a nearly two hour long film.
Is there guidance on what makes a controversy 'notable', or can anything be listed there? E.g. "Nobody blogger and her Twitter army were upset about $thing" - does that qualify? Nearly anything can be controversial, or have fabricated controversies. You see this a lot on political articles.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#686Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't have anything to do with special interests. Literally nearly every Wikipedia page for a fictional work or creator will have a section on "controversies" or similar, if there have been any. Regardless of which political direction they go in. If it's been covered in the media or a book or whatever, it tends to be included. This is a good thing. It helps situate everything in a broader cultural context. Whe…
The problem is controversies can be embellished. In this case, the controversy focused on a minor detail among hundreds of others in a nearly two hour long film. Is there guidance on what makes a controversy 'notable', or can anything be listed there? E.g. "Nobody blogger and her Twitter army were upset about $thing" - does that qualify? Nearly anything can be controversial, or have fabricated controversies. You see…
I don't know what you mean by "embellished". Are you saying the statements in Wikipedia are false?
And yes, obviously controversy will focus on the one controversial detail. There are hundreds of other details that are not controversial, so they aren't mentioned.
I don't understand why this bothers you. The world is a controversial place. It's good to document these things.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#687The 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…
Keri Smith, a former hardcore SJW activist, has documented how she and others daily targeted people through Wikipedia edits for preparing a cancel. It's quite fascinating the extend of organization and process they used. For instance, they would not directly edit the target's page, but start working 2 links removed from it, compromise the "friend of a friend of a friend", and then work towards the actual target and f…
[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#688The 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…
Wikipedia has been captured by special interests. I recently watched The Silence of the Lambs, an Academy Award winning movie from the early 90s. Afterward, I skimmed the Wikipedia article to see if I missed any plot details. There is a whole section on how the movie is considered transphobic by some nobodies, how the director defends that it isn't, blah blah blah. Having just watched the film, the thought didn't eve…
[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#689Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
The electorate self-selected into voters and non-voters, it wasn't a random sample. Some chose to go to the polls and some chose to stay at home. Voter preferences don't say a lot about the preferences of non-voters, who've already shown they choose differently.
It shouldn't be that hard for you to show some evidence things would be different then. There is nothing indicating a stronger preference to vote has anything at all to do with which direction you lean. More and less does not equal right and left, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it is relevant. Yet polling indicates things would have gone pretty much just as they went.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#690To be honest, many of the people who critize wikipedia.. just do not want to fork the content. it would be possible. they all like the work people put into it. but as soon as it does not fit the worldview anymore...
are there manipulations? sure. then more people should watch it. and wikipedia should have a better process on controversal topics in own areas.
but the whining is abysmal.