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

Post by immibis » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

kurtreed2 wrote: post #123

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…

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…

Post by immibis » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:02 PM UTC

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]

Post by grafmax » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:03 PM UTC

guerrilla wrote: post #556

buyucu wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest solution is for the Wikimedia Foundation to move out of Us jurisdiction to a more democratic country.

I don't think that would work. The US would just attack those countries as they are doing right now, trying to force us to give up DEI and ESG.

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:09 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #641

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by IceHegel » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:10 PM UTC

Fraterkes wrote: post #480

IceHegel wrote: post #391

Curtis Yarvin has a riff that goes something like this: Liberal Wikipedia, Communist Wikipedia, and Fascist Wikipedia will all actually agree on the vast majority of topics: Physics, botany, the solar system, chemistry, math, statistics etc. However they'll be worlds apart on history, economics, anthropology, sexuality, politics, previous leaders and so on. Our Wikipedia is the world seen through the eyes of the New…

Yarvin putting his intellectual mediocrity on display: the nazis, for example, dismissed relativity as "jewish science".