Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney • Hacker News Board

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

#711

Post by dlubarov » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

user3939382 wrote: post #584

BrtByte wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia isn't immune to influence campaigns - honestly, no open platform is - but the key difference is how seriously the community takes it. The amount of volunteer effort that goes into investigating sockpuppets, enforcing sourcing standards, and maintaining some kind of neutrality is incredible when you step back and think about it.

Neutrality? I’ve never seen an English language wikipedia article on a politically controversial topic that wasn’t the DC establishment/State Dept official take. They listed Greyzone as an unreputable new source because it’s pro-Palestinian. When you Google the usernames of those who voted to ban them pro Israeli think tanks from DC come up. Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to politics. If you’re lucky you can find…

As a long-term editor, this is pretty off base. The discussion [1] that led to Grayzone being deprecated had almost nothing to do with Israel/Palestine. Meanwhile most Israel/Palestine articles are driven by Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, and similar sources, while many Jewish sources (ADL, Jewish Chronicle, NGO Monitor, etc) are banned or restricted.

One example of a heavily debated neutrality issue was the opening paragraph of the Zionism article, which ended up like this. Surely noone would call this remotely pro-Israel? "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...

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

#712

Post by kurtreed2 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:16 PM UTC

20after4 wrote: post #553

lukan wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's pretty straightforward but nothing on Wikipedia is really black-and-white. Most decisions are made through a consensus process. It's really quite different from what most people are used to. A good place to start for information about how user blocking is done would be the following links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guideli... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy http…

That's right. Often due process is skipped even if the blocks turn out to be errors or collateral damages later. It's not going to be 100% perfect at all because stylometries can be obfuscated (see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7345380/) and there are tools like VNC and residential proxy applications to evade IP-based tracing and detection.

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

#713

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:16 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #662

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hesitated while reading this part, because I wholly agreed with the first 2 sentences. Do you mean physically difficult in terms of barriers to voting or making a less direct comment about the usefulness of that vote? If the former, I think I disagree compared to other countries ( and the levels of paperwork needed ). If the latter, I would be interested to hear some specifics.

Physically more difficult. Purging voter rolls. Moving polling locations. Voter ID requirements. Restrictions on mail in ballots. Etc.

I willing to give you moving polling locations, but with that minor concession.

Can you explain to me like I am 5 why those are bad things? For a simple person like myself, one would think, data accuracy, voting system integrity, and verifiability would be of use and value to everyone.

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

#714

Post by EasyMark » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:17 PM UTC

He's just mad that there are references to Trump's facism on there. I hope Americans aren't stupid enough to think that nonprofits can only exist if they support MAGA propaganda and fascism. One such article that he has no doubt skimmed and turned red in the face at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism

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

#715

Post by kurtreed2 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:18 PM UTC

potato3732842 wrote: post #592

20after4 wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "deletionist" tendency is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. At least it's the main thing that prevents me from making significant contributions. I say tendency, but maybe it really is more of a crusade. Deletion and rejection definitely seem to be the default "predisposition." I've seen a lot of examples of apparently well meaning contributors being pushed away by the need to establish "notabili…

Exactly. It makes it basically impossible to get niche industry/trade information and history onto wikipedia unless it was so newsworthy it's covered everywhere.

Yet when I (or others) are trying to raise the issue on certain Reddit communities in addition to Lemmy people there still prefer to bury their heads in the sand. Often they'll simply resort to personal attacks and so on just to avoid facing the fact that Wikipedia is not as infalliable as they think at all.

Example:

https://lemmy.world/comment/14158030

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

#716

Post by psychoslave » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:19 PM UTC

Braxton1980 wrote: post #335

Supermancho wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it. I agree but it doesn't actually matter. 97% can vote by mail, early, or another method besides election day according to this article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/map-early-voting-mail-ballot-st... >There is no incentive when there are known costs... is the result of the tyranny of indifference. What is the cause of the Indif…

Who said people are indifferent?

They can still actively engage in civil life with a variety of actions that look more relevant and meaningful to them.

If people are not given opportunity to actively engage in meaningful way like contributing to the creation of the laws they will have to follow, then sure they sooner than later they won't bother signing the blank check of void promises.

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

#717

Post by eastbound » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:21 PM UTC

shakna wrote: post #576

eastbound wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people don't seem to care about any evidence or sources. They blindly follow whatever lies that their leaders say. I’m one of those people you complain about. When I did deep research about DEI, I presented evidence and sources to people like you, including judges that I knew in my private life. It seems you didn’t care, to a point that I had in my hand a document printed from a department of justice’s own web…

"given the scope you decide to choose" By changing the scope, you changed the effect. Unless you did every statistical validation here... Yeah. That reads exactly like data manipulation. t-distribution approaches standard normal distribution, when the degree of freedom increases. That's not something that anyone should ignore and give credit to. It's the same bullshit that Donald has repeatedly tried to do, to prove…

That’s not what the judge argued. He accused me of falsifying the document by doctoring it before printing.

Which shows:

- How much bad faith you have, assuming I argumented to a judge on a false hypothesis,

- Condescension to assume that I’m not a scientist who masters p-values,

- And ultimately, you confirm the hypothesis that you lead your research in bad faith, knowing full well the true level of violence from women and hiding it, which leads to more child deaths. You are accessory to criminality.

Your attitude confirm as well that it’s good this entire field of researched be defunded, it is a net win for science.

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

#718

Post by kurtreed2 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:22 PM UTC

breppp wrote: post #439

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…

> I don't think there's any website that has successfully navigated that minefield as well as Wikipedia. I don't believe this is the case, the Israeli/Palestine are restricted to long-time contributors, so the articles are either messy and unmaintained due to lack of editors, or worse, edited only by members of influence campaigns who have scared away everyone else

That's right. They only survived because competitions were crushed out with both network effects, and the help of Google which reportedly prioritizes Wikipedia in search results while downranking any others which could challenge Wikipedia.

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

#719

Post by aaron695 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

hnlmorg wrote: post #567

albumen wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

[dead]

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

#720

Post by kurtreed2 » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:24 PM UTC

myself248 wrote: post #694

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 done a fair bit of editing over almost 20 years. Some of my photos are featured in small articles, and I've only had a few of my edits reverted, always for sensible reasons. It's easy to get started, and the pitfalls (chiefly, adding commentary without a source) are well documented. So on that basis, I agree. Please edit. It's easy. Start small. That said, I've watched entire articles vanish under the banner of…

This needs to be talked by a lot! However per my experiences and those of others if you go to either the "front page of the internet" or Lemmy the competitor you'll get side-eyed and harassed by people who thinks that you're a "far-right obscurantist" for simply criticizing Wikipedia.