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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by samtheDamned »

93po wrote: post #626
frob wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Tom. You're burning your credibility here fast as the new moderator. dang derived his respect as an admin from not getting into fights in the threads. It additonaly tarnishes your credibility as you're doing this in defense of your employer. You look like a rage-poster who has the same response copied and ready to go from thread to thread. Please take a moment to step back and examine if this is the image you want…

Alternatively, hi tom, you're a human being with opinions and you're allowed to discuss whatever you like on this site just like anyone else. i think dang is successful at moderation in part because he does have a reputation and track record of being fair and unbiased in his moderation, and i do agree showing bias in conversations can make people question moderation decisions more, but i'm not sure tom is showing bia…

Administration and participation in arguments or opinion based debates should not coincide. Using a personal account for personal issues instead of using an administrator is more respectable in my opinion.

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

#772

Post by _DeadFred_ »

nailer wrote: post #338
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is nonsense. It links to Obama's Wikipedia page and complains Obama's page doesn't talk about Benghazi. But Obama's Wikipedia page links to a huge article about.... Benghazi. So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page? Weak sauce.

> So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page? No. His complaint is: > The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi Visit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Read: > Libya > Main articles: 2011 military intervention in Libya and 2012 Benghazi attack > In February 2011, protests in Libya began against long-time dicta…

Search Benghazi on the page.

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

#773

Post by const_cast »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #704
deknos wrote: post #690

To 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.

This suggestion ignores network effects.

Right, which is one of the most valuable parts about Wikipedia (or truly any product) and should be factored in.

The information on Wikipedia is important, but the existence of Wikipedia and you and I both knowing about it is more important. This is why building up existing institutions is almost always more valuable than the "burn it all down" populist mentality we see in politics today. Just the existence of the current thing represents some inertia, some energy, some goals, and that has value.

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

#774

Post by keybored »

gitremote wrote: post #652
keybored wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media in liberal democracies don’t reflect the diversity of their people.

The media in liberal democracies reflect the diversity of their people more than state media in a fascist dictatorship that jails dissenters, critics, and oppresses ethnic and/or gender and sexual minorities. Human rights, free speech, and a free press are the bare minimum before you tackle other problems like affinity bias in hiring. You are engaging in the logical fallacy and propaganda tactic called whataboutism.*…

I know about Whataboutism. Thanks. It’s a perfectly reasonable rthetorical strategy.[1][2]

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of making a true statement about fascist dictatorships which is skewed to, by implicit comparison, imply that the thing in question is the case elsewhere (elsewhere here being liberal democracies because that’s the most common comparison and also where most people in these discussions live). Media in liberal democracies do not reflect the diversity of their people, no.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6VCzhWy-Kk

[2] How do I know? Because it’s the only reply you get 90% of the time when replying to these kinds of statements.

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

#775

Post by hodgesrm »

LordGrignard wrote: post #141
hodgesrm wrote: post #54

In my humble opinion Wikipedia is the single best thing thing to emerge from the Internet boom. Its name is a wordplay on one of the most important intellectual projects of the Enlightment.[0] The DC prosecutor letter reads like something straight out of the totalitarian playbook.[1] Please donate now to show your support. It's time to fight back against this crap. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die…

Hi I don't know if you know it but Wikipedias not that poor or hard pressed... Atleast, the whole "donate or we broke" narrative that they build every few months is complete bullshit https://youtu.be/3t8GUbzVxmQ?si=sa_oHe3DA_QmpGcE

I'm fully aware of that. The reason they get donations is that it's worth supporting.

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

#776

Post by hodgesrm »

jowea wrote: post #597
hodgesrm wrote: post #54

In my humble opinion Wikipedia is the single best thing thing to emerge from the Internet boom. Its name is a wordplay on one of the most important intellectual projects of the Enlightment.[0] The DC prosecutor letter reads like something straight out of the totalitarian playbook.[1] Please donate now to show your support. It's time to fight back against this crap. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die…

As much as a I agree with the first paragraph I don't think that is a reason to donate money.

What else would you recommend instead? Doing nothing is not a very compelling argument.

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

#777

Post by const_cast »

emacsen wrote: post #175
giraffe_lady wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could one of you point me to antisemitic bias on wikipedia just so I have a concrete example at hand?

Basically, almost any time Zionists are mentioned, they're mentioned in a negative light and with genuine disinformation, such as that Zionism is the belief that Arabs needs to be destroyed. That is like saying the Civil Rights movement in the US was about killing white people. They also position things in such a way that implies antisemitic things, such as saying that Zionism is only 200 years old, or discussing the…

Zionism, as a belief system and ideology, is one built on colonialism and manifest destiny. That's literally, plainly, what it is. Naturally, these have associations with bad things. Most colonialist movements in history were bad for the people getting colonized.

You cannot subscribe to a belief and simultaneously exempt yourself from all consequences of that belief. What I mean is, if you are a Zionist, then you believe some people should be displaced in a conquest for your people. What happens to them? You cannot say "well, we can do it without displacement" or "well, I don't believe that".

No. That is the consequence of what you belief, and you therefore MUST stand by it. You MUST believe you are entitled to the land and sovereignty of Arabs, whether you choose to articulate that belief or not.

This is something Zionists sometimes struggle to comprehend. They wish to live in an alternate reality, where they can keep their beliefs and magically get to an outcome they desire without anyone getting hurt. It doesn't work that way. If your belief hurts people, _that means you want to hurt people_.

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

#778

Post by zbobet2012 »

flask_manager wrote: post #233
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 have in the past, but three things put me off doing so now; Pages where I can spot inconsistencies are often controversial, with long dense discussion pages, edits here are almost impossible beyond trivial details. I dont mind fixing trivia, but not if the actual improvement I think I can make is rejected. There is a bit of a deletionist crusade to keep some topics small, for example, Ive had interesting trivia abo…

I've had basic facts about mathematics which are wrong deleted in revisions by editors with no knowledge of the subject beyond having asked ChatGPT (which repeats the wrong shit on Wikipedia). It's hard to be worth it. Wikipedia's biggest problem is the editors.

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

#779

Post by mystified5016 »

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…

Every time I've tried to edit Wikipedia I've been called names and bullied off the platform.

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

#780

Post by tsimionescu »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #707
tsimionescu wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree, but lets for the sake of argument assume that I buy into your premise. In terms of degrees, do people who own land and have the laws of the nation apply to you ( which is a fascinating distinction by the way, which you may have not fully thought through, but I will leave it as a tangent unless you want to explore it further here ) have more skin in the game than those who only have laws of the nation appl…

No, they have the same amount of skin in the game. Given that the state can decide to kill you, or to force you to work, land is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the law's impact.
Post reply on HN