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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by pvg »

samtheDamned wrote: post #771
93po wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's been better for HN for the mods to treat the people they interact with as people and vice versa.

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

#852

Post by 8bitsrule »

candiddevmike wrote: post #139
r053bud wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work

Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this

According to this non-official but prestigious NPO source [0]

Trump got 49.8% of votes for president, Harris got 48.3%. Vote total ~156.3 million. A rather slim 'mandate' methinks.

[0] https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers (Council on Foreign Relations)

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

#853

Post by fugalfervor »

guywithahat wrote: post #785
CommenterPerson wrote: post #740

Let's remove nonprofit status from all churches. Because they are involved in politics

Are they though? I’ve seen people make this claim but I’ve never seen them coherently defend it outside of a rouge priest

I think you mean "rogue". The "rouge" priestess is a Game of Thrones character.

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

#855

Post by zahlman »

tomhow wrote: post #340
addandsubtract wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In before this thread is also flagged for being "political".

The only moderator action taken on this submission was to prevent it from being downweighted by community flags – 5 hours ago.

The sheer amount of flagged and dead comments here - along with the vitriol I see in some responses to flagged comments that were not themselves flagged - makes me think this was a mistake.

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

#856

Post by tim333 »

phrotoma wrote: post #565
3036e4 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I edited mostly a single page many years ago. It wasn't a controversial subject really, just one where there is a lot of garbage popular history and some light revisionism that made it a bit of an effort to remove unreliable sources and add some better sources. Never any issues or fights over it, but I got bored eventually and just let it be. Recently I edited a page or two, then tried to edit more, but everything is…

I spent like 30 minutes trying to fix a busted citation link a while ago before giving up. I write code and markdown for a living. :shrug:

They could maybe explain it better with some short youtube videos?

For citations you an usually delete the old stuff and then click 'Templates' to insert a new one. For "cite web" you can just enter the url and click the magnifying glass symbol and it automatically fills the rest.

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

#857

Post by LightHugger »

rafram wrote: post #603
LightHugger wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wikipedia presents consensus as a proxy for the truth. Pretty sure the consensus on GamerGate is that it was a misogynistic harassment campaign.

Then why are other language articles completely different? Have you gone and checked? Are all the other articles just wrong? Why is the "consensus" for the gamergate article citing direct primary sources that were involved and attacked by gamergate instead of reliable and impartial secondary sources? Nobody has even bothered addressing any of questions or points i brought up yet. Because they break the narrative.

The way the article is written is arguably biased and irrational on it's face, when reading it you should get the feeling of something being amiss and information being excluded. Sometimes you can just tell when writing is biased based on the language, it's a pattern that's good to learn.

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

#858

Post by tim333 »

klntsky wrote: post #408
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 don't want to contribute to this giant propaganda machine by making it more valuable. Structural problems must be fixed first. "If your solution consists of 'everyone should just X', you don't have a solution"

People say "propaganda machine" but I have yet to see much example of that. The Trumpists don't like it because it fact checks their lies but I'm not sure it's fair to call that propaganda? Any examples like a link to an article or section that you feel is propaganda?

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

#859

Post by LightHugger »

nulld3v wrote: post #663
LightHugger wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"Gamergate was actually 8chan communists fighting sensasionalist journalism but their message was then twisted and used against them to push people into far-right MAGA." Amazing... I can't tell if you are trolling or seriously think this.

Communists no, young progressives yes. It's kind of insane to believe that a majority audience of gamers in the year 2014 would be anything but progressive, at least until the entire media turned on them and orchestrated a misinformation campaign out of a combination of a core of malice then a majority of laziness.

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

#860

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

candiddevmike wrote: post #139
r053bud wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work

Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this

> "Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this"

I'll point out again an article about a post-election analysis by David Shor posted on HN a few weeks ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43400172): "The reality is if all registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump would’ve won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of 1.7 points]. So, I think that a 'we need to turn up the temperature and mobilize everyone' strategy would’ve made things worse."

Even as late as April 9, disapproval of the Democratic Party is higher than for the Republican Party according to Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/04/23/views-of-con...

There isn't a hidden wellspring of pro-Democratic voters to tap. The Dems are going to have to go out and fight to win people over.

Post reply on HN