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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by whatthesmack »

fugalfervor wrote: post #841
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population, one that reliably skews in one direction on the political spectrum. However, there is no evidence that voter ID laws reduce fraud, nor is there evidence that the absence of such laws introduces fraud. Something like 90% of voter fraud is people making mistakes on their ballot, or not realizing they were not allowed to vote. Also, voter…

> Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population

Can you prove that? I've never read about a single case of somebody being unable to obtain a government photo ID who was legitimately eligible to vote. People need their photo IDs for pretty much everything these days. That's why voter ID is a requirement in most countries. Because it's reasonable, it makes sense, and it benefits society more than any theoretical, unproven harm.

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

#892

Post by fugalfervor »

whatthesmack wrote: post #891
fugalfervor wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population, one that reliably skews in one direction on the political spectrum. However, there is no evidence that voter ID laws reduce fraud, nor is there evidence that the absence of such laws introduces fraud. Something like 90% of voter fraud is people making mistakes on their ballot, or not realizing they were not allowed to vote. Also, voter…

> Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population Can you prove that? I've never read about a single case of somebody being unable to obtain a government photo ID who was legitimately eligible to vote. People need their photo IDs for pretty much everything these days. That's why voter ID is a requirement in most countries. Because it's reasonable, it makes sense, and it benefits socie…

> I've never read about a single case of somebody being unable to obtain a government photo ID who was legitimately eligible to vote

That doesn't mean your opinion is true. I don't know how much or how widely you read, nor do I know how varied your sources are. That you have never read an anecdote describing my assertion does not mean my assertion is false.

You can read more about the effects of voter ID laws (according to research) here:

https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-identification

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

#893

Post by sgc »

ellen364 wrote: post #757
sgc wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know if voters and non-voters have the same political leanings. It isn't something I've ever looked into. My observation was merely that measures of statical confidence assume random samples. Extrapolating from a non-random sample can give odd results. But this isn't a research paper, so it doesn't much matter.

You are reading too much into it. If I study runners, I should presume the study will apply to those who don't run should they become runners, unless I have evidence otherwise. All the more since many runners were once non-runners. It's not obviously a confounding factor, that would need to be demonstrated. And as I and others have already said, the actual studies indicate the results would have been the same in this election.

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

#894

Post by dredmorbius »

foogazi wrote: post #310
kristopolous wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

One time sure, 150+ on the Russia propaganda network ? I’m drawing my own adult conclusions about it: “The friend of my enemy is my enemy”

“To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

― Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

150 times is a lot of carelessness.

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

#895

Post by dredmorbius »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #809
firesteelrain wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are people supposed to understand these hard to follow and shifting rules?

The base rules are actually not very complicated. But any time you try to write them down, people will come along and interpret them to their own advantage, sometimes outright in the opposite direction. That's a people problem, to some extent, not purely a Wikipedia problem. (BRD is my favorite pet-peeve)

BOLD, revert, discuss, for those unfamiliar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus...>

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

#896

Post by zeroonetwothree »

douglasisshiny wrote: post #631
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Heritage Foundation has been open about their desire to strip Wikipedians of anonymity, this is just the government putting that plan into practice: https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wikipedia-project-2025-...

To be more clear, it's operatives of the Heritage Foundation who now work in the government putting this into place. Does anyone think Trump actually does much day to day? He often seems completely unaware of what's going on in his own government. I invite anyway to watch his evening press conferences where he's handed a bunch of Executive Orders, is told what he's signing (he has no clue), and signs it.

Too bad there's not a maximum age for being elected president.

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

#897

Post by zeroonetwothree »

mjrpes wrote: post #56

Here's the letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcp... No claims, no evidence. No sources, except "it has come to my attention" and "information received by my office".

This isn't a trial, the government doesn't have to submit evidence about any wrongdoing. It's just a letter asking for additional information. Now are the government's motivations for this legitimate in this case? Perhaps not, but they do have a right to ask.

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

#898

Post by asveikau »

kristopolous wrote: post #816
asveikau wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the first two. So she was a guest on panelist/talking head shows about her antiwar positions. I know about Chris Hedges. I wasn't asking about him.

Mostly I'm sensitive to the classic technique of scapegoating an external enemy as the source of failure for a poorly done internal policy. Whether it's Jews, Russians, Communists, leftists, the Chinese, immigrants, it's always some infiltrating evildoer and not the failure of policy. It's purely ideologically driven because these accusers think their thing being sabotaged, whether it's an economic policy, a candidat…

I think this is a naive position that likely comes from lack of exposure to Russian propaganda. It doesn't take much to discover that RT is illegitimate.

I think people who haven't figured this out do get sucked into it without realizing what they are.

It's similar to Fox News, but I would say worse.

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

#899

Post by qingcharles »

joenot443 wrote: post #673
qingcharles wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been an editor since 2004. It's getting really, really hard now. Like, it is really off-putting and no longer enjoyable.

21 years of editing, that's awesome! I'm curious though, what's changed? If I were to maybe guess, I'd imagine it coincides with the rising temperature of the online culture war?

You tend to have to get all your ducks 100% in a row before you edit or create. It used to be I could author a new article with some decent solid sources and there would be no argument. Then someone later would come and fix any deficiencies and maybe switch out the sources for better ones.

Basically, it's become "perfect is the enemy of good."

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

#900

Post by zeroonetwothree »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #665
rayiner wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting. Society determining that categories of people shouldn’t vote (children, felons, non-citizens, etc.) isn’t voter suppression, it’s simply establishing qualifications for voting. The goal isn’t to get to 0 or try to get as close to 0 as possible. People who should vote should be able to vote, while people who shouldn’t vote shouldn’t be abl…

> No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting. Next you will tell us all how easy it is for all Americans to get drivers ids / similar licensing right? > Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking. Ah. There it is.

> Next you will tell us all how easy it is for all Americans to get drivers ids / similar licensing right?

91% of Americans have driver licenses. So apparently it's not that hard?

Post reply on HN