I once wrote an essay on how to deal with conflict of interest problems on Wikipedia.[1] It's not that hard. It's just work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hints_on_dealing_wit...
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
951–960 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#952This admin has no shame. They’re burning everything good/stable about the US because of an unstable, megalomaniac idiot happened to win the presidency.
He didn't just happen to win the presidency. He brought with him both houses of Congress on his coattails, and he had previously filled the Supreme Court (already heavily laden with his partisans). He's not the one with no shame. It's tens of millions of Americans who are even now cheering this action on. Many of them on this web site. If we have a megalomaniac idiot, it's because it reflects who we are.
> If we have a megalomaniac idiot, it's because it reflects who we are.
s/we/his voters
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#953Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It just feels like it's too big and there are too many interests that want to distort things. I was surprised to see some article recently removed effectively rewriting history and directing to some alternative version. I just checked again and it's been restored but it just seems like the wild west. In fairness, this does mean the system is working.
Yeah- Maybe it's "eventually working". It's hard to trust when it seems so fluid. Maybe there needs to be some mechanics to make it harder to change. Something like being able to suggest changes/corrections but having those come out on some schedule after a review? (thinking software release process here). Quarterly Wikipedia releases? Creating some "core" of Wikipedia that is subject to tougher editorial standards?…
"hard to trust when it seems to fluid"
This has nothing to do with the information itself, it has to do with human emotions and resistance to change.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#954Works where archive.is is blocked:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250425235105if_/https://www.wa...
The letter:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250427075702if_/https://www.wa...
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#955Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Portuguese Wikipedia does not allow the existence of details on corruption allegations against Portuguese or Brazilian politicians. There are moderators who take care of cleaning those up, then starting harassment against users who have posted these things. I've seen one particular page, when a corruption allegation was blown up against a politically connected individual, be set up for permanent deletion (the onl…
Post some specific references. This happened to the Croatian Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation stepped in.
I am currently accumulating evidence to file the same kind of complaint that led the Croatian Wikipedia being reformed.
But in order to do that you need X amount of edits. You also need strong evidence. There are other complaints for other Wikipedias in other languages that have become biased.
You need to take into account that the Croatian Wikipedia had become a Holocaust denial website. That’s how far things had been allowed to slide.
Just look into the fact that theyre is an article about ‘Super Dragões’ which is an ultra/hooligan mafia that runs the drug trade in Porto, Portugal. They’ve been involved in multiple murders, episodes of violence, and recently their leader was arrested.
For some reason this article kept being altered/censored by two users, over literally months. They’ve successfully removed important details that link the leader of the group to an important murder (I assume they couldn’t do more).
Every single major Portuguese org. Or political figure in Portugal is like this. You add things and then it’s a fight for months to get it to stick, if you’re lucky. Here a moderator clearly acted well, but they still managed to clean some of the detail.
Or look at the article for Valentim Loureiro, where the major crimes are there, but it’s been removed that he was in fact convicted at least once. They clean up what they can.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#956Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree 100%. It's exhausting fighting against antisemitic bias, and it feels like it's everywhere these days. My problem with Ed Martin is that what he is doing is clearly wrong. Hannah Arendt wrote a book about people like him.
At a time when students are having their visas revoked merely for writing Op-Eds critical of Israel, it's rather ridiculous to see the pro-Israel side acting like you're the ones being persecuted everywhere.
Your post proves my point quite exactly. Here you busy othering Jewish people by using language like "acting like you're the ones being persecuted". JEWISH PEOPLE ARE BEING PERSECUTED. I myself have been subject to anti-semitic treatment on/off throughout my entire life. I have been called the K word in the past. Current coworkers say things even though I am not even an Israeli citizen, and then are sure to add "of course Moshe we are not talking about you"...
I don't support what happened to Mahmoud Khalil. The Trump administration is evil. I might support Israel's right to exist, but I voted for Kamala because I support the US a hell of a lot more. None of the ordinary citizens of Israel or Palestine or the US is responsible for what's happening in Israel.
https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/new-fbi-data-ref...
If you're not Jewish it might be a little difficult to understand. I know quite a few Jews who do not dare light a menorah in their window. Who don't dare fly an Israeli flag or identify themselves as Jews in any way. I am secular, but synagogues have to have armed security.
Jewish people != Israeli government.
By the way, Americans are absolutely safe traveling to Israel. You simple cannot say the same thing for almost any Arab country. Well, that's how Jews feel almost everywhere in the world.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#957Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/editing-hate-how-anti-i...
I didn't read that because the person asked for an example and you directed them to a 150 printed page article where you didn't specify which page(s) This is the equivalent of stating that dinosaurs evolved into birds then when asked for one piece of evidence directing a person to a book, by another author, on how dinosaurs evolved into birds
Look, these people spent a lot of time and energy putting together a list. It's a lot better than anything I could put together.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#958Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The question was about antisemitism (hatred of Jews or Semitic people), not about Zionists, and you completely failed to point to a single example of antisemitic bias on Wikipedia, which is what you were asked to do.
The vast majority of Jews are Zionists, and the two topics are inextricably linked. What would expect antisemitic bias on Wikipedia to look like? What would you accept as evidence?
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#959Earlier 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…
Hmm. Just the perception of fraud among the population is enough to undermine the system. We can argue whether Republicans in this case are simply playing to their base by drumming up doubt in the voting system or rigging the system for their benefit or both, but if you are going to admit that a) people who are not supposed to vote do vote b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work, you sound about as parti…
[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#960Earlier 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…
Hmm. Just the perception of fraud among the population is enough to undermine the system. We can argue whether Republicans in this case are simply playing to their base by drumming up doubt in the voting system or rigging the system for their benefit or both, but if you are going to admit that a) people who are not supposed to vote do vote b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work, you sound about as parti…
[deleted]