5 ms·

When the WMF announced the creation of an endowment with the Tides Foundation in January 2016, on Wikipedia’s 15th birthday, its goal was to accumulate $100 mil

When the WMF announced the creation of an endowment with the Tides Foundation in January 2016, on Wikipedia’s 15th birthday, its goal was to accumulate $100 million over 10 years, as “a permanent source of funding to ensure Wikipedia thrives for generations to come.” Just five years later, the endowment passed $90 million, and the $100 million mark, now described as an “initial goal,” will be reached this year. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/tides-foundation/ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/tides-foundation/ Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance.

Gareth321 5y ago
This is extremely interesting, and explains my experiences with the obvious shift in moderation to an Americanised left-leaning perspective. It has been quite jarring to see something I had so much trust in undermined by America's identity war.
kodah 5y ago
> The Tides Foundation is a major center-left grantmaking organization and a major pass-through funder to numerous left-leaning nonprofits. The fact that they declare themselves center-left is not a violation of 501(c)(3)?
- calcifer 5y ago
  No? What provision do you think are they violating?
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
  Why would it be?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I forget the precise rules on political activity, but when the IRS investigated what was (blatent, IIRC) violations of it by right-wing organizations several years ago, the right and GOP pointed their propaganda cannons at the IRS and its head, a non-partisan public servant, making it clear that such rules were not to be enforced (and the rule of law is inferior to the GOP).
  - mleonhard 5y ago
    Would you please share some links to more info about this?
    - weeblewobble 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy#:~:text=In%20late%20September%202017%2C%20an,an%20Obama%2Dera%20partisan%20scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy#:~:t....
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      It should be easy to find plenty, but here is one from the end of the saga: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting...
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  What you're quoting is InfluenceWatch's description of the Tides Foundation, not their description of themselves. Their own description (from their About page) is "Tides is a philanthropic partner and nonprofit accelerator dedicated to building a world of shared prosperity and social justice."
- labster 5y ago
  IANAL but declaring a political leaning is not the same as supporting a candidate for public office. Many, many political 527s have an associated 501(c)3 or (c)4 to handle donations for their charitable work, like the obviously left-leaning MoveOn.org.
SquishyPanda23 5y ago
> Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance. I'm curious to hear what you think Wikipedia's political stance is?
- wrycoder 5y ago
  Take the large number of science articles that have become politicized. Next, please name a couple of them that don't support the left side of the argument.
  - jacobsenscott 5y ago
    If there are a large number of these articles post a few examples. Posting articles where "the left side" and the scientific consensus happen to align is cheating of course. There are a lot of those.
    - Gareth321 5y ago
      I am not OP but I would cite the covid-19 article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 There is research to support all kinds of propositions regarding the vaccine's efficacy and safety. Of topical consideration is its efficacy in reduction of transmission. The article has been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which cite the current research that the vaccine is less effective at reducing transmission against more recent strains of covid-19; and especially compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that mask efficacy in reducing transmission for children is questionable at best, and also demonstrably harmful. Citation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1044767/Evidence_summary_-_face_coverings.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that vaccine efficacy wanes rather quickly compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 Further, all mention of "natural immunity" has been scrubbed (and future updates are being removed) discussing the reality that those who have already recovered from covid-19 possess natural immunity to the virus which is at least as effective as vaccines. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/ These are all relevant and credible citations to an article discussing many aspects of the virus, yet they are being actively removed. I feel the need to postface my comments with the disclaimer that I love vaccines and have three covid-19 vaccines already, and am prepared to receive more. My comments are purely to provide a relevant and factual example to support OP's premise that there is some form of bias present in moderation of Wikipedia now. This bias is extremely difficult to quantify and qualify because there are millions of layers of bureaucracy built into Wikipedia's moderation system. It is almost ungovernable now, and those who have attained sufficient power and coordination can and do use that power to affect bias.

Gareth321 5y ago

This is extremely interesting, and explains my experiences with the obvious shift in moderation to an Americanised left-leaning perspective. It has been quite jarring to see something I had so much trust in undermined by America's identity war.

kodah 5y ago

> The Tides Foundation is a major center-left grantmaking organization and a major pass-through funder to numerous left-leaning nonprofits. The fact that they declare themselves center-left is not a violation of 501(c)(3)?

calcifer 5y ago
No? What provision do you think are they violating?
YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
Why would it be?
wolverine876 5y ago
I forget the precise rules on political activity, but when the IRS investigated what was (blatent, IIRC) violations of it by right-wing organizations several years ago, the right and GOP pointed their propaganda cannons at the IRS and its head, a non-partisan public servant, making it clear that such rules were not to be enforced (and the rule of law is inferior to the GOP).
- mleonhard 5y ago
  Would you please share some links to more info about this?
  - weeblewobble 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy#:~:text=In%20late%20September%202017%2C%20an,an%20Obama%2Dera%20partisan%20scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy#:~:t....
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    It should be easy to find plenty, but here is one from the end of the saga: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting...
chipotle_coyote 5y ago
What you're quoting is InfluenceWatch's description of the Tides Foundation, not their description of themselves. Their own description (from their About page) is "Tides is a philanthropic partner and nonprofit accelerator dedicated to building a world of shared prosperity and social justice."
labster 5y ago
IANAL but declaring a political leaning is not the same as supporting a candidate for public office. Many, many political 527s have an associated 501(c)3 or (c)4 to handle donations for their charitable work, like the obviously left-leaning MoveOn.org.

SquishyPanda23 5y ago

> Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance. I'm curious to hear what you think Wikipedia's political stance is?

wrycoder 5y ago
Take the large number of science articles that have become politicized. Next, please name a couple of them that don't support the left side of the argument.
- jacobsenscott 5y ago
  If there are a large number of these articles post a few examples. Posting articles where "the left side" and the scientific consensus happen to align is cheating of course. There are a lot of those.
  - Gareth321 5y ago
    I am not OP but I would cite the covid-19 article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 There is research to support all kinds of propositions regarding the vaccine's efficacy and safety. Of topical consideration is its efficacy in reduction of transmission. The article has been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which cite the current research that the vaccine is less effective at reducing transmission against more recent strains of covid-19; and especially compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that mask efficacy in reducing transmission for children is questionable at best, and also demonstrably harmful. Citation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1044767/Evidence_summary_-_face_coverings.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that vaccine efficacy wanes rather quickly compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 Further, all mention of "natural immunity" has been scrubbed (and future updates are being removed) discussing the reality that those who have already recovered from covid-19 possess natural immunity to the virus which is at least as effective as vaccines. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/ These are all relevant and credible citations to an article discussing many aspects of the virus, yet they are being actively removed. I feel the need to postface my comments with the disclaimer that I love vaccines and have three covid-19 vaccines already, and am prepared to receive more. My comments are purely to provide a relevant and factual example to support OP's premise that there is some form of bias present in moderation of Wikipedia now. This bias is extremely difficult to quantify and qualify because there are millions of layers of bureaucracy built into Wikipedia's moderation system. It is almost ungovernable now, and those who have attained sufficient power and coordination can and do use that power to affect bias.