10 ms·

It’s not just they are flush with cash. It’s they are funding and fanning the culture war despite claiming to be a neutral party. Some of their funds are being

It’s not just they are flush with cash. It’s they are funding and fanning the culture war despite claiming to be a neutral party. Some of their funds are being routed to political entities that are not neutral. Edit: here’s a link to a thread about what I mean: https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633?s=46&t=N14cTVCGocIEOl0xlRY40g https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633?s=46&...

e12e 4y ago
Free access to knowledge isn't a neutral position. But I gather you think wmf is doing something beyond this? Which side, of which culture war do they support, in your view?
- mgamache 4y ago
  They clearly support a left ideology by the editors, but I’m not even talking about that. I mean they send money to support far left anti-science groups. https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579779097278181378?s=46&t=N14cTVCGocIEOl0xlRY40g https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579779097278181378?s=46&...
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    You have a strange definition of far-left, didn't see a single Maoist insurrection in that Twitter link. Curse of American politics, I guess, when one considers the Democrats to be "left leaning", then your whole political perception is skewed. (The Democrats are significantly to the right of our centre-right party. People who call them lefties or socialists or commies amuse, confuse, and bemuse me.)
    - concordDance 4y ago
      There isn't a single left-right axis. Instead it's many dimensional.
      - the_only_law 4y ago
        That’s a bit too complex for the average HN poster.
    - mgamache 4y ago
      In this case far-left mean groups that are opposed to objectivity and support adding bias to science. This is the 2+2=5 crowd. They can believe whatever they want, but this is not science and is born out of neo-Marxist ideology.
      - e12e 4y ago
        Where can I read more about this neo-Marxist ideology, that apparently borrows from Marx (certainly pro-science) to somehow become anti-science?
        mgamache 4y ago
        Wait you think Marx was pro science? He denied the supernatural, but like all ideologies reality is secondary to dogmatism. Don't forget he was routed in Hegel. See Lysenkoism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism Marx's ideas were refined by Antonio Gramsci who offered social Hegemony as a means to achieve the utopia. To the extent that science is a sense-making part of society it must be taken over by pro-marxist/communist forces. It's the only way to assure the success of marxism. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300112 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.93001...
        skyyler 4y ago
        Using Lysenko as evidence that Marx was anti-science is kinda weird. Stalin had thousands of Lysenko's critics imprisoned, I dunno how Marx would feel about that, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be particularly positive. What does Hegel have to do with anything here? Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...
        eurleif 4y ago
        >Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"... Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations when Hegel was 5 years old, and died when Hegel was 19, and hadn't published anything yet.
    - soundnote 4y ago
      They are leftists. The woke ideology has a clear geneaology to Marx. Of course, they are not economic class focused leftists by any stretch of the imagination - bourgeoisie champagne socialists who've re-engineered the Marxian thinking style to focus on social identities, which makes it really easy to purport to care for the oppressed. It's very high quality champagne socialism. But it's still leftist in origin and in ideology. Saying the modern wokified U.S. Left isn't leftist is just a No True Scotsman argument. Leftism and rightism are not narrow, specific things, they're more like inchoate moral intuitions that are given more concrete form by ideology and realpolitik. Individual leftist or rightist ideologies are often contradictory with each other. But the underlying sentiment is usually still recognizable as one or the other.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Democrats are not a left party. They are squarely center, maybe even center right. As someone who is a communist, the Dems have nothing to do with Marx, and they are about as capitalist as they come.
        Cthulhu_ 4y ago
        Even the formally communist country of china semes to be capitalist in truth. To the point where they will likely overtake the US as the richest country in the world.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        I think that's widely accepted, yeah. Deng Xiaoping changed a bunch of stuff that kept a lot of the authoritarianism but added capitalism.
        md2020 4y ago
        Nobody said the causes the foundation is funneling money to are Democrat causes, though. They’re something entirely different.
- 3np 4y ago
  From elsewhere ITT: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579778161889652736.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579778161889652736.html
ghusto 4y ago
This. I stopped donating when I saw how politicised they were. People are people, and will have opinions about things. People of a kind will naturally group together. This is all fine, but it becomes a problem when one of the things that make what you produce worthwhile is neutrality, and you can't keep your politics in your pants.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  I don't really believe these claims of "Wokepedia", because no-one making these claims has presented actual evidence. I'm sure you have some though, otherwise commenting as you did would mean you'd be as guilty of "not keeping your politics in your pants" as you accuse Wikipedia of being.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > I don't really believe these claims of "Wokepedia" I expect this would qualify. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund which also links to: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/06/03/we-stand-for-racial-justice/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/06/03/we-stand-for... Most people would probably place a lot of this firmly in the "woke" category.
    - jwond 4y ago
      > The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege Well then. That makes it perfectly clear that Wikimedia is under the sway of partisan activists.
preommr 4y ago
This is meaningless without stating the context of what you consider violation of neutrality. True neturality is basically an impossible target.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  True neutrality is something like centrism; it's a weird unopinionated or compromising middle ground that only works in theory. There's a comic out there, one side advocates for genocide, the other opposes it; the centrists are like "let's have a little genocide, as a compromise".
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > True neturality is basically an impossible target That's probably true, but Wikipedia isn't even pretending to try.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

e12e 4y ago

Free access to knowledge isn't a neutral position. But I gather you think wmf is doing something beyond this? Which side, of which culture war do they support, in your view?

mgamache 4y ago
They clearly support a left ideology by the editors, but I’m not even talking about that. I mean they send money to support far left anti-science groups. https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579779097278181378?s=46&t=N14cTVCGocIEOl0xlRY40g https://twitter.com/echetus/status/1579779097278181378?s=46&...
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  You have a strange definition of far-left, didn't see a single Maoist insurrection in that Twitter link. Curse of American politics, I guess, when one considers the Democrats to be "left leaning", then your whole political perception is skewed. (The Democrats are significantly to the right of our centre-right party. People who call them lefties or socialists or commies amuse, confuse, and bemuse me.)
  - concordDance 4y ago
    There isn't a single left-right axis. Instead it's many dimensional.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      That’s a bit too complex for the average HN poster.
  - mgamache 4y ago
    In this case far-left mean groups that are opposed to objectivity and support adding bias to science. This is the 2+2=5 crowd. They can believe whatever they want, but this is not science and is born out of neo-Marxist ideology.
    - e12e 4y ago
      Where can I read more about this neo-Marxist ideology, that apparently borrows from Marx (certainly pro-science) to somehow become anti-science?
      - mgamache 4y ago
        Wait you think Marx was pro science? He denied the supernatural, but like all ideologies reality is secondary to dogmatism. Don't forget he was routed in Hegel. See Lysenkoism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism Marx's ideas were refined by Antonio Gramsci who offered social Hegemony as a means to achieve the utopia. To the extent that science is a sense-making part of society it must be taken over by pro-marxist/communist forces. It's the only way to assure the success of marxism. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300112 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.93001...
        skyyler 4y ago
        Using Lysenko as evidence that Marx was anti-science is kinda weird. Stalin had thousands of Lysenko's critics imprisoned, I dunno how Marx would feel about that, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be particularly positive. What does Hegel have to do with anything here? Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...
        eurleif 4y ago
        >Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"... Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations when Hegel was 5 years old, and died when Hegel was 19, and hadn't published anything yet.
  - soundnote 4y ago
    They are leftists. The woke ideology has a clear geneaology to Marx. Of course, they are not economic class focused leftists by any stretch of the imagination - bourgeoisie champagne socialists who've re-engineered the Marxian thinking style to focus on social identities, which makes it really easy to purport to care for the oppressed. It's very high quality champagne socialism. But it's still leftist in origin and in ideology. Saying the modern wokified U.S. Left isn't leftist is just a No True Scotsman argument. Leftism and rightism are not narrow, specific things, they're more like inchoate moral intuitions that are given more concrete form by ideology and realpolitik. Individual leftist or rightist ideologies are often contradictory with each other. But the underlying sentiment is usually still recognizable as one or the other.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Democrats are not a left party. They are squarely center, maybe even center right. As someone who is a communist, the Dems have nothing to do with Marx, and they are about as capitalist as they come.
      - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
        Even the formally communist country of china semes to be capitalist in truth. To the point where they will likely overtake the US as the richest country in the world.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        I think that's widely accepted, yeah. Deng Xiaoping changed a bunch of stuff that kept a lot of the authoritarianism but added capitalism.
      - md2020 4y ago
        Nobody said the causes the foundation is funneling money to are Democrat causes, though. They’re something entirely different.
3np 4y ago
From elsewhere ITT: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579778161889652736.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579778161889652736.html

ghusto 4y ago

This. I stopped donating when I saw how politicised they were. People are people, and will have opinions about things. People of a kind will naturally group together. This is all fine, but it becomes a problem when one of the things that make what you produce worthwhile is neutrality, and you can't keep your politics in your pants.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
I don't really believe these claims of "Wokepedia", because no-one making these claims has presented actual evidence. I'm sure you have some though, otherwise commenting as you did would mean you'd be as guilty of "not keeping your politics in your pants" as you accuse Wikipedia of being.
- naasking 4y ago
  > I don't really believe these claims of "Wokepedia" I expect this would qualify. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund which also links to: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/06/03/we-stand-for-racial-justice/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/06/03/we-stand-for... Most people would probably place a lot of this firmly in the "woke" category.
  - jwond 4y ago
    > The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege Well then. That makes it perfectly clear that Wikimedia is under the sway of partisan activists.

preommr 4y ago

This is meaningless without stating the context of what you consider violation of neutrality. True neturality is basically an impossible target.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
True neutrality is something like centrism; it's a weird unopinionated or compromising middle ground that only works in theory. There's a comic out there, one side advocates for genocide, the other opposes it; the centrists are like "let's have a little genocide, as a compromise".
commandlinefan 4y ago
> True neturality is basically an impossible target That's probably true, but Wikipedia isn't even pretending to try.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]