5 ms·

"Wokepedia". This guy certainly has an axe to grind. Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia - "The Daily Telegraph"

"Wokepedia". This guy certainly has an axe to grind. Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia - "The Daily Telegraph" of course being a Murdoch newspaper. From the authors Wikpedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski "Writing for The Daily Telegraph in May 2021, Orlowski said that the Wikimedia Foundation was "flush with cash" and passing money to the Tides Network, which he described as "a left-leaning dark money group"; he referred to Wikipedia as "Wokepedia" in an allusion to the term "woke".[24] In another article for The Daily Telegraph, in December 2021, Orlowski said the Wikimedia Foundation's urgent fundraising banners on Wikipedia were "preposterous" given that it held assets of $240 million and had a $100 million endowment, and the Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director had said in 2013 that the Foundation could be sustainable on "$10M+ a year".[25] In August 2022, Orlowski claimed that Wikipedia had "become a tool of the Left in the battle to control the truth", referencing the recent controversy over Wikipedia's definition of a recession.[26]"

Applejinx 4y ago
I'd wondered whether it was a clever ploy to GET me to donate to Wikipedia/media/whatever, what with all the comments ranting in right-wing style. Kind of like Nike or whoever, gesturing to causes they don't really do anything to support, in order to goad political rants against then and elicit a larger backlash and more money they'd have had if they kept quiet. HBomberguy has a good video on the subject. You can use people ranting about 'wokeness' to make money, and while it's amusing and gratifying to indulge that 'ha, I showed you, I don't agree with your ranting against this thing!' it's engaging in pseudo-political behavior that's in a sense wasted. Throwing more money at Wikipedia isn't really helping them be more woke, it's helping them be better at using that to ask for money. I'm not actually going to give them money today but that's because I gotta tend to my own affairs: if I had a bunch extra I'd send some Wikipedia's way on the grounds that at least they're annoying the right people?
- katamarimambo 4y ago
  After reading the article and others on that website I'm donating to Black Lives Matter and some LGBT org.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Definitely don't donate to BLM, though. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/black-lives-matter-executive-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/black-lives-matter-executi...
    - katamarimambo 4y ago
      I definitively donated to some BLM org which may or may not be this one, and i'll keep doing it
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        Wait so you would keep donating even if you know they are thieves?
        katamarimambo 4y ago
        I believe them more than i believe you
        whatswrong 4y ago
        katamarimambo 4y ago
        Just checked here: The BLM org I donated was not this one you linked, but i'm seeking this one specifically to make a new donation, just because your bad faith argument.
fluoridation 4y ago
>Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia That's muddying the waters. If Wikipedia has deceptive donation drives, then who reports it should be completely irrelevant.
- klelatti 4y ago
  It's relevant because he's not really disclosing his motivations. He clearly has other reasons for disliking wikipedia but he fails to disclose them in this article.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    If he's presenting a factual summary of what's going on, his "motivations" are irrelevant. If he's not presenting a factual summary of what's going on, his "motivations" are likewise irrelevant. If you can refute his claims, by all means do so, but vague ad hominems don't impress me.
    - klelatti 4y ago
      Not sure why accurately reporting his track record of attacking Wikimedia with a clear - and self admitted - right wing bias is a 'vague ad hominem'.
      - Turing_Machine 4y ago
        His "track record" has nothing to do with whether his claims are true, either. Either his claims are factual, or they aren't. If they are not factual, they should be refuted, but appealing to his "motivations" or "track record" is not a refutation. It is an ad hominem attack, i.e., a logical fallacy.
        klelatti 4y ago
        No one has said it's a refutation but it's entirely relevant and not an ad hominem at all - unless you think that his record is something to be ashamed of? As I said above: > So when an oil company writes a report on the viability of solar power then that doesn't affect how we should view the report? > His motivation absolutely affects how he reports on this issue. He's not a neutral observer and so he picks and chooses which facts he includes and puts his own spin around the issues.
klelatti 4y ago
Slight correction - Telegraph isn't Murdoch. It's owned by the surviving billionaire Barclay brother [1]. If anything though it's even more biased than any Murdoch paper (eg in the UK The Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay

Applejinx 4y ago

I'd wondered whether it was a clever ploy to GET me to donate to Wikipedia/media/whatever, what with all the comments ranting in right-wing style. Kind of like Nike or whoever, gesturing to causes they don't really do anything to support, in order to goad political rants against then and elicit a larger backlash and more money they'd have had if they kept quiet. HBomberguy has a good video on the subject. You can use people ranting about 'wokeness' to make money, and while it's amusing and gratifying to indulge that 'ha, I showed you, I don't agree with your ranting against this thing!' it's engaging in pseudo-political behavior that's in a sense wasted. Throwing more money at Wikipedia isn't really helping them be more woke, it's helping them be better at using that to ask for money. I'm not actually going to give them money today but that's because I gotta tend to my own affairs: if I had a bunch extra I'd send some Wikipedia's way on the grounds that at least they're annoying the right people?

katamarimambo 4y ago
After reading the article and others on that website I'm donating to Black Lives Matter and some LGBT org.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Definitely don't donate to BLM, though. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/black-lives-matter-executive-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/04/us/black-lives-matter-executi...
  - katamarimambo 4y ago
    I definitively donated to some BLM org which may or may not be this one, and i'll keep doing it
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      Wait so you would keep donating even if you know they are thieves?
      - katamarimambo 4y ago
        I believe them more than i believe you
        whatswrong 4y ago
      - katamarimambo 4y ago
        Just checked here: The BLM org I donated was not this one you linked, but i'm seeking this one specifically to make a new donation, just because your bad faith argument.

fluoridation 4y ago

>Looks like urging people not to donate is in fact a right wing attack on Wikpedia That's muddying the waters. If Wikipedia has deceptive donation drives, then who reports it should be completely irrelevant.

klelatti 4y ago
It's relevant because he's not really disclosing his motivations. He clearly has other reasons for disliking wikipedia but he fails to disclose them in this article.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  If he's presenting a factual summary of what's going on, his "motivations" are irrelevant. If he's not presenting a factual summary of what's going on, his "motivations" are likewise irrelevant. If you can refute his claims, by all means do so, but vague ad hominems don't impress me.
  - klelatti 4y ago
    Not sure why accurately reporting his track record of attacking Wikimedia with a clear - and self admitted - right wing bias is a 'vague ad hominem'.
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      His "track record" has nothing to do with whether his claims are true, either. Either his claims are factual, or they aren't. If they are not factual, they should be refuted, but appealing to his "motivations" or "track record" is not a refutation. It is an ad hominem attack, i.e., a logical fallacy.
      - klelatti 4y ago
        No one has said it's a refutation but it's entirely relevant and not an ad hominem at all - unless you think that his record is something to be ashamed of? As I said above: > So when an oil company writes a report on the viability of solar power then that doesn't affect how we should view the report? > His motivation absolutely affects how he reports on this issue. He's not a neutral observer and so he picks and chooses which facts he includes and puts his own spin around the issues.

klelatti 4y ago

Slight correction - Telegraph isn't Murdoch. It's owned by the surviving billionaire Barclay brother [1]. If anything though it's even more biased than any Murdoch paper (eg in the UK The Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay