4 ms·

This is a hit piece by someone who hates Wikipedia. It should be ignored. If and when someone with far less bias writes an article on Wikimedia finances, I migh

This is a hit piece by someone who hates Wikipedia. It should be ignored. If and when someone with far less bias writes an article on Wikimedia finances, I might be interested.

stewx 4y ago
Your comment is the definition of an ad hominem argument: the author is a Bad Person so we should disregard anything he says. Why don't you respond to the actual claims?
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > Your comment is the definition of an ad hominem argument: the author is a Bad Person so we should disregard anything he says. "In some cases, a successful argument against the person can render an arguer's impartiality, sincerity, or trustworthiness open to question. This may be a weak form of argument, but it may be enough to alter the burden of proof on a controversial issue. And therefor it can be a reasonable criticism" -- Informal Logic, A Pragmatic Approach, Douglas Walton > Why don't you respond to the actual claims? Because I have zero obligation to take seriously any claims from heavily biased sources. Also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." People should feel free to research the author's past and decide for themselves if any article he writes on Wikipedia will be a fair assessment that includes both positives and negatives or more likely to be a heavily biased hit piece.
ohCh6zos 4y ago
Is it true or false that Wikipedia re-donates money while claiming to be in danger of shutting down? If the claim is true the source doesn't matter.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  Is it true or false that the author is heavily biased against Wikipedia? If the claim is true, then no one has an obligation to respond to one-sided accusations made in bad faith with zero intention to report on any details that would paint Wikipedia in a favorable light. I would be just as uninterested in an article from Wikimedia themselves on how great they are. I already said what I would be interested in: factual reporting that makes a reasonable and unbiased effort to uncover all the facts and give the full context. Everyone has the right to ignore "reporting" and "sources" that do not fulfill even the bare minimums of journalist integrity. The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
  - ohCh6zos 4y ago
    But that's simply not true. An article from wikipedia refuting their re-donation with proof would go a long way regardless of their own pro-self bias. Likewise even more evidence of their re-gifting from a source that hates them has value.
FFRefresh 4y ago
Would you actually be interested in reading about Wikimedia finances though? Wikimedia is a non-profit and posts all of their financial data publicly [1], why not go read it there? What's interesting is that you somehow know that the author is someone who hates wikipedia, yet you refuse to read his article(s). How did you arrive at the conclusion that the author is someone who is heavily biased against Wikimedia and shouldn't be trusted? Are you just memetically repeating something others have said on the internet about the author, or did you read other articles/claims from this author and independently arrive at your conclusion? If the latter, how could you have not researched Wikimedia finances even a little to validate claims the author makes? In which case, you would have something substantive to communicate to others on the internet to be aware of about the claims of the author, instead of the anti-intellectual ad hominem approach you took here. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/
- tchaffee 4y ago
  I explained my approach in other comments. Look up the bullshit asymmetry principal for why I don't owe you the answers to your accusatory style questions and your "what's interesting" observations. Neither do I owe the author anything more than pointing out a history of heavy bias. You, like the author, are indeed ignorable. No one owes you a conversation and your cross-examining style is against HN rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - FFRefresh 4y ago
    You dismissed the article and author by labeling it a 'hit piece' by 'someone who hates wikipedia'. When other users asked if you had any substantive critiques of the claims in the article, you responded by saying you don't need to read or respond to the article's claims because of the 'bullshit asymmetry principle' that you adhere to. The next natural question that I asked is how you arrived at the conclusion that the article/author is heavily biased (or filled with 'bullshit' as you have stated)? You respond by implying what I was asking is 'bullshit', and you don't need to answer any questions about it. Overall, this thread/tangent has not been constructive. I was responding to your ad hominem on the author and shallow dismissal (which is against HN guidelines) of the article with no supporting arguments/remarks/evidence. Yes, my tone was more direct, as I'm not a fan of shallow dismissals based on ad hominem attacks. Probably my mistake for even engaging given the content of the comments that were posted to others. Like you have stated a number of times here, you don't need to read/respond to anything you don't want to and you don't owe anybody anything. For future reference, this is just an implied rule in life, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated. Feel free to ignore this comment as you have stated you will, and I definitely don't expect/want anything else out of this conversation.

This is a hit piece by someone who hates Wikipedia. It should be ignored. If and when someone with far less bias writes an article on Wikimedia finances, I might be interested.

stewx 4y ago

Your comment is the definition of an ad hominem argument: the author is a Bad Person so we should disregard anything he says. Why don't you respond to the actual claims?

tchaffee 4y ago
> Your comment is the definition of an ad hominem argument: the author is a Bad Person so we should disregard anything he says. "In some cases, a successful argument against the person can render an arguer's impartiality, sincerity, or trustworthiness open to question. This may be a weak form of argument, but it may be enough to alter the burden of proof on a controversial issue. And therefor it can be a reasonable criticism" -- Informal Logic, A Pragmatic Approach, Douglas Walton > Why don't you respond to the actual claims? Because I have zero obligation to take seriously any claims from heavily biased sources. Also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." People should feel free to research the author's past and decide for themselves if any article he writes on Wikipedia will be a fair assessment that includes both positives and negatives or more likely to be a heavily biased hit piece.

ohCh6zos 4y ago

Is it true or false that Wikipedia re-donates money while claiming to be in danger of shutting down? If the claim is true the source doesn't matter.

tchaffee 4y ago
Is it true or false that the author is heavily biased against Wikipedia? If the claim is true, then no one has an obligation to respond to one-sided accusations made in bad faith with zero intention to report on any details that would paint Wikipedia in a favorable light. I would be just as uninterested in an article from Wikimedia themselves on how great they are. I already said what I would be interested in: factual reporting that makes a reasonable and unbiased effort to uncover all the facts and give the full context. Everyone has the right to ignore "reporting" and "sources" that do not fulfill even the bare minimums of journalist integrity. The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
- ohCh6zos 4y ago
  But that's simply not true. An article from wikipedia refuting their re-donation with proof would go a long way regardless of their own pro-self bias. Likewise even more evidence of their re-gifting from a source that hates them has value.

FFRefresh 4y ago

Would you actually be interested in reading about Wikimedia finances though? Wikimedia is a non-profit and posts all of their financial data publicly [1], why not go read it there? What's interesting is that you somehow know that the author is someone who hates wikipedia, yet you refuse to read his article(s). How did you arrive at the conclusion that the author is someone who is heavily biased against Wikimedia and shouldn't be trusted? Are you just memetically repeating something others have said on the internet about the author, or did you read other articles/claims from this author and independently arrive at your conclusion? If the latter, how could you have not researched Wikimedia finances even a little to validate claims the author makes? In which case, you would have something substantive to communicate to others on the internet to be aware of about the claims of the author, instead of the anti-intellectual ad hominem approach you took here. [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/

tchaffee 4y ago
I explained my approach in other comments. Look up the bullshit asymmetry principal for why I don't owe you the answers to your accusatory style questions and your "what's interesting" observations. Neither do I owe the author anything more than pointing out a history of heavy bias. You, like the author, are indeed ignorable. No one owes you a conversation and your cross-examining style is against HN rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- FFRefresh 4y ago
  You dismissed the article and author by labeling it a 'hit piece' by 'someone who hates wikipedia'. When other users asked if you had any substantive critiques of the claims in the article, you responded by saying you don't need to read or respond to the article's claims because of the 'bullshit asymmetry principle' that you adhere to. The next natural question that I asked is how you arrived at the conclusion that the article/author is heavily biased (or filled with 'bullshit' as you have stated)? You respond by implying what I was asking is 'bullshit', and you don't need to answer any questions about it. Overall, this thread/tangent has not been constructive. I was responding to your ad hominem on the author and shallow dismissal (which is against HN guidelines) of the article with no supporting arguments/remarks/evidence. Yes, my tone was more direct, as I'm not a fan of shallow dismissals based on ad hominem attacks. Probably my mistake for even engaging given the content of the comments that were posted to others. Like you have stated a number of times here, you don't need to read/respond to anything you don't want to and you don't owe anybody anything. For future reference, this is just an implied rule in life, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated. Feel free to ignore this comment as you have stated you will, and I definitely don't expect/want anything else out of this conversation.