5 ms·

[and i get downvoted because even though mine is one of a diverse number of opinions, and my history as a good participant of this community mean nothing: opini

[and i get downvoted because even though mine is one of a diverse number of opinions, and my history as a good participant of this community mean nothing: opinion is the type of diversity that some people can't allow, here and on wikipedia] English (language not kingdom) Wikipedia has become a party organ* for whatever they call themselves, those people who took over and ruined philosophy, history, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, et al departments of universities (get rid of dead white males and anything they ever wrote!) to allow only deconstructive, post modernist, existentialist, nihilist, anti-western, socialist, personal truth and lived experience; the same people who are now battering down the gates of science and technology (remember Shut Down Tech day?) because believing there is "the right answer" to a problem is itself problematic, an expression of white privilege. Math should allow many answers depending on the student's truth and lived experience. And they shouldn't have to turn in their work "on time", that oppressive white western male notion. The same people that are marching in the streets to say that mass murder and terrorism are morally justifiable expressions of yearning for a brighter future, alongside a brighter future for women in Islam, just don't be too specific about what you mean, said the Walrus. This is not my personal original research, the "other" cofounder of wikipedia (along with The Outlaw Jimmy Wales) says the same https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site... Wikipedia btw raises tons of money, they are rolling in cash. Why do they keep begging you for more with interstitials? Because they have a number of woke "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion" projects they are dumping your money into. It has nothing to do with making wikipedia better. *party organ as in: The Nation, volume 180, number 9, page 173: “Modern armed forces cannot be built without heavy industry,” the People’s Daily, the central organ of the Chinese Communist Party, has remarked pointedly.

LastTrain 3y ago
How long have you been so passionate about Wikipedia and their funding. Also, how much cash is "rolling in cash" by your estimation? Sounds like you think they have too much? Should we limit how much cash one can roll in - is that something you think you might be in to?
- margalabargala 3y ago
  > Also, how much cash is "rolling in cash" by your estimation? Sounds like you think they have too much? When an organization's primary form of fundraising is pointing at their one useful product and saying "give us money so that we can keep doing this! If we don't have enough money this might go away!" that's fine and moral so long as it's what's required for primarily funding the useful thing in question. When the above method accounts for 90% of funds raised, but the useful thing people thought they were supporting only accounts for 10% of expenditures, then that means 1) the organization has more money than they need for "useful thing", and 2) it means that people will feel misled and get upset when they find out about this, because they thought they were donating money to "useful thing" but their money actually went to "side project". Wikipedia's fundraising messaging is blatantly manipulative and misleading compared to the reality of financial risk to the continued existence of the content on wikipedia.org.
  - defendBanana 3y ago
    Wikipedia is fairly transparent about how they spend the money. Anyone donating can easily check and donate to their liking. Stop making up random 10% etc. I never understand this obsession that people have with non profit funding. A weird way of counting efficiency by counting how every dollar spend and not really the value produced. Clearly Wikipedia is one of the most useful things in the world. They would be more "efficient" wrt money most people give to them even if they were to set fire to a large portion of it.
    - margalabargala 3y ago
      I'm sorry, is your argument really "if measured in terms of dollar per utility, they would be one of the most useful organizations regardless of how much money they set fire to, and therefore no one should complain if they just set money on fire"? Their having made something useful does not entitle them to be able to set money on fire without objection, nor does it excuse ads implying the useful thing might go away when the reality is that they are asking for money because they would prefer to have more firewood to burn, without affecting the useful thing whatsoever.
Bayart 3y ago
Whatever downvotes you get might have more to do with your tone than your stance.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  what I wrote was short, and I wrote what I needed to to express just what I wanted to express, i.e. nothing can eliminated. Show me, rewrite some piece of what I wrote in your exalted tone that would be better. I want to learn from you. I'm not being sarcastic. I legitimately don't think you are right, and I legitimately don't think you can do it, but you say it can be done. I think you are falsely using "tone" to stand in for "you disagree with me". But, if you can express what I expressed politely and palatably, please, I REALLY want to know how to do it. Let's teach each other, this site is built on curiosity. If your tone is better, I will exalt it. also, maybe read this, it's an interesting take: https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html
  - stonogo 3y ago
    Sure, it's not hard. Notes inline, rewrite after. English (language not kingdom) Wikipedia has become a party organ* for whatever they call themselves, [note: incoherent to assign partyship here given the footnote lack-of-definition; implies a level of organization you've failed to demonstrate] those people who took over and ruined philosophy, history, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, et al departments of universities [note: strong claim, not backed up or even defined] (get rid of dead white males and anything they ever wrote! [note: hyperbolic, readers who don't agree are now more inclined to assume the rest of the text is also exaggerated]) to allow only deconstructive, post modernist, existentialist, nihilist, anti-western, socialist, personal truth and lived experience [note: buzzword soup, no substance except to readers who already share sentiments]; the same people who are now battering down the gates of science and technology (remember Shut Down Tech day? [note: no, and googling it returns results that are non-obviously connected to your concepts here; clarity would help your message]) because believing there is "the right answer" to a problem is itself problematic, an expression of white privilege [note: I live in academia and have never seen this formulation. if hyperbole, not conducive to persuasion (see above)]. Math should allow many answers depending on the student's truth and lived experience [note: never seen this in any math class, citations would help]. And they shouldn't have to turn in their work "on time", that oppressive white western male notion [note: same as previous]. The same people are are marching in the streets to say that mass murder and terrorism are morally justifiable expressions of yearning for a brighter future [note: references here would help, unless this is israel/palestine partisanship in either direction, in which case it's a distraction]. This is not my personal original research, the "other" cofounder of wikipedia (along with The Outlaw Jimmy Wales [note: much of your audience was not even born when this movie came out, more distractions]) says the same https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site... Wikipedia btw raises tons of money, they are rolling in cash. Why do they keep begging you for more with interstitials? Because they have a number of woke "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion" projects they are dumping your money into[note: unable to find reference to these expenditures in public reporting, either in form 990 or annual report. not clear what things like "project rewrite" cost. if you know, better to cite hard facts]. It has nothing to do with making wikipedia better. *party organ as in: The Nation, volume 180, number 9, page 173: “Modern armed forces cannot be built without heavy industry,” the People’s Daily, the central organ of the Chinese Communist Party, has remarked pointedly. rewrite: English Wikipedia specifically is largely under the control of left-wing participants who are applying their political preferences to editorial and policy decisions. This is a situation which has held in academia for some time[0], and I don't think their decision-making is based on neutrally representing matters or rigorous factual correctness. One of Wikipedia's cofounders left the organization, and has been sounding alarms about the political biases that have overwhelmed the operation of the site[1]. I have reason to believe they're spending Foundation money in furtherance of their political goals[2] instead of pursuing the actual mission of Wikipedia, which is on-record as explicitly targeting neutrality[3]. Many of the politically-driven decisions being made in that organization are detrimental to the operation of the project and they're descended from a worldview with whose priorities I strongly disagree and are detrimental to society at large. 0 - [note: I don't have a reference for this claim but presumably you do; this is where it would go] 1 - https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site... 2 - [note: I don't have a reference for this claim but presumably you do; this is where it would go] 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose Specifically: The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". end of rewrite I don't really know anything about Wikipedia politics; the only thing I do know is they are indeed flush with cash, which is the main reason I don't donate. I do know a bit about academia, since that's where I work. My opinions there might be affected by the fact that I work in a discipline which is heavily mathematics-based, rather than in the social fields. I hope this helps you understand which parts of your message could be compromising your intentions and what people mean when they're talking about tone.
malchow 3y ago
You are exactly correct, and the purism represented by these Kafkaesque Wikipedians who "drive out fringe editors" will ultimately fail.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Isn't it equally likely that the those who wish the installment of fringe editors will ultimately fail? The universe owes no one justice.
adhesive_wombat 3y ago
They do have far too much money. Donate to the Internet Archive instead. You'll even be helping Wikipedia content because the archive holds readable copies of millions of print books and an absolutely enormous and unparalleled microfilm library (literally multiple shipping containers full of microfilm they scanned) that can be cited and used to verify and crosscheck Wikipedia articles.

LastTrain 3y ago

How long have you been so passionate about Wikipedia and their funding. Also, how much cash is "rolling in cash" by your estimation? Sounds like you think they have too much? Should we limit how much cash one can roll in - is that something you think you might be in to?

margalabargala 3y ago
> Also, how much cash is "rolling in cash" by your estimation? Sounds like you think they have too much? When an organization's primary form of fundraising is pointing at their one useful product and saying "give us money so that we can keep doing this! If we don't have enough money this might go away!" that's fine and moral so long as it's what's required for primarily funding the useful thing in question. When the above method accounts for 90% of funds raised, but the useful thing people thought they were supporting only accounts for 10% of expenditures, then that means 1) the organization has more money than they need for "useful thing", and 2) it means that people will feel misled and get upset when they find out about this, because they thought they were donating money to "useful thing" but their money actually went to "side project". Wikipedia's fundraising messaging is blatantly manipulative and misleading compared to the reality of financial risk to the continued existence of the content on wikipedia.org.
- defendBanana 3y ago
  Wikipedia is fairly transparent about how they spend the money. Anyone donating can easily check and donate to their liking. Stop making up random 10% etc. I never understand this obsession that people have with non profit funding. A weird way of counting efficiency by counting how every dollar spend and not really the value produced. Clearly Wikipedia is one of the most useful things in the world. They would be more "efficient" wrt money most people give to them even if they were to set fire to a large portion of it.
  - margalabargala 3y ago
    I'm sorry, is your argument really "if measured in terms of dollar per utility, they would be one of the most useful organizations regardless of how much money they set fire to, and therefore no one should complain if they just set money on fire"? Their having made something useful does not entitle them to be able to set money on fire without objection, nor does it excuse ads implying the useful thing might go away when the reality is that they are asking for money because they would prefer to have more firewood to burn, without affecting the useful thing whatsoever.

Bayart 3y ago

Whatever downvotes you get might have more to do with your tone than your stance.

fsckboy 3y ago
what I wrote was short, and I wrote what I needed to to express just what I wanted to express, i.e. nothing can eliminated. Show me, rewrite some piece of what I wrote in your exalted tone that would be better. I want to learn from you. I'm not being sarcastic. I legitimately don't think you are right, and I legitimately don't think you can do it, but you say it can be done. I think you are falsely using "tone" to stand in for "you disagree with me". But, if you can express what I expressed politely and palatably, please, I REALLY want to know how to do it. Let's teach each other, this site is built on curiosity. If your tone is better, I will exalt it. also, maybe read this, it's an interesting take: https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html https://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html
- stonogo 3y ago
  Sure, it's not hard. Notes inline, rewrite after. English (language not kingdom) Wikipedia has become a party organ* for whatever they call themselves, [note: incoherent to assign partyship here given the footnote lack-of-definition; implies a level of organization you've failed to demonstrate] those people who took over and ruined philosophy, history, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, et al departments of universities [note: strong claim, not backed up or even defined] (get rid of dead white males and anything they ever wrote! [note: hyperbolic, readers who don't agree are now more inclined to assume the rest of the text is also exaggerated]) to allow only deconstructive, post modernist, existentialist, nihilist, anti-western, socialist, personal truth and lived experience [note: buzzword soup, no substance except to readers who already share sentiments]; the same people who are now battering down the gates of science and technology (remember Shut Down Tech day? [note: no, and googling it returns results that are non-obviously connected to your concepts here; clarity would help your message]) because believing there is "the right answer" to a problem is itself problematic, an expression of white privilege [note: I live in academia and have never seen this formulation. if hyperbole, not conducive to persuasion (see above)]. Math should allow many answers depending on the student's truth and lived experience [note: never seen this in any math class, citations would help]. And they shouldn't have to turn in their work "on time", that oppressive white western male notion [note: same as previous]. The same people are are marching in the streets to say that mass murder and terrorism are morally justifiable expressions of yearning for a brighter future [note: references here would help, unless this is israel/palestine partisanship in either direction, in which case it's a distraction]. This is not my personal original research, the "other" cofounder of wikipedia (along with The Outlaw Jimmy Wales [note: much of your audience was not even born when this movie came out, more distractions]) says the same https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site... Wikipedia btw raises tons of money, they are rolling in cash. Why do they keep begging you for more with interstitials? Because they have a number of woke "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion" projects they are dumping your money into[note: unable to find reference to these expenditures in public reporting, either in form 990 or annual report. not clear what things like "project rewrite" cost. if you know, better to cite hard facts]. It has nothing to do with making wikipedia better. *party organ as in: The Nation, volume 180, number 9, page 173: “Modern armed forces cannot be built without heavy industry,” the People’s Daily, the central organ of the Chinese Communist Party, has remarked pointedly. rewrite: English Wikipedia specifically is largely under the control of left-wing participants who are applying their political preferences to editorial and policy decisions. This is a situation which has held in academia for some time[0], and I don't think their decision-making is based on neutrally representing matters or rigorous factual correctness. One of Wikipedia's cofounders left the organization, and has been sounding alarms about the political biases that have overwhelmed the operation of the site[1]. I have reason to believe they're spending Foundation money in furtherance of their political goals[2] instead of pursuing the actual mission of Wikipedia, which is on-record as explicitly targeting neutrality[3]. Many of the politically-driven decisions being made in that organization are detrimental to the operation of the project and they're descended from a worldview with whose priorities I strongly disagree and are detrimental to society at large. 0 - [note: I don't have a reference for this claim but presumably you do; this is where it would go] 1 - https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site... 2 - [note: I don't have a reference for this claim but presumably you do; this is where it would go] 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose Specifically: The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". end of rewrite I don't really know anything about Wikipedia politics; the only thing I do know is they are indeed flush with cash, which is the main reason I don't donate. I do know a bit about academia, since that's where I work. My opinions there might be affected by the fact that I work in a discipline which is heavily mathematics-based, rather than in the social fields. I hope this helps you understand which parts of your message could be compromising your intentions and what people mean when they're talking about tone.

malchow 3y ago

You are exactly correct, and the purism represented by these Kafkaesque Wikipedians who "drive out fringe editors" will ultimately fail.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
Isn't it equally likely that the those who wish the installment of fringe editors will ultimately fail? The universe owes no one justice.

adhesive_wombat 3y ago

They do have far too much money. Donate to the Internet Archive instead. You'll even be helping Wikipedia content because the archive holds readable copies of millions of print books and an absolutely enormous and unparalleled microfilm library (literally multiple shipping containers full of microfilm they scanned) that can be cited and used to verify and crosscheck Wikipedia articles.