6 ms·
Wikimedia Russia has been dissolved
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- baybal2 3y ago[dead]
- coding123 3y ago[flagged]
- klyrs 3y agoWhat is free speech if people cannot disagree with you?
- m00x 3y agoWikipedia, while still extremely useful, has slowly become a hivemind that remove changes if they disagree with them, even if they're backed by good sources. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions and bias, but for facts. OP should share his edits so we can see ourselves, maybe they're just bad, but I've also had edits removed from bias, especially on controversial topics.
- 44545i 3y ago[dead]
- danogentili 3y agoNow this leaves me wondering, should I agree because I have had similar experiences when trying to improve some frankly unintelligible proofs in certain sections of CS wikipedia, or should I carefully disagree because of the suspicious second part of your comment? :=)
- j_maffe 3y agoCare to share your edits for people to judge what you tried to contribute?
- segasaturn 3y agoAre you making sure to include citations to proven reliable sources to back up your contributions? If so, then you can dispute any reverts on the article's Talk page. My experience with Wikipedia is that they are extraordinarily open and fair, and honestly they give more benefit of the doubt to editors than most of them deserve.
- keiferski 3y agoCertainly the task of determining "the truth" is a difficult one, but Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources is not very good and basically just means "mainstream, well-funded news organization."
- legitster 3y agoThis is the better criticism of Wikipedia. But it's really not a criticism of Wikipedia directly - it's more of a indictment on how media creates Zeitgeists and reality conforms to them.
- keiferski 3y agoBut it is a criticism of Wikipedia directly. There is no reason why they couldn't come up with a more thoughtful, complete validation method. Instead, they just default to a last-century model of trust.
- sircastor 3y ago[flagged]
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoMy crime was writing that flying saucers really exist, but for some reason I didn't get reverted. Maybe it was a different time O:-) (if you can read wikipedia diffs here you go. It's in the edit summary, which is one of the two reasons the article still exists : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evoluon&diff=prev&oldid=57758 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evoluon&diff=prev... )
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BobaFloutist 3y agoWikipedia's purpose is freedom of information, not freedom of speech. The two are cousins at best.
- frocmlol 3y ago[flagged]
- phkahler 3y agoWikipedia is has nothing to do with free speech. It's there to (in my words) document the world around us. To explain things factually, or as factually as we can. It's not about anyone's opinions or ideas.
- shikon7 3y agoStill, free speech is what allows such a project. And Wikipedia also explains philosophical opinions, political positions, NSFW concepts, etc., which is only possible to that extent due to free speech. So I would disagree both that Wikipedia has nothing to do with free speech, and that it’s not about anybody’s opinions or ideas.
- Clamchop 3y agoThere was a far more productive reading you could have taken. Free speech allows Wikipedia to publish unpopular or controversial speech, but that's not the same as having an editorial policy that contributors are allowed to express themselves on the platform, which would obviously be inappropriate. Wikipedia documents opinions and ideologies but that's not the same as supporting the expression of the opinions and ideologies of its contributors. (See above.)
- foverzar 3y ago> There was a far more productive reading you could have taken. As an individual, sure. But it's still a massively "go to" source of facts for billions of people. > Free speech allows Wikipedia to publish unpopular or controversial speech Do you really feel like Wikipedia has unpopular opinions? My impression is kinda opposite. > Wikipedia documents opinions and ideologies It would have been awesome if it was actually plural.
- Clamchop 3y agoI'm _not_ claiming that Wikipedia has or doesn't have unpopular opinions. I'm making a distinction between the legal framework in which Wikipedia exists (they _can_ publish unpopular or controversial speech) and what Wikipedia does (they intend not to express their own opinions at all; whether you believe they succeed is immaterial). OP was conflating the two, but Wikipedia has no obligation or principle to be a platform for free speech. It's completely irrelevant.
- neilk 3y agoWhile there are many legitimate questions about Wikipedia’s openness to new edits and editors, this is such a wild topic derail that I find it a little suspicious. Are you arguing that this isn’t a great loss for freedom of speech?
- foverzar 3y ago> this is such a wild topic derail How is this a topic derail? What's the topic then exactly?
- matrix87 3y agoI don't think it makes sense to equate English speaking Wikipedia (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) with a different language Wikipedia. Different cultures, most likely fewer people sitting around spending every free moment starting drama on wikipedia
- foverzar 3y agoWikipedia is a very popular "no brainer" source of information, which inherently politically becomes a focal point of conflict of opinions. So, actually, lots of drama.
- rsynnott 3y agoWait, are you suggesting that people shouldn’t be allowed revert Wikipedia contributions? That would, er, swiftly leave it rather pointless.
- intunderflow 3y agoRussian Wikipedia will continue without the Wikimedia chapter, for clarity. It's not going offline.
- baybal2 3y ago[dead]
- Yizahi 3y agoOf course they will. They are busy rewriting history under Kremlin directives.
- foverzar 3y agoWho are "they"? It's still the same website on the same wikipedia domain, owned and hosted by the same global Wikimedia Foundation, with the same editors, roles and permissions. P.S. Kinda funny how the narrative of "THEY are rewriting history" is now present in both opposing blocks. These are truly the end times of objectivity and pluralism.
- Yizahi 3y agoPeople writing and moderating Ru Wikipedia. Go check yourself, with a Google translate for example. Their pettiness know no bounds, see articles on the Kievan Rus (they even tried to rename it a few times), downing of MH17 Boeing, Russian invasion and occupation of Georgia, Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine since Feb 2014, basically anything touching history and politics. It is quite clear that Ru Wikipedia is a state sanctioned and controlled operation.
- toyg 3y agoThere was never any objectivity. As a European, I often find mainstream US media scandalously biased on certain topics. Even just seeing everything as "two opposing blocks" is a terrible simplification of reality that is typical of Anglosphere traditions. And pluralism is arguably as alive as ever - anyone can start a blog and be as successful as anyone else in pushing opinions, without the capital that used to be required to broadcast one's view of the world. If anything, the current problem is that the spectrum of political debate has widened so much that we struggle to contain it in the old institutions.
- ks2048 3y agoThis sounds bad, but from this post alone it is not clear what this means exactly. E.g. it seems clear that ru.wikipedia.org continues as usual.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- terminous 3y agoBad headline. What is dissolved is the non profit organization that exists in Russia to host events for Russian Wikipedians and other tasks. ru.wikipedia.org != Wikipedia Russia.
- brokensegue 3y agoThe headline is right. "Wikimedia Russia" dissolved not "Russian Wikipedia"
- happytiger 3y agoI cannot stop chuckling at your comment. Reminds me so hard if the Monty Python sketch: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
- Lockal 3y agoTo be more specific, "Wikimedia RU" was dissolved. I remember when they opened a legal entity, the lawyer said that one should not use the word "Russia" in the name of the company, as this requires permission from the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. Such permission can be obtained by a company that has branches and/or representative offices in more than half of the subjects of the Russian Federation, or belongs to the largest taxpayer, or more than 25% of shares (stakes) of which are owned by the state. Wikimedia RU does not fall under these categories. In fact, it was a non-profit organization completely independent of Wikimedia, run by individual enthusiasts, sometimes not even interested in editing Wikipedia. However, Wikimedia did recognize the merits of this Russian company to some extent (in particular, it did not hinder fundraising for offline events and did not require reports).
- foverzar 3y agoCurious context: about half a year ago Wikimedia RU previous director had left his post to fork Russian wikipedia and develop an independent "Free Encyclopedia". https://www.rbc.ru/society/24/05/2023/646e58029a794724e1b894da https://www.rbc.ru/society/24/05/2023/646e58029a794724e1b894...
- Ekaros 3y agoGood start, now do the rest and wikipedia will be better off.
- temptemptemp111 3y ago[dead]
- up2isomorphism 3y agoIronically Wikipedia is practicing the worst form of censorship itself.