22 ms·
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
- gsibble 1y ago[flagged]
- dredmorbius 1y agoWhat other organisations would you apply a similar test to?
- pachorizons 1y agoRemember as you read more and more news like this that many of the owners of Y Combinator supported this.
- NelsonMinar 1y agoTheir silence now is cowardly.
- addandsubtract 1y agoIn before this thread is also flagged for being "political".
- Braxton1980 1y agoThere's a post that the FBI arrested a judge who helped an illegal immigrant avoid capture during a court proceeding. 900+ upvotes - it has nothing to do with tech - it's about a hot button political issue - it helps the Republican cause. Not flagged
- YZF 1y agoI'm just curious why you think it helps the Republican cause? When I saw this reported in the media my feel was this is something Democrats are going to latch on to demonstrate the government is seeking to intimidate the judicial branch. I guess it can have different interpretation. Either way I'd really prefer not to see this stuff on Hacker News. We have enough things that push people buttons in other places.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoHN has degraded a little since I joined some years ago. It is still better than most of the online fora out there, but you can feel the change in the posts.
- Braxton1980 1y agoLet me help degrade it further by asking what the purpose of this comment is and then asking if outside changes, like Trump, would be a more likely explanation for the change in tone
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoThe purpose is the help understand current state of play. It used to be more purposeful, useful and meaningful for me to be here. If things will continue with its current trajectory, I will simply stop. I am not saying everyone will. We all have different lines after all. I am not sure what Trump has to do with this particular conversation though.
- Braxton1980 1y ago>I am not sure what Trump has to do with this particular conversation though. Your original comment was about the change in tone, I'm giving what I think is the main reason. He spews hateful rhetoric and insults people constantly. Tens of millions voted for him to represent them in the highest position in the world. >. It used to be more purposeful, useful and meaningful for me I think the articles where you'll find the highest percentage of comments you'd dislike are obvious. Just don't click on them. >The purpose is the help understand current state of play. This is improved if the information is accurate right? Calling out those that might be lying helps.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tomhow 1y agoThe only moderator action taken on this submission was to prevent it from being downweighted by community flags – 5 hours ago.
- zahlman 1y agoThe sheer amount of flagged and dead comments here - along with the vitriol I see in some responses to flagged comments that were not themselves flagged - makes me think this was a mistake.
- concordDance 1y agoThis entire thread is worthless social media junk food.
- hackyhacky 1y agoWho, specifically, are you referring to; and what have they done or said to make you believe that they support this?
- fzeroracer 1y agoWell, the good news is that there's a very convenient link at the bottom of the page here on HN for the AI startup school [1] which is host to a bunch of people that you should recognize. [1] https://events.ycombinator.com/ai-sus https://events.ycombinator.com/ai-sus
- hackyhacky 1y agoNot an answer to my question.
- intermerda 1y agoIt is actually, unless you are unable to parse information without being spoon fed to you.
- Spivak 1y agoWealthy people who could be coined liberal-tarians or just your average tech bro political grab bag largely backed Trump out of financial interest and who, imo, deluded themselves that the administration would be unsuccessful at "the bad stuff" much like his 2016 run. No amount of shouting from the rooftops that this time was actually different convinced anyone. I can't really blame us collectively, we resoundingly voted for this— it's as much of a mandate you're likely to ever get in the US and we're in the find out stage of fucking around. Looking back on old social media posts the theme is that everyone, supporters and not, were high on copium that Trump would do <list of things I like | aren't so bad> and the <list of truly terrible things> was just obviously crazy and wouldn't actually happen or were a joke.
- boxed 1y agoWho specifically was the question.
- tomhow 1y agoThe only YC figure who espouses any position on U.S. federal politics is Paul Graham, who loudly campaigns against the current administration almost every day on Twitter.
- frob 1y agoHi Tom. You're burning your credibility here fast as the new moderator. dang derived his respect as an admin from not getting into fights in the threads. It additonaly tarnishes your credibility as you're doing this in defense of your employer. You look like a rage-poster who has the same response copied and ready to go from thread to thread. Please take a moment to step back and examine if this is the image you want to be projecting as the official representative of YC and HN.
- 93po 1y agoAlternatively, hi tom, you're a human being with opinions and you're allowed to discuss whatever you like on this site just like anyone else. i think dang is successful at moderation in part because he does have a reputation and track record of being fair and unbiased in his moderation, and i do agree showing bias in conversations can make people question moderation decisions more, but i'm not sure tom is showing bias by including information relevant to people he knows, and i think he can both discuss however he likes while also being transparent and genuine in unbiased moderation tom has and does stay out of debates and in-depth conversations around HN related stuff. he's simply dropping some information in to dispel disinformation, which i think is reasonable
- samtheDamned 1y agoAdministration and participation in arguments or opinion based debates should not coincide. Using a personal account for personal issues instead of using an administrator is more respectable in my opinion.
- pvg 1y agoIt's been better for HN for the mods to treat the people they interact with as people and vice versa.
- g-b-r 1y agoAll US organizations should seriously consider moving out of the country, at this point; it might become harder to do it in the future
- jmclnx 1y agoWell seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
- myth_drannon 1y ago[flagged]
- Ar-Curunir 1y agoAbsolute nonsense. Wikipedia is infinitely better than every source of “facts” out there.
- hagbard_c 1y agoNo, Wikipedia is no better than any other site which allows user edits and in many ways reliably biased towards certain narratives - which narrative depends on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles should always be read in conjunction with the Talk and Edit history pages and even then it is necessary to find original sources for any claims made in Wikipedia articles.
- efilife 1y agowhy is this downvoted? You call for verification of the claims wikipedia articles serve to us. Don't people agree we should verify info before accepting it?
- AlienRobot 1y agoI have never had a single problem with Wikipedia in 20 years, and I don't believe an alternative exists. All text written on Wikipedia is royalty free and so are most of the images. The meaningfulness of that can't be overstated. Wikipedia is the web's greatest website and a wonder of the world. You can't love the web without loving Wikipedia, so I'm wary of anyone who disrespects it.
- 1y ago
- jimt1234 1y agoSeems relevant: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-the-weaponization-of-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi...
- droopyEyelids 1y ago[flagged]
- metaphor 1y agohttps://archive.is/JozhY https://archive.is/JozhY
- jtrip 1y agoThe scale of deep body trauma that has been done to the US will not seem clear today, but it will have dire consequences for the future trajectory of US. I am sad for this, for the current status quo I was born under, but I suppose History must happen.
- Loughla 1y agoI'm not sad for myself. I'm older and established. I'm scared for my cousins, nieces, nephews, and children for the fucking train wreck they're going to step into. It was bad enough with 2001, 2008, and 2020. But this is next level.
- MPSFounder 1y agoThe PhD institution I went to reduced their acceptance from 50 to 26. There is fear of not securing funding. The damage done is projects that are promising were cut. These projects will get picked up by other countries. The damage in the long term will be losing our edge in many regards, which will harm our economy. Where I did my undergrad just replaced their dean with an AIPAC member who has no experience in academia (a first in nearly two hundred years of this institution's). It is insane what is happening. A judge in Wisconsin was arrested today. There are those who believe America is resilient. The damage being done (I can promise you) will cause this great nation unbelievable harm in the long run, when this traitor in charge and his foreign allies (Putin and Netanyahu) which he promises allegiance to OVER our constitution and our moral values have long since passed. There is much noise, much of it as a distraction, but on the small level, many changes (most recently the NSF director leaving) are tangible changes that have a real impact that is certainly felt immediately in budget cuts, but will be even more drastic in its long term strategic impact. Also, I fly a bunch, and I see an immediate change in the respect America used to command abroad. Our values and reputation, which took over a hundred years in the making, became a laughing stock, and our closest allies no longer view America as a beacon.
- sneak 1y agoThe US has not been a force for good in the world in some time, if ever. Unfortunately for Americans, it has to get worse before it can get better. Much worse. The institutions are deeply corrupt, and have been for decades. They must be destroyed and possibly replaced. It sucks, and it will hurt. It may even possibly require an entire revolution, as many of the deeply evil US institutions such as the CIA and FBI are so deeply and tightly integrated with the federal government that it may require destruction of the state itself. The status quo has been comfy for a lot of Americans, but the world as a whole is not a better place because Facebook and Lockheed and the US CIA exist. This has been pending for most of a century. What comes after will be more transparent, more fair, and more integrated with society.
- m2f2 1y ago[flagged]
- warkdarrior 1y ago[flagged]
- cogogo 1y agoNot funny. My family is bilingual english/spanish and my wife is a green card holder but not a citizen. Doesn’t seem far fetched. But if we go down… it won’t be without a fight.
- tialaramex 1y agoI recommend fleeing not fighting. Over 100 000 people fled Germany in the 1930s, which might have seemed like an over-reaction, except, well, you know what happened to many of those who didn't.
- jemmyw 1y agoI had the same thought but most European countries don't have as wide freedom of speech laws as the US. Same problem with moving to Australia or New Zealand, though it'd be awesome to have a project like that based here.
- hsuduebc2 1y ago[flagged]
- kjkjadksj 1y agoTalking about our march into fascism is still considered off topic here apparently. Isn’t that exactly the sort of topic a supposed forum of hackers ought to be discussing however?
- jjulius 1y agoThis forum, in spite of the name, was never about the older hacker ethos that began way back when. It was founded by a VC and was called "Startup News" at first, only changing its name six months later. It was created by the wealthy, for those who wanted to get wealthy (and make it's founder wealthier in the process). It co-opted "hacker".
- z3c0 1y ago[flagged]
- MathMonkeyMan 1y agoThe concern is that it's too easy to contribute to hot political topics. Moderation wants to prevent this forum from becoming identical to so many others, and the only tool available is to deemphasize posts.
- TZubiri 1y agoHot political topics are often semi protected anyways.
- hsuduebc2 1y agoThat’s an absolutely valid point — it’s important to prevent discussions from devolving into chaotic political battles. But there is a clear limit to how far you can go. When moderation starts suppressing or de-emphasizing information simply because it doesn’t align with a certain viewpoint — even when that information is objectively true — it’s no longer moderation, it’s censorship. What’s happening around Wikipedia shows how quickly the protection of truth can turn into political pressure: when a platform is accused of "propaganda" simply because its content is inconvenient for certain groups. I really hope we are not yet at the point where mere disagreement automatically makes someone a propagandist who must be silenced by force.
- mikeyouse 1y agoRemember when people pretended it was the scandal of all scandals that the IRS was reviewing PACs who were forbidden from doing political activity for political activity? And now many of those same people are cheering this, and the act blue ‘investigation’, and the threats against Harvard’s tax exempt status for nakedly corrupt reasons? Man I wish shame still had some stopping power.
- nailer 1y ago[flagged]
- mikeyouse 1y agoI’m sure you’d find the exact same thing if some grifty billionaire funded a fake investigation into those people who were contributing money to WinRed and yet, only one of the two is facing investigation.. it is so far past the time when this DOJ should be given the benefit of the doubt and steel manning their obvious corruption doesn’t make anyone seem scholarly, just credulous.
- nailer 1y ago[flagged]
- mikeyouse 1y agoGo ahead and read some of the thousands of 1-star reviews on TrustPilot for WinRed: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/winred.com?stars=1 https://www.trustpilot.com/review/winred.com?stars=1 It turns out the name of the political donation game is recurring donations and spammy messages. I 100% believe people donated to some random cause via act blue and didn’t realize they were signing up for recurring donations through there —- like all political fundraising arms do as evidenced by all the people complaining that WinRed incessantly removes money from their account that they didn’t authorize. But again, only 1 of the 2 is being investigated and it’s obviously a corrupt investigation so here we are.
- almosthere 1y agoIt's 2 paragraphs... What's the substance of the allegation?
- mikeyouse 1y agoIt’s a similar nonsense letter to the same ones he sent to several prominent medical journals. Speech chilling, 1st amendment violating unsubstantiated threats on DOJ letterhead. Of all the unfit people in this administration, he’s likely the most unfit. His entire career has been deeply unethical and partisan and often borderline illegal.
- mindslight 1y agoBut what about The Twitter Files?! (cue X-Files intro music)
- moshegramovsky 1y agoHe doesn't have a leg to stand on and he knows it. Otherwise he would empanel a grand jury and wait for indictments. He is a partisan sadist and he loves to use the legal system to abuse people.
- jimt1234 1y agoThe allegation is the substance.
- rawgabbit 1y agoSame person also threatened the New England Journal of Medicine. Thought crime is real. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/health/nejm-prosecutor-letter.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/health/nejm-prosecutor-le...
- TZubiri 1y agoAs a non american that edited wikipedia. You guys control the servers, if anything you have the psyop advantage. However, the librarians are very vocal about self determination and keeping wikimedia out of important decisions.
- firesteelrain 1y agoWikipedia/Wikimedia could move to a country that allows this type of manipulation on their platform or figure out how to comply with the existing US law. Wikipedia could also stop operating as a 501c3 and incorporate. But the typical out for these organizations are that they are not responsible for what people post. I don’t feel like that is very responsible. They already have moderation on the platform. But Wikimedia/pedia can’t claim 501c3 status. It could spin off the political content/controversial into 501c4 which has more leeway. It can tighten editorial controls, emphasize first amendment, look at Section 230. Publish reports showing how misinformation is identified and corrected, partner with fact checking organizations. But also if they cannot police their own content without an unpaid army of volunteers then herein lies the bigger issue with their model.
- kurtreed2 1y ago[flagged]
- blibble 1y agoor they could move to a country that respects the rule of law and continue operating as they do at present may I suggest Switzerland
- firesteelrain 1y agoIt’s not about that. It’s about tax avoidance. By saying they are 501c3, there are rules and laws they must follow or risk losing their 501c3 status. Now that they have been put on notice, it’s important for them to tighten up
- xqcgrek2 1y ago[flagged]
- miltonlost 1y agowhat drift? What do you consider "neutrality"?
- sterlind 1y agothe Overton window has shifted sharply Right. if you've shifted along with it, the institutions that haven't shifted at all look like they've moved sharply Left. Wikipedia hasn't shifted particularly Left since 2020. Centrists are just blind to shifts of the Center. it's the political equivalent of the equivalence principle.
- acdha 1y ago[flagged]
- habinero 1y agoChurchs are tax exempt. Are they supposed to be neutral?
- LordGrignard 1y agowell no one said churches should remain tax exempt
- dralley 1y agoYes. They aren't, and nobody has the political cajones to actually pick that fight. But that doesn't mean that many of them aren't breaking tax laws left and right.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago[flagged]
- krupan 1y agoIt does, but both side's followers are blind to it when their side does it. Or they think it's ok for their side to do it. I'm not sure which is scarier
- acdha 1y agoYou’re painting with an awfully broad brush, omitting both the magnitude of the difference and far overstating the homogeneity of one of those sides.
- yesco 1y ago[flagged]
- moshegramovsky 1y agoA lot of what you refer to as "pandemic authoritarianism" took place under Trump as well. Vaccine mandates have been part of many jobs for years and years. It's not a Republican or Democrat thing.
- g-b-r 1y ago> Its inevitable we will face yet another worldwide pandemic in the next decade or so If we do, the absurdities about masks and vaccines that were spread by some will make it last just as long as the covid one
- acdha 1y agoYou’re not arguing in good faith if you’re not recognizing that the “pandemic authoritarianism” started under Trump, or asserting that the lab leak theory was ever suppressed (it was continuously discussed throughout - just check the comments here for the last 5 years!) or that the most criticized theories making wild claims about bioweapons or gain of function research are now widely accepted. Many assessments have included the possibility of a lab leak of a natural specimen from the beginning, but in the absence of evidence nobody credible is saying more than, say, the CIA’s “low confidence” back in January.
- kurtreed2 1y ago[flagged]
- anigbrowl 1y agoA polemic! It must all be true. Last revised by deleted account 1 month ago Damn Wikipedia assassinating critics now? Where will it all end
- kurtreed2 1y ago> Damn Wikipedia character assassinating critics now FTFY. If you go dig deeper at foundation.wikimedia.org you'll inevitably come across an Israeli court document describing systemic smear defamation and libel campaign mounted by toxic editors against an academic, which lasted around a decade.
- anigbrowl 1y agoYou're trying too hard, much like the writer of this polemic.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kurtreed2 1y agoYou should make an account on Wikipediocracy (which is frequented by many Wikipedia editors and insiders) and express all your paeans about Wikipedia's supposed infallibility, and see how fast you'd get dressed-down.
- hodgesrm 1y agoIn my humble opinion Wikipedia is the single best thing thing to emerge from the Internet boom. Its name is a wordplay on one of the most important intellectual projects of the Enlightment.[0] The DC prosecutor letter reads like something straight out of the totalitarian playbook.[1] Please donate now to show your support. It's time to fight back against this crap. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die [1] "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_give_you_the_case_against_him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_giv...
- LordGrignard 1y agoHi I don't know if you know it but Wikipedias not that poor or hard pressed... Atleast, the whole "donate or we broke" narrative that they build every few months is complete bullshit https://youtu.be/3t8GUbzVxmQ?si=sa_oHe3DA_QmpGcE https://youtu.be/3t8GUbzVxmQ?si=sa_oHe3DA_QmpGcE
- globular-toast 1y agoNeither is Google, yet there is still probably multiple ads on that video you linked.
- LordGrignard 1y agothe difference is Google isnt pushing the narrative that its about to stop existing if you don't watch this ad my problem is with wikipedia lying to us by saying it will shut down if you don't donate: which is false because their situation simply isnt that dire
- hodgesrm 1y agoI'm fully aware of that. The reason they get donations is that it's worth supporting.
- BrtByte 1y agoWikipedia isn't perfect, but it embodies the idea that knowledge should be built collaboratively and made freely available to everyone
- mjrpes 1y agoHere's the letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcpi375T/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcp... No claims, no evidence. No sources, except "it has come to my attention" and "information received by my office".
- toomuchtodo 1y ago“Some people say.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
- simonw 1y agoYikes that letter is alarming. > In view of public criticisms, including those expressed by Wikipedia Co-Founder Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, regarding the opacity of editorial processes and the anonymity of contributors, what justification does the Foundation offer for shielding editors from public scrutiny? Larry Sanger has been criticizing Wikipedia for more than 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Criticism_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Criticism_of_Wiki... The author of that letter is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Martin_(Missouri_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Martin_(Missouri_politician... - "the first U.S. attorney for D.C. in at least 50 years to be appointed without experience as a judge or a federal prosecutor".
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoThe Heritage Foundation has been open about their desire to strip Wikipedians of anonymity, this is just the government putting that plan into practice: https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wikipedia-project-2025-heritage-foundation-doxing-editors-antisemitism.html https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wikipedia-project-2025-...
- satanfirst 1y agoTheir entry on Wikipedia is well worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation Kind of explains a lot in the balancing act in Trumps rise to power while trying to look like a marionette for various interests this term. They should remember Hitler's rebellion from his masters.
- citizenkeen 1y agoHow do I start worshipping Wikipedia so it can become a church?
- aingling 1y ago[flagged]
- adipose 1y agoCan you give particular examples of the particular worldview that they are trying to push?
- ty6853 1y agoAs soon as Harris ran for POTUS they edited out that her dad was characterized as a Marxist scholar and then viciously defended any attempt to re-instate it.
- acdha 1y agoMore accurately, they rejected the wave of people who tried to add that single word to characterize of his entire career but were not otherwise contributing anything to the article. There’s a good discussion here highlighting how they were looking for substantial improvements by people who were actually familiar with his work, not just trying to affix a label to someone they were otherwise unfamiliar with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhododendrites#Donald_J._Harris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhododendrites#Don...
- bakugo 1y ago10 seconds on Google: https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically...
- ackfoobar 1y agoSaw this on Twitter a while ago: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...
- alganet 1y agoThey (those worried about commie political bias) could do their own public digital university and social media websites. Instead of being free, they could charge a fee that would both serve to repel the freetards and fund the project. Oh shit! That happened already, didn't it? How is it going at attracting talented individuals? We should remember that anti-wikipedia propaganda exists for decades now. Despite of that, it is a place cherished by many (including non commies). Its demise would be a public disaster. Hoarders will maintain copies of it. And if there is bias, there will be tons of biased bootlegs around. Further investigation would be more wise than rapid decisions by instinct.
- tzs 1y ago> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns. This is getting ridiculous. Is there anyone associated with this administration who does not have a record of promoting Russia's positions?
- Fauntleroy 1y ago[flagged]
- walrus01 1y agoWell, considering they have a very high ranking guy in the Putin regime who considers that to be his full time job, google "Vladislav Surkov", they seem to be doing a fairly effective job of it so far.
- hightrix 1y agoRussia has a pretty high ranking guy in the US Government as well, google Krasnov.
- esseph 1y agoThey'd be the exact same. It's like like Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics was a wish list.
- kylecazar 1y agoIf they were any good at it there would probably be less overt Russian sympathizing.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago[flagged]
- OgsyedIE 1y ago[flagged]
- aingling 1y agoIt's an account created to avoid doxxing myself. My Wikipedia username is easily linked to my main HN account. I still rarely make minor Wikipedia edits now and then, and don't want my account banned. Anyone who's edited Wikipedia long enough will recognize the pattern of what I'm describing. It's not a misrepresentation.
- jay_kyburz 1y agoI would really like to read some concrete examples.
- kurtreed2 1y agoAs a start you can look at the following page. https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchWikipediaDie/wiki/scandals https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchWikipediaDie/wiki/scandals
- jay_kyburz 1y agoThnaks.
- kurtreed2 1y agoYou're welcome.
- joshuamorton 1y agoI read through like half of those, and they generally paint a picture of Wikipedia acting well in regards to external controversy, or (mostly robustly) responding to manipulation attempts.
- 1y ago
- alganet 1y agoIt sounds weird. Why does it look like a conspiracy theory? Yo dawg, I heard you like to appeal to conspiracy theory types... Why would someone introduce lots of seemingly indiscernible edits into important articles, fully knowing that the edit history is available to anyone who wants to look? It would make more sense to spread propaganda in a place that doesn't fully track it. Unless the exposition of such tracking edits as an obvious smoking gun exists to be staged to look like someone else did it. Of course, it could all be to trigger a recursive conspiracytheorypocallipse that further erodes any belief in community generated content. What should we do, Master Anakin? There's too many of them conspiracies.
- hayst4ck 1y agoReason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. There is a long legacy of authoritarian regimes attacking curious places, universities, historians, museums, books or any institution that grounds itself in reality which provides you a way to reasonably criticize authoritarian actions. Many authortarian regimes will "purge" as many of the country's intellectuals as they are able. Wikipedia is absolutely the enemy of this administration and authoritarians everywhere in the world would love to see it's demise or collapse into chaos. Whether the Wikipedia page for Israel says Gaza is a genocide or not, or that it's an ongoing debate matters. It matters because it influences what people think and therefore what they consent to or what they deem worth fighting for or applying resources to and that goes for just about any issue out there. If you can't read about the suffering that racism has caused, then how bad is racism really? If there are no examples of successful labor movements, then why would you hopelessly start one?
- emacsen 1y agoAren't you making their point though? The ADL and other Jewish organizations have pointed out that aside from articles about Israel that articles about or mention Jewish topics generally have been editing with disinformation or that made Jews out to be the aggressors. I agree with you that in order to believe in the ideals of liberal democracy that we must have a core belief in truth. And it's absolutely true that the Trump administration has taken a position that is deeply chilling on the issue of speech. It's clear they want to be the sole arbiters of what "truth" is and they want to use their power to manipulate the reality. All that said, I cannot as a Jew ignore the fact that Wikipedia is not in itself neutral, and that "more eyes" does not negate systemic bias. What I've seen as a Jew is what the true meaning of marginalized minority is, which is to say that if you are truly a minority and truly marginalized then in a vote of "truth", your reality will be dismissed if it conflicts with the vast majority, and that Jews are only 0.2% of the world population. While I brought it up, I am not debating the issue of antisemitic bias in Wikipedia[1] as anything other than an illustration of your point of objective truth being true, but also that we can't simply rely on the wisdom of the crowd to materialize that truth. To preemptively address the issue that's bound to come up when I post this- I'm not arguing that the evils of silencing the entire Wikipedia project are equal to or a fair response to Wikipedia's antisemitic bias. I do believe Wikipedia needs to address its bias problem and that's best done through internal reform. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor are two wrongs always of equal weight. [1] Firstly because my point is separate, and secondly because I've encountered the exact issues I've found in Wikipedia elsewhere, which is why I'm sure I'll be voted down.
- jjmarr 1y agoThe English Wikipedia is a massive target for influence campaigns. I don't think there are any other communities as resilient as it. Just an example: There's certain individual or group that edited under the name "Icewhiz", was banned, and now operates endless sockpuppet accounts in the topic area to influence Wikipedia's coverage on the Middle East. One of them was an account named "Eostrix", that spent years making clean uncontroversial edits until one day going for adminship. Eostrix got 99% approval in their request for adminship. But it didn't matter, because an anonymous individual also spent years pursuing Eostrix, assembling evidence, and this resulted in Eostrix's block just days before they became a Wikipedia administrator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz/Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investiga... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Eostrix_Blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Com... It's a useful contrast to a place like Reddit, where volunteer moderators openly admit to spreading terrorist propaganda or operating fake accounts when their original one gets banned. You don't get to do that on Wikipedia. If you try, someone with far too much time on their hands will catch you because Wikipedia doesn't need to care about Daily Active Users and the community cares about protecting a neutral point of view. Not denying the existence of influence campaigns. There have been several major pro-Palestinian ones recently, which is probably why this letter has been sent. But the only reason you know about them is because Wikipedia openly fights them instead of covering them up. Most social media websites don't care and would rather you don't bring it to their attention. That is why Reddit banned /r/bannedforbeingjewish.
- LightHugger 1y agoThere are counterexamples where this has failed/continues to fail, the gamergate article is famously non-neutral, only accepting primary sources from journalists directly involved in the controversy. This is rather than true secondary sources with less extreme and biased views, like is supposed to be the rules there. You can switch from the english one to other languages and get completely different content with very balanced point of views because the other languages weren't controlled by the influence campaign. So, is it better than reddit? I agree, probably. That bar doesn't seem very high though. Part of the issue with gamergate discussion is that there's a lot of vapid perspectives along the lines of "it's just video game journalism who cares" which allows an infinite amount of bad behavior, dishonesty and manipulation in the name of an abstract greater good. I believe it was used as a prototype for future wikipedia manipulation for "more important" topics.
- tonetheman 1y ago[dead]
- vFunct 1y agoLetter should be thrown in the trash. Let him bring up charges if they feel a crime has been committed.
- zeroonetwothree 1y agoThey aren't threatening with a crime, rather just revoking their tax-exempt status.
- vFunct 1y agoI have a question on non-profits in general. What exactly is the advantage of being incorporated as a non-profit, when all you have to do to not be taxed as a for-profit corporation is spend all your money each year and not show any profit? It seems you'd have more privacy as a for-profit corporation, since you don't have to disclose donors.
- hollerith 1y agoIf I donate to a 501(c)(3) organization, the donation gets very favorable treatment by the tax code, reducing my taxes (provided I have income that can be cancelled out by the donation).
- 0x457 1y agohmm, please correct me if I'm wrong, but donations just decrease your tax liability by the amount you've donated. It's the same as if you donated your pre-tax dollars to 501(c)(3) org.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- toast0 1y agoThe second sentence is mostly accurate, but the first implies something else. If your taxable income was $50,000 and you donate $10,000, and (some other conditions) your taxable income would now be $40,000; same as if you managed to move the money pre-tax. However. If you donate aprechiated capital assets, you get two benefits. Your taxable income is offset by the value of the asset, and the capital gains disappear. It's much better than selling the asset and donating the proceeds; and it's handy if you don't have good records for your cost basis.
- 0x457 1y agoSure, but my point is - I'm parting ways with my money (be it cash or an asset with monetary value) either way without anything in return. It's just from tax perspective it essentially looks like I never had those money. I see your point about cost basis tho, I didn't think of this and definetly will use this from now on. Thank you.
- outside1234 1y agoIs this the start of the shakedown by Trump to start allowing misinformation?
- moshegramovsky 1y agoI fear the answer is yes. Did you hear about the "gala dinner" for the top 220 holders of his meme coin? I wish I was joking. Power corrupts...
- yew 1y ago> Power corrupts... "And absolute power is kind of neat."
- tintor 1y agoWikipedia needs decentralized hosting infra, away from any single country. It is way too important.
- dewey 1y agoThe hosting isn’t important, it’s easy to move or have an offline copy already. The access to fundraising is much more important and more complicated.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoI didn't immediately consider this, but I think I agree. In a weird way, the access and reach wikipedia has is a lot more valuable from that perspective. And if there is one thing that the US government can do is restrict that in ways that would effectively neuter it.
- imglorp 1y agoStart backing it up now. Partisan influence could be as minor as forcing some edits or as major as pulling their DNS. Every authoritarian in the world follows this same playbook. Over started looking into kiwix. IA is at risk too.
- kurtreed2 1y agoYou can download backups of Wikipedia articles at dumps.wikimedia.org. For the IA they had a plan to move to Canada back in 2017.
- bawolff 1y agoDecentralization typically means instead of being subject to one crazy government you are subject to multiple and have to deal with all. I think wikipedia's approach of centralizing in one place but allowing downloading backups and making all sourcecode and server config public is better. If the worst happens anyone can setup a fork.
- k4rli 1y agoOne of the few truly good sites remaining. I'm afraid decentralization will take away the credibility even further but also would be very sad to see it fall.
- sandspar 1y ago[flagged]
- 7373737373 1y agoAre you assuming bias/opinion is one-dimensional and the "median American" stands for the Truth?
- sandspar 1y agoNo but thanks for asking.
- ks2048 1y agoIf the median American thought the Earth was flat, should it treat that as a valid theory?
- sandspar 1y agoIf only if were that easy. American politics is mostly fought over interpretations, not simple facts.
- flanked-evergl 1y agoPolitics concerns what ought to be, not what is.
- ks2048 1y agoNPR is left {{Citation needed}} [1] [1] outside of identity politics
- sandspar 1y agoThis will sound rude but I mean it respectfully. If you believe NPR is not left leaning then you are in a severe filter bubble and may want to update your news diet.
- 1y ago
- seltzered_ 1y agoHaven't read the article in full yet, but it reminded me of this nice excerpt on Wikipedia and truth and the best of what we know: https://emilygorcenski.com/post/on-truth/ https://emilygorcenski.com/post/on-truth/ ""But one of the most significant differences critical for moving from polarization to productivity, is that the Wikipedians who write these articles aren’t actually focused on finding the truth. They’re working for something that’s a little more attainable, which is the best of what we can know right now. "
- sgnelson 1y agoSerious question, after the past few months, how can anyone deny that America is heading in a totalitarian direction? Those of you who believe that all of the many actions that have happened in the past few weeks are "okay", please explain your perspective without resorting to "whataboutism" or cherry picking only one or two of the things that have occurred lately. Because from what I'm sitting, this is not behavior of a government based on democratic ideals.
- Tycho 1y ago[flagged]
- poincaredisk 1y agoI have no idea if that's true, maybe it is, but the parent specifically asked for a response without whataboutism.
- acdha 1y agoCitation needed for anything on the scale we’ve seen - for example, the topic of this discussion is a non-profit having their status threatened for non-specific reasons which appear to be constitutionally-protected speech. If it’s “fairly obvious”, you should have no trouble providing examples of something equivalent to this legal threat.
- Tycho 1y agoI recall right-leaning social media sites like Gab, Parler, r/TheDonald, Infowars being taken offline. I can’t read the WP article because it’s paywalled, however I have been suspicious of Wikimedia for a long time. I used to donate to them thinking I was helping to keep the severs running, then being alarmed to find the money was going on all sorts of nonsense. The former CEO (Maher) was blatantly a political/intelligence operator. Fits the pattern of the establishment/powers-that-be abusing the NGO/non-profit sector to illicitly further their aims, so I’m not surprised the new DoJ are looking into them.
- sedev 1y agoI am going to say a thing I say a lot: please edit Wikipedia. It is easier to do than you probably think! Wikipedia's biggest constraint is no longer money or server space, it's editor time (especially since LLM-based garbage is a force multiplier on disruptive editing that does not have a corresponding improvement to good-faith editing). Any topic area you know about and/or care about can benefit from your attention. Fixing typos is valuable. Adding photos is valuable. Flagging vandalism is valuable. Please edit Wikipedia.
- Xelbair 1y agoWith how hostile userbase is on wikipedia, no - i would rather not. especially in my native tongue.
- thallium205 1y agoWhy is their editor so awful to use?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- arrowsmith 1y agoI don't know, but it's definitely not a lack of funding.
- card_zero 1y agoDesigners happened.
- moritonal 1y agoI created a page, it got declined because the guy who two films have been made about didn't count as important enough. I kind of get it, but still, did kill the energy slightly.
- strogonoff 1y agoIf you care about a topic and want to edit Wikipedia but do not want to deal with the process, you can simply talk about what you want to change on the discussion page. Is there an equivalent workaround when it comes to creating new pages?
- tonymet 1y ago[flagged]
- rsingel 1y agoActing DC AG Martin has a history of sockpuppetry. Bought a sycophant a laptop and then ghostwrote Facebook posts attacking a judge in a case against Martin. Should have been disbarred. https://www.propublica.org/article/ed-martin-trump-interim-dc-us-attorney-secret-judge-attacks https://www.propublica.org/article/ed-martin-trump-interim-d... It's always projection with the MAGA crowd
- methuselah_in 1y agoWell, why go after everything?
- seydor 1y ago[flagged]
- lclc 1y agoThe bias also exists very strongly in the German Wikipedia.
- bigbacaloa 1y ago[dead]
- doener 1y agoThe US are no longer a safe country for volunteer projects.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoYou may want to elaborate a little ideally listing countries that would be a safe alternative. In short, it seems like an easy throwaway comment.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- IceHegel 1y agoCurtis Yarvin has a riff that goes something like this: Liberal Wikipedia, Communist Wikipedia, and Fascist Wikipedia will all actually agree on the vast majority of topics: Physics, botany, the solar system, chemistry, math, statistics etc. However they'll be worlds apart on history, economics, anthropology, sexuality, politics, previous leaders and so on. Our Wikipedia is the world seen through the eyes of the New York Times + Harvard. Our Wikipedia is probably correct about Physics, botany...
- Fraterkes 1y agoYarvin putting his intellectual mediocrity on display: the nazis, for example, dismissed relativity as "jewish science".
- tgv 1y agoQuoting a parvenu like Yarvin is a sign of fanaticism. He sounds like a teenager on weed. The only reason he's gotten into the limelight is because some powerful people aligned with Project 2025 agree with him, and needed some philosophical sounding blather to cover their power lust.
- IceHegel 1y agoInteresting, why do you say quoting Yarvin is a sign of fanaticism?
- tgv 1y agoHe says nothing of intellectual interest, yet is presented as some secret fountain of wisdom by hard core, US, extreme right-wing cult followers. I say presented, because I have the vague hope they don't believe it, but only use it as yet another layer of deception.
- IceHegel 1y agoSource?
- 1y ago
- keisborg 1y agoEd Martin seems like a SME when he himself has been influenced by foreign agencies and spoke their case.
- timonoko 1y ago[flagged]
- timonoko 1y ago--
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 4ndrewl 1y ago“allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.” How dare they? Don't they know that's our job Mr Putin?
- rahil627 1y agothe status of Washington Post is clear :/ ...now where's my ladder.. https://12ft.io/ https://12ft.io/
- BrtByte 1y agoWikipedia definitely isn't perfect - bias in editing is real, and it's fair to critique how reliable it is - but threatening their nonprofit status over it is wild.
- tonymet 1y ago90+% of the contributions do not go to wikipedia . They are scamming contributors who think they are paying for the encyclopedia
- nickserv 1y agoObviously this would happen with the current administration in the USA. The foundation should be moved to a country where the rule of law and neutrality are respected. Switzerland perhaps?
- kurtreed2 1y agoThey'll need to delete those LTA pages first before they can move to Europe due to GDPR.
- zeroonetwothree 1y agoSadly no country is immune from changes in rule. It seems like in the worst case all Wikipedia would lose is their tax-exempt status. So it wouldn't even be the end of the world.
- gigatexal 1y agoThis admin has no shame. They’re burning everything good/stable about the US because of an unstable, megalomaniac idiot happened to win the presidency.
- jfengel 1y agoHe didn't just happen to win the presidency. He brought with him both houses of Congress on his coattails, and he had previously filled the Supreme Court (already heavily laden with his partisans). He's not the one with no shame. It's tens of millions of Americans who are even now cheering this action on. Many of them on this web site. If we have a megalomaniac idiot, it's because it reflects who we are.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- gigatexal 1y ago> If we have a megalomaniac idiot, it's because it reflects who we are. s/we/his voters
- gigatexal 1y agoI don’t claim to have the same issues Trump or his MAGA base or his rich sycophants do. I voted for Kamala. Which was basically a vote to continue Biden’s policies. Had she won the world would have been a far different place. So I’m unsure why the downvote. Emacs fans don’t like my vim-ism?
- CommanderData 1y agoSimilar to TikTok, ADL were effectively banned from Wikipedia. This coincidences nicely with all of this.
- CommenterPerson 1y agoWikipedia is a shining example of what the internet could have been. Before the internet was "Enshittified" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification I am going to increase my monthly contribution.
- HenryBemis 1y agoA "NOBUS" weapon. Any system (country/gov/para-...) needs the right 'tools' for people-manipulation and people-programming. And such weapons should not be allowed to be used against 'us'. Kinda like devices that must accept (and malfunction) but not cause interference. So, for a "let people speak their mind - don't control information" the Trump side quickly goes to universities must teach only what 'WE' want, Wikipedia must mention only what 'WE' like. Hilarious if not pathetic and dangerous (very-very 1984-ish...) Side-note: it has since amused me but apparently it's not often told/at all.. the absolute propaganda tool for Russia/Soviet was "Pravda" (the "Truth"). Imagine my amusement when Trump created "Truth Social". You can't make that shit up.... Now, as I've said before, I live in the EU and don't vote in the US, so you folks decide, and then we all get to 'share' the experience (since I do have some/plenty of SP500 and similar instruments).
- unyttigfjelltol 1y agoNearly everyone has a viewpoint and taking the time to contribute is a strong clue the viewpoint is deeply-felt. Some people primarily adopt the Wikipedia rules as their viewpoint, but in hotly debated social issues like (oh, pick one out of a hat) the Covid-19 crisis and origin investigation-- Wikipedia is drowned in other viewpoints, and, because administrators mosly are alike, substantive groupthink. I'm impressed by Wikipedia's efforts to root out "abuse" but in the end it's all a contest over truth, and Wikipedia fails in precisely the dynamic, high-interest, high-consequence topics that users seek out on the site.
- morsecodist 1y agoI am not a lawyer but this sounds absurd. Even if everything in here were true it seems irrelevant to their non profit status. There are issue based non profits that do nothing but publishing information with an ideological slant. There is no restriction on a 501c3 being run by non-citizens let alone influenced. 501c3s can even engage in lobbying. I know taking it at face value isn't the point but this claim is particularly galling.
- thrance 1y agoFascists hate knowledge, as is made apparent by Trump, Musk and co's repeated claims that Wikipedia is "radical-left woke DEI propaganda". I can only hope Wikimedia considers moving the bulk of their servers and organization to outside of the US before it is stolen by the evil bunch.
- rubyfan 1y agoSo the issue is “allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.” and they are going after wikipedia instead of say TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X?
- firesteelrain 1y agoWikipedia website even says your donation goes to other projects. As a 501c3, they are banned from making political contributions. They should change from 501c3 and break off their political arm into another appropriately categorized IRS recognized model. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/wikimedia-foundation/recipients?id=D000085196 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/wikimedia-foundation/recipi...
- blibble 1y agono, it's about using the power of the state to attack and hopefully silence your political opponents something commonly seen in e.g. Venezuela, South Africa, and now the US
- firesteelrain 1y agoI understand the sentiment but all they have to do is create a PAC for political stuff not under 501c3
- LightBug1 1y ago"Trump appointee Ed Martin accuses the online encyclopedia of “allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.” April 25, 2025 at 6:54 p.m. EDT" How about these wankers turn their attention to their own administration ... Oh, pardon me ... what a ludicrous thing to suggest.
- southernplaces7 1y agoA worrying thing about this, along with a few other examples such as the case of Harvard, is how branches of the federal government are using tax regulations, legal structure status and grant rules as mechanisms for openly threatening certain types of tendencies and practices in what are basically independent organizations. I don't know how novel it is for the feds to do this, but it's a chilling technique that sets dangerous regulatory precedents on speech control in a legal system that "supposedly" protects free speech. I could argue that it's ironic coming from the supposedly free speech-obsessed Trump government, but given how bloviatingly, mendaciously hypocritical that particular swine is, there's nothing surprising here at all. Also, nice to see the WaPo actually covering this, considering Jeff Bezos more recent and not so subtle sucking up to Trump. Edit: and Yes, this tendency I mention above is much more worrying than any idiotic authoritarian canard about "spreading misinformation and propaganda".
- southernplaces7 1y agoAnd why not give a contrary view to this particular and valid criticism, instead of downvoting like little children.
- Funes- 1y agoIt's long due that we come up with an uncensorable, decentralized digital encyclopedia, with different versions for every article, each qualified perhaps by a voting or comment system of sorts, so we can work out biases and make up our own minds on any subject. That way, it'll also be truly nonprofit, afforded by its own users.
- focusgroup0 1y ago[flagged]
- darknavi 1y agoI don't understand, the revenue and expenses seem relatively close most years and they seem to have a cash reserve for a little more than a year. What's not non-profit about that? I'd buy an argument if you looked at executive payout or something along those lines.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoYes
- GuestFAUniverse 1y agoYeah... this Ed Martin? -- rhetorical question! " Martin was a CNN contributor in 2017.[38] From 2016 to 2024, Martin appeared more than 150 times on RT America and Sputnik, both of which are Russian state-controlled news agencies.[39] None of these appearances was disclosed to the Senate on a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire asking for a list of all media interviews.[39] Nine days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders and critized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.[40] " Time to archive a lot of snapshots.
- deknos 1y agoTo be honest, many of the people who critize wikipedia.. just do not want to fork the content. it would be possible. they all like the work people put into it. but as soon as it does not fit the worldview anymore... are there manipulations? sure. then more people should watch it. and wikipedia should have a better process on controversal topics in own areas. but the whining is abysmal.
- fc417fc802 1y agoThis suggestion ignores network effects.
- const_cast 1y agoRight, which is one of the most valuable parts about Wikipedia (or truly any product) and should be factored in. The information on Wikipedia is important, but the existence of Wikipedia and you and I both knowing about it is more important. This is why building up existing institutions is almost always more valuable than the "burn it all down" populist mentality we see in politics today. Just the existence of the current thing represents some inertia, some energy, some goals, and that has value.
- kurtreed2 1y agoJustapedia has forked English Wikipedia almost three years ago and is doing good so far, even if they're still ignored by major search engines.
- os2warpman 1y ago[flagged]
- tonymet 1y agowhere do you draw the line between whining and legitimate concerns? forking wikipedia wouldn't address the core quality issues and how low quality content is syndicated to billions via search engines, LLMs, academic references etc.
- tomohawk 1y ago[dead]
- EasyMark 1y agoHe's just mad that there are references to Trump's facism on there. I hope Americans aren't stupid enough to think that nonprofits can only exist if they support MAGA propaganda and fascism. One such article that he has no doubt skimmed and turned red in the face at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism
- peakskill 1y agoWikipedia IS ideologically captured and a propaganda target. This is not up for debate. What it needs now is a bipartisan, sybil resistant algorithm like X’s community notes’ in order to accept/reject edits.
- munchler 1y ago> Wikipedia IS ideologically captured and a propaganda target. This is not up for debate. What an absurd claim to make without any evidence. Citation needed.
- yew 1y agoEvidence is socially constructed. It's the view of the public that neckbeards and debate-bros should be expunged. This isn't a debate.
- peakskill 1y agoLived experience. I am the source, lib. Why would you be against a bipartisan curation algorithm like the one employed by community notes if you didn’t subconsciously agree with me?
- thunderfork 1y ago[dead]
- CommenterPerson 1y agoLet's remove nonprofit status from all churches. Because they are involved in politics
- guywithahat 1y agoAre they though? I’ve seen people make this claim but I’ve never seen them coherently defend it outside of a rouge priest
- fugalfervor 1y agoI think you mean "rogue". The "rouge" priestess is a Game of Thrones character.
- dyauspitr 1y agoPretty much every evangelical church is heavily political.
- zeroonetwothree 1y agoThe US government cannot tax churches because of the first amendment. So they have a bit of a stronger claim than Wikipedia.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago1A has nothing to do with tax status.
- 0xTJ 1y agoUnrelated to the issue here, I remain disappointed with the Wikipedia redesign. I find it too like a mobile-first-page, and I'm put off whenever I go to the site in a browser where I'm not logged in.
- rappatic 1y ago[flagged]
- susiecambria 1y agoI've edited a page about my grandfather's accounting firm that was bought out by some iteration of Peat Marwick (I have the deets somewhere, just don't recall now). Referred to documentation and the edit was reverted. Done some other edits, some stick, some are reverted. I don't have time to deal with this so as much as I'd like to contribute, I am doing stuff where I can actually contribute.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoWikipedia has its share of issues, and anything political/controversial is never going to be perfectly balanced and there will always be a tug of war over content and complaints from all sides. I tend to stay away from articles on highly politicized people/topics. But having an independent (not ad-driven therefore not subject to corporations), transparent (you can see edit history and authors), and funded by its users, is an amazing accomplishment and a great boon to mankind. One of the best sites on the internet. Independent sources of information are a threat to autocrats and dictators, so it's no surprise that the Trump admin would attempt to kill Wikipedia or reduce its influence (and no better way than to hit its tax status and therefore reduce donations to it).
- Animats 1y agoI once wrote an essay on how to deal with conflict of interest problems on Wikipedia.[1] It's not that hard. It's just work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hints_on_dealing_with_conflict_of_interest_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hints_on_dealing_wit...
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y agoWorks where archive.is is blocked: https://web.archive.org/web/20250425235105if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/04/25/wikipedia-nonprofit-ed-martin-letter/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250425235105if_/https://www.wa... The letter: https://web.archive.org/web/20250427075702if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/3902ac06-7b82-4280-95f7-8cd0fde34abc.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20250427075702if_/https://www.wa...