6 ms·

Here's the letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcpi375T/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcp... No cl

by mjrpes 1y ago

Here'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 ago
Yikes 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Their 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.
    - cutemonster 1y ago
      Trump is dumb and 80 though. But if he had been 40 and intelligent. Vance is 40, I wonder how intelligent or not is he?
      - sterlind 1y ago
        he might be intelligent, but he has negative rizz. the only person excited about Vance 2028 is Peter Thiel.
  - squarefoot 1y ago
    If the HF is behind this, then Wikipedia is doomed beyond any legal defense. Back it up entirely and move it overseas.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      Authoritarian regimes thrive on fatalism and despair. But they also inspire resistance. We did not have mass protests a few months ago. Our society is in deep crisis and the outcome can still swing either way. For all the progress they’ve made in dismantling our democratic institutions, deep incompetence runs through this administration. Our efforts should be still directed to fighting their overreach. It is not the time to retreat.
  - buyucu 1y ago
    The easiest solution is for the Wikimedia Foundation to move out of Us jurisdiction to a more democratic country.
    - guerrilla 1y ago
      I don't think that would work. The US would just attack those countries as they are doing right now, trying to force us to give up DEI and ESG.
      - grafmax 1y ago
        It’s questionable whether this bully continues to have as much influence as it thinks it does.
        guerrilla 1y ago
        I don't see any signs of succesful resistance yet.
        fugalfervor 1y ago
        China is doing just fine resisting the bullying. EU can do the same.
        GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        EU already tried.
        fugalfervor 1y ago
        they should try harder.
  - douglasisshiny 1y ago
    To be more clear, it's operatives of the Heritage Foundation who now work in the government putting this into place. Does anyone think Trump actually does much day to day? He often seems completely unaware of what's going on in his own government. I invite anyway to watch his evening press conferences where he's handed a bunch of Executive Orders, is told what he's signing (he has no clue), and signs it.
    - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
      Too bad there's not a maximum age for being elected president.
- the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
  Getting really bad vibes from this. Plenty of people in power are unhappy with Wikipedia for years. So far it’s an amazing source and surprisingly neutral given the complexity of the problem. Would not want to lose it in a political fight.
dxroshan 1y ago
What is happening is very scary. Many people don't seem to care about any evidence or sources. They blindly follow whatever lies that their leaders say. I think this has been the case at anytime in history. However, now, with the internet, it is easy to spread such lies to mass and easy for such leaders to make blind followers.
- rnd0 1y ago
  Clearly people care very deeply about sources and evidence -and they're attacking things (wikipedia, various gov websites) which can be used as objective sources. If you don't have objective sources, it's easier to lead people around by the nose -hence the attack.
  - 93po 1y ago
    Here's the root of the problem though: wikipedia isn't an objective source by its very nature. Wikipedia requires mainstream established news sources for a lot of articles that aren't academic in nature, and especially for articles about people. You cannot include information that isn't supported by corporate news articles, which means corporate news is now the arbiter of truth, and corporate news lies all the time about everything. Wikipedia is, and always has been, the encyclopedia of the elite and billionaire narrative, and especially the left-wing narrative, which dominates nearly all corporate news groups. I say this as a far left person myself.
    - sterlind 1y ago
      corporate news rarely lies outright. libel is illegal. articles will spin and speculate, emphasize and elide, omit and opine, but that's not lying, it's spin, and a careful reading can extract the facts of the matter. yes, you have to cite reliable sources on Wikipedia. yes, this means AP is considered more reliable than someone's Substack. you can, however, cite NPR or PBS, the BBC or the Guardian. if two reliable sources differ, you cite both and describe the conflict. how do you know that "corporate" news lies all the time about everything? who told you that? why do you trust them? why should I trust them?
SonOfLilit 1y ago
This is legal communication written by a lawyer and intended to be read by lawyers. Consistently, the first thing every lawyer has said to me when preparing for any interaction with third parties that had a legal aspect was "never volunteer information you were not explicitly asked for". Of course lawyers would practice this among themselves. The law requires him to suspect something wrong to investigate, so he states "I hereby formally suspect something wrong". If the investigation leads to a court filing, the law would then require him to submit evidence, so he will strategically decide which evidence to submit and submit it. Why would he commit in advance to what evidence he believes relevant if not required by law? But also, if reading the letter as if written in good faith - which I find hard to do - those are all true reasons to suspect something wrong (it is common knowledge and well established that Wikipedia is a very influential source of knowledge, and that there are attempts at foreign influence), and great questions to ask to investigate whether the Foundation is making a reasonable effort to fight it if you were a regulator or auditor or other investigator, all of which have great answers already written up that prove the foundation is doing a very good job at establishing and maintaining processes to ensure the neutrality of its articles. In my headcanon, Wikipedia's lawyer responds simply with a list of URLs.
pwarner 1y ago
It was probably Elon
- 93po 1y ago
  Can we stop bringing up annoying people in every single comment section when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
  - llm_nerd 1y ago
    Elon Musk has been waging a war with Wikipedia[1] for a couple of years now, and has the ear of the president. Of those in the administration, he is the single name that really stands out as a guy with a Wikipedia beef. Seems like he has lots to do with the topic, and it is absolutely likely that he is the one who elicited this. Recall that Musk also basically appointed his own head of the IRS (though Bessent then ousted that person and installed his own stooge). 1 - https://www.the-independent.com/tech/elon-musk-wikipedia-nazi-salute-free-speech-b2685552.html https://www.the-independent.com/tech/elon-musk-wikipedia-naz...
    - 93po 1y ago
      this is a really high level of hyperbole that isn't reflective of reality
      - llm_nerd 1y ago
        Hyperbole? What? What did I say is remotely hyperbole? You can't simply drop that as if it immunizes you from reality. Your claim that Elon has "nothing to do" with this is simple ignorance. Either you simply didn't know, in which case say "oops, sorry, I don't know what I'm talking about", or you're being grossly insincere. Elon brings up Wikipedia constantly. Elon, you know the guy constantly at the president's side and who literally named a head of the IRS, absolutely has something to do with the government suddenly turning its evil eye of ignorance towards the group.
zeroonetwothree 1y ago
This isn't a trial, the government doesn't have to submit evidence about any wrongdoing. It's just a letter asking for additional information. Now are the government's motivations for this legitimate in this case? Perhaps not, but they do have a right to ask.

by mjrpes 1y ago

toomuchtodo 1y ago

“Some people say.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

simonw 1y ago

Yikes 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Their 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.
  - cutemonster 1y ago
    Trump is dumb and 80 though. But if he had been 40 and intelligent. Vance is 40, I wonder how intelligent or not is he?
    - sterlind 1y ago
      he might be intelligent, but he has negative rizz. the only person excited about Vance 2028 is Peter Thiel.
- squarefoot 1y ago
  If the HF is behind this, then Wikipedia is doomed beyond any legal defense. Back it up entirely and move it overseas.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    Authoritarian regimes thrive on fatalism and despair. But they also inspire resistance. We did not have mass protests a few months ago. Our society is in deep crisis and the outcome can still swing either way. For all the progress they’ve made in dismantling our democratic institutions, deep incompetence runs through this administration. Our efforts should be still directed to fighting their overreach. It is not the time to retreat.
- buyucu 1y ago
  The easiest solution is for the Wikimedia Foundation to move out of Us jurisdiction to a more democratic country.
  - guerrilla 1y ago
    I don't think that would work. The US would just attack those countries as they are doing right now, trying to force us to give up DEI and ESG.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      It’s questionable whether this bully continues to have as much influence as it thinks it does.
      - guerrilla 1y ago
        I don't see any signs of succesful resistance yet.
        fugalfervor 1y ago
        China is doing just fine resisting the bullying. EU can do the same.
        GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        EU already tried.
        fugalfervor 1y ago
        they should try harder.
- douglasisshiny 1y ago
  To be more clear, it's operatives of the Heritage Foundation who now work in the government putting this into place. Does anyone think Trump actually does much day to day? He often seems completely unaware of what's going on in his own government. I invite anyway to watch his evening press conferences where he's handed a bunch of Executive Orders, is told what he's signing (he has no clue), and signs it.
  - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
    Too bad there's not a maximum age for being elected president.
the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
Getting really bad vibes from this. Plenty of people in power are unhappy with Wikipedia for years. So far it’s an amazing source and surprisingly neutral given the complexity of the problem. Would not want to lose it in a political fight.

dxroshan 1y ago

What is happening is very scary. Many people don't seem to care about any evidence or sources. They blindly follow whatever lies that their leaders say. I think this has been the case at anytime in history. However, now, with the internet, it is easy to spread such lies to mass and easy for such leaders to make blind followers.

rnd0 1y ago
Clearly people care very deeply about sources and evidence -and they're attacking things (wikipedia, various gov websites) which can be used as objective sources. If you don't have objective sources, it's easier to lead people around by the nose -hence the attack.
- 93po 1y ago
  Here's the root of the problem though: wikipedia isn't an objective source by its very nature. Wikipedia requires mainstream established news sources for a lot of articles that aren't academic in nature, and especially for articles about people. You cannot include information that isn't supported by corporate news articles, which means corporate news is now the arbiter of truth, and corporate news lies all the time about everything. Wikipedia is, and always has been, the encyclopedia of the elite and billionaire narrative, and especially the left-wing narrative, which dominates nearly all corporate news groups. I say this as a far left person myself.
  - sterlind 1y ago
    corporate news rarely lies outright. libel is illegal. articles will spin and speculate, emphasize and elide, omit and opine, but that's not lying, it's spin, and a careful reading can extract the facts of the matter. yes, you have to cite reliable sources on Wikipedia. yes, this means AP is considered more reliable than someone's Substack. you can, however, cite NPR or PBS, the BBC or the Guardian. if two reliable sources differ, you cite both and describe the conflict. how do you know that "corporate" news lies all the time about everything? who told you that? why do you trust them? why should I trust them?

SonOfLilit 1y ago

This is legal communication written by a lawyer and intended to be read by lawyers. Consistently, the first thing every lawyer has said to me when preparing for any interaction with third parties that had a legal aspect was "never volunteer information you were not explicitly asked for". Of course lawyers would practice this among themselves. The law requires him to suspect something wrong to investigate, so he states "I hereby formally suspect something wrong". If the investigation leads to a court filing, the law would then require him to submit evidence, so he will strategically decide which evidence to submit and submit it. Why would he commit in advance to what evidence he believes relevant if not required by law? But also, if reading the letter as if written in good faith - which I find hard to do - those are all true reasons to suspect something wrong (it is common knowledge and well established that Wikipedia is a very influential source of knowledge, and that there are attempts at foreign influence), and great questions to ask to investigate whether the Foundation is making a reasonable effort to fight it if you were a regulator or auditor or other investigator, all of which have great answers already written up that prove the foundation is doing a very good job at establishing and maintaining processes to ensure the neutrality of its articles. In my headcanon, Wikipedia's lawyer responds simply with a list of URLs.

pwarner 1y ago

It was probably Elon

93po 1y ago
Can we stop bringing up annoying people in every single comment section when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
- llm_nerd 1y ago
  Elon Musk has been waging a war with Wikipedia[1] for a couple of years now, and has the ear of the president. Of those in the administration, he is the single name that really stands out as a guy with a Wikipedia beef. Seems like he has lots to do with the topic, and it is absolutely likely that he is the one who elicited this. Recall that Musk also basically appointed his own head of the IRS (though Bessent then ousted that person and installed his own stooge). 1 - https://www.the-independent.com/tech/elon-musk-wikipedia-nazi-salute-free-speech-b2685552.html https://www.the-independent.com/tech/elon-musk-wikipedia-naz...
  - 93po 1y ago
    this is a really high level of hyperbole that isn't reflective of reality
    - llm_nerd 1y ago
      Hyperbole? What? What did I say is remotely hyperbole? You can't simply drop that as if it immunizes you from reality. Your claim that Elon has "nothing to do" with this is simple ignorance. Either you simply didn't know, in which case say "oops, sorry, I don't know what I'm talking about", or you're being grossly insincere. Elon brings up Wikipedia constantly. Elon, you know the guy constantly at the president's side and who literally named a head of the IRS, absolutely has something to do with the government suddenly turning its evil eye of ignorance towards the group.

zeroonetwothree 1y ago

This isn't a trial, the government doesn't have to submit evidence about any wrongdoing. It's just a letter asking for additional information. Now are the government's motivations for this legitimate in this case? Perhaps not, but they do have a right to ask.