4 ms·

Preach. How much time and money will Wikipedia have to waste defending this? Don’t these people have anything better to do? Like lowering prices for everyday A

by bix6 1y ago

Preach. How much time and money will Wikipedia have to waste defending this? Don’t these people have anything better to do? Like lowering prices for everyday Americans instead of running up baseless legal bills?

aeternum 1y ago
[flagged]
- mbeavitt 1y ago
  what evidence do you have to back up this baseless claim? They openly publish their financial reports: https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports $178 million might sound like an extremely large amount of money if you're a member of the general public, but for a global resource kept up to date that serves hundreds of billions of visitors per year this is actually not a huge quantity of money.
  - guywithahat 1y ago
    I don't work for wikipedia and haven't seen their budget in depth, but the link is mostly fluff. Reading it I have no idea if "support for volunteers" means supporting wikipedia editors, corporate, donations, etc. All we really know is that hosting costs are about 3.1 million a year. Usually non-profit organizations like this get significant corporate funding because they do work for companies and political organizations, which is where the corruption comes from. I don't think there's any doubt Wikipedia is a politically biased organization, all you have to do is look at their URL blacklists to figure that out. The NYT is regarded as a high quality link, meanwhile you're not even allowed to link the epoch times as a reference despite it being the most comparable right-wing competitor to the NYT. Basically every major right-wing paper is banned, while every major left-wing paper is allowed
    - bawolff 1y ago
      > Reading it I have no idea if "support for volunteers" means supporting wikipedia editors, corporate, donations I think its pretty clear that "support for volunteers" does not mean corporate. I too would like more detailed budgets, but we do have some info here. > Usually non-profit organizations like this get significant corporate funding because they do work for companies and political organizations The list of large donors is public https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annual-report/#toc-donors https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annu... there are only 27 who gave > $50000. Which ones do you think Wikipedia is giving biased coverage to? I'd also point out that there is a wall of separation between editors and the foundation. > all you have to do is look at their URL blacklists to figure that out. The NYT is regarded as a high quality link, meanwhile you're not even allowed to link the epoch times as a reference despite it being the most comparable right-wing competitor to the NYT. Basically every major right-wing paper is banned, while every major left-wing paper is allowed Discussion about epoch times at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#The_Epoch_Times,_once_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not... my understanding is the concern is around them promoting conspiracy theories without evidence not their political alignment.
      - aeternum 1y ago
        >my understanding is the concern is around them promoting conspiracy theories without evidence not their political alignment. That might be their justification but is it actually true? Specifically: Do you believe that every major right-wing paper promotes conspiracy theories while every major left-wing paper does not?
        bawolff 1y ago
        I would disagree with your premise that every major right wing paper is listed. For example fox news and the Washington Examiner are considered right wing and are not listed as a deprecated source. Similarly there are left wing sources on the deprecated list like the grayzone or Occupy Democrats. (Arguably those are rather fringe) Certainly the epoch times has been widely criticized for being factually inaccurate in ways the new york times has not been. I also don't particularly think the new york times is equivalent to the epoch times in terms of reputation.
  - aeternum 1y ago
    https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annual-report/#toc-financial-accountability https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annu... They spend only $3mil on internet hosting. They spent almost 6 mil on travel and conferences, and 26 mil on awards and grants. They could easily run all wikimedia hosting on investment income (endowment) alone so the banner that often pleads for donations to keep wikipedia running is pretty scammy.
- creativenolo 1y ago
  I’m not following this comment. Yes, it’s a true statement. But do you mean it changes the situation? Should your comment be read as support for them spending their money sourced through donations to defend the accusations?
bawolff 1y ago
From what I understand this is just a "polite" request, not a supeona, so Wikipedia can ignore it if they want.
- bix6 1y ago
  You can just ignore congress?
  - bawolff 1y ago
    If they are just asking nicely, yes (although there are probably political ramifications). If its an actual demand then no. I imagine the way it normal goes is first they ask nicely and if you say no then they formally supeona you.
  - Freedom2 1y ago
    Depends if you're the president.
    - EGreg 1y ago
      Yup https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/575819-trump-advising-4-former-aides-to-ignore-subpoenas-from-jan-6-panel/amp/ https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/575819-trump-ad...
tastyface 1y ago
This is actually one of the most important things they can do. Reality does not conform to their twisted worldviews, so they must pervert publicly available sources of information in order to maintain legitimacy. This means the media, education, and the open internet. And they are readily assaulting all three.

by bix6 1y ago

aeternum 1y ago

[flagged]

mbeavitt 1y ago
what evidence do you have to back up this baseless claim? They openly publish their financial reports: https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports $178 million might sound like an extremely large amount of money if you're a member of the general public, but for a global resource kept up to date that serves hundreds of billions of visitors per year this is actually not a huge quantity of money.
- guywithahat 1y ago
  I don't work for wikipedia and haven't seen their budget in depth, but the link is mostly fluff. Reading it I have no idea if "support for volunteers" means supporting wikipedia editors, corporate, donations, etc. All we really know is that hosting costs are about 3.1 million a year. Usually non-profit organizations like this get significant corporate funding because they do work for companies and political organizations, which is where the corruption comes from. I don't think there's any doubt Wikipedia is a politically biased organization, all you have to do is look at their URL blacklists to figure that out. The NYT is regarded as a high quality link, meanwhile you're not even allowed to link the epoch times as a reference despite it being the most comparable right-wing competitor to the NYT. Basically every major right-wing paper is banned, while every major left-wing paper is allowed
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > Reading it I have no idea if "support for volunteers" means supporting wikipedia editors, corporate, donations I think its pretty clear that "support for volunteers" does not mean corporate. I too would like more detailed budgets, but we do have some info here. > Usually non-profit organizations like this get significant corporate funding because they do work for companies and political organizations The list of large donors is public https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annual-report/#toc-donors https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annu... there are only 27 who gave > $50000. Which ones do you think Wikipedia is giving biased coverage to? I'd also point out that there is a wall of separation between editors and the foundation. > all you have to do is look at their URL blacklists to figure that out. The NYT is regarded as a high quality link, meanwhile you're not even allowed to link the epoch times as a reference despite it being the most comparable right-wing competitor to the NYT. Basically every major right-wing paper is banned, while every major left-wing paper is allowed Discussion about epoch times at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#The_Epoch_Times,_once_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not... my understanding is the concern is around them promoting conspiracy theories without evidence not their political alignment.
    - aeternum 1y ago
      >my understanding is the concern is around them promoting conspiracy theories without evidence not their political alignment. That might be their justification but is it actually true? Specifically: Do you believe that every major right-wing paper promotes conspiracy theories while every major left-wing paper does not?
      - bawolff 1y ago
        I would disagree with your premise that every major right wing paper is listed. For example fox news and the Washington Examiner are considered right wing and are not listed as a deprecated source. Similarly there are left wing sources on the deprecated list like the grayzone or Occupy Democrats. (Arguably those are rather fringe) Certainly the epoch times has been widely criticized for being factually inaccurate in ways the new york times has not been. I also don't particularly think the new york times is equivalent to the epoch times in terms of reputation.
- aeternum 1y ago
  https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annual-report/#toc-financial-accountability https://wikimediafoundation.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annu... They spend only $3mil on internet hosting. They spent almost 6 mil on travel and conferences, and 26 mil on awards and grants. They could easily run all wikimedia hosting on investment income (endowment) alone so the banner that often pleads for donations to keep wikipedia running is pretty scammy.
creativenolo 1y ago
I’m not following this comment. Yes, it’s a true statement. But do you mean it changes the situation? Should your comment be read as support for them spending their money sourced through donations to defend the accusations?

bawolff 1y ago

From what I understand this is just a "polite" request, not a supeona, so Wikipedia can ignore it if they want.

bix6 1y ago
You can just ignore congress?
- bawolff 1y ago
  If they are just asking nicely, yes (although there are probably political ramifications). If its an actual demand then no. I imagine the way it normal goes is first they ask nicely and if you say no then they formally supeona you.
- Freedom2 1y ago
  Depends if you're the president.
  - EGreg 1y ago
    Yup https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/575819-trump-advising-4-former-aides-to-ignore-subpoenas-from-jan-6-panel/amp/ https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/575819-trump-ad...

tastyface 1y ago

This is actually one of the most important things they can do. Reality does not conform to their twisted worldviews, so they must pervert publicly available sources of information in order to maintain legitimacy. This means the media, education, and the open internet. And they are readily assaulting all three.