←back to thread

767 points coloneltcb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.216s | source
Show context
mjrpes ◴[] No.43799593[source]
Here's the letter: 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".

replies(5): >>43799650 #>>43799855 #>>43800768 #>>43801411 #>>43802931 #
simonw ◴[] No.43799855[source]
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_Wiki...

The author of that letter is 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".

replies(2): >>43801620 #>>43801755 #
1. the_mitsuhiko ◴[] No.43801755[source]
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.