←back to thread

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

(www.washingtonpost.com)
754 points coloneltcb | 5 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
IceHegel ◴[26 Apr 25 06:34 UTC] No.43801412[source]▶
Curtis 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...

replies(2): >>43802121 #>>43805688 #
1. Fraterkes ◴[26 Apr 25 09:27 UTC] No.43802121[source]▶
Yarvin putting his intellectual mediocrity on display: the nazis, for example, dismissed relativity as "jewish science".
replies(2): >>43802276 #>>43804861 #
2. tgv ◴[26 Apr 25 10:02 UTC] No.43802276[source]▶
Quoting 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.
replies(1): >>43805025 #
3. IceHegel ◴[26 Apr 25 16:10 UTC] No.43804861[source]▶
Source?
4. IceHegel ◴[26 Apr 25 16:29 UTC] No.43805025[source]▶
Interesting, why do you say quoting Yarvin is a sign of fanaticism?
replies(1): >>43805392 #
5. tgv ◴[26 Apr 25 17:16 UTC] No.43805392{3}[source]▶
He 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.