←back to thread

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

(www.washingtonpost.com)
923 points coloneltcb | 2 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.418s | source
Show context
sedev ◴[26 Apr 25 03:04 UTC] No.43800538[source]▶
I 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.
replies(33): >>43800548 #>>43800561 #>>43800562 #>>43800627 #>>43800656 #>>43800869 #>>43800924 #>>43800973 #>>43801067 #>>43801176 #>>43801349 #>>43801481 #>>43801492 #>>43801580 #>>43801831 #>>43801854 #>>43801895 #>>43801972 #>>43801986 #>>43802252 #>>43802417 #>>43803156 #>>43804597 #>>43806169 #>>43806198 #>>43806256 #>>43806358 #>>43806607 #>>43806723 #>>43807364 #>>43807423 #>>43811812 #>>43822115 #
klntsky ◴[26 Apr 25 06:57 UTC] No.43801492[source]▶
I don't want to contribute to this giant propaganda machine by making it more valuable. Structural problems must be fixed first.

"If your solution consists of 'everyone should just X', you don't have a solution"

replies(2): >>43807775 #>>43807936 #
1. tim333 ◴[26 Apr 25 22:49 UTC] No.43807936[source]▶
People say "propaganda machine" but I have yet to see much example of that. The Trumpists don't like it because it fact checks their lies but I'm not sure it's fair to call that propaganda? Any examples like a link to an article or section that you feel is propaganda?
replies(1): >>43812527 #
2. moritzwarhier ◴[27 Apr 25 15:18 UTC] No.43812527[source]▶
Many people here decry Wikipedia as biased, impossible to edit and other bad things.

But none of the comments point out the actual article that they wanted to edit.

Ironically, presumably to remain anonymous. Anonymity and pseudonymity are directly attacked in the letter this article is about.

Wikipedia sure isn't perfect, but so far, when commenters attack it with fundamental vitriol, I've always found these people to have a political agenda.