←back to thread

152 points xqcgrek2 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.417s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[] No.45043467[source]
I don’t trust this administration to perform an unbiased investigation, but it’s not a secret that Wikipedia is a high profile target for anyone who wants to push an agenda.

Even trivial topics can attract die-hards who refuse to let an article say something they don’t like.

Wikipedia also seeks to have a similar problem to StackOverflow where some users have become very good at working their way into the site’s structures and saying the right things to leverage the site’s governance model to their advantage. The couple times I’ve visited “talk” pages for topics that seemed a bit off lately I found a whirlwind of activity from a handful of accounts who seemed to find a Wikipedia rule or procedure to shut down talk they disagreed with.

replies(5): >>45043573 #>>45043697 #>>45043887 #>>45043942 #>>45043984 #
Fricken ◴[] No.45043573[source]
It's time to move Wikipedia from the US to a safer haven
replies(4): >>45043742 #>>45043870 #>>45043897 #>>45044085 #
riffic ◴[] No.45043870[source]
Sorry for the dismissive tone, but this is a silly reactionary take. It's noise and the hot air is meant to serve as a distraction. Your doomerism isn't helpful.
replies(1): >>45043923 #
1. bbor ◴[] No.45043923[source]
Blatant, open, unabashed authoritarianism is just “noise”…?

What red line are you waiting for before acknowledging that we’re in a dangerous situation (aka headed towards doom)?

replies(1): >>45043948 #
2. riffic ◴[] No.45043948[source]
I'm just as concerned about all this as you are. I guess I just have a bit of faith left in that reason will prevail. I'm cranky but also a perennial optimist.