The English Wikipedia is a massive target for influence campaigns. I don't think there are any other communities as resilient as it. Just an example:
There's certain individual or group that edited under the name "Icewhiz", was banned, and now operates endless sockpuppet accounts in the topic area to influence Wikipedia's coverage on the Middle East. One of them was an account named "Eostrix", that spent years making clean uncontroversial edits until one day going for adminship.
Eostrix got 99% approval in their request for adminship. But it didn't matter, because an anonymous individual also spent years pursuing Eostrix, assembling evidence, and this resulted in Eostrix's block just days before they became a Wikipedia administrator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investiga...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Com...
It's a useful contrast to a place like Reddit, where volunteer moderators openly admit to spreading terrorist propaganda or operating fake accounts when their original one gets banned. You don't get to do that on Wikipedia. If you try, someone with far too much time on their hands will catch you because Wikipedia doesn't need to care about Daily Active Users and the community cares about protecting a neutral point of view.
Not denying the existence of influence campaigns. There have been several major pro-Palestinian ones recently, which is probably why this letter has been sent. But the only reason you know about them is because Wikipedia openly fights them instead of covering them up. Most social media websites don't care and would rather you don't bring it to their attention. That is why Reddit banned /r/bannedforbeingjewish.
What a contrast to the early days: 22 years ago I was simply appointed admin on the German language Wikipedia when there was simply a lack of hands doing deletions and stuff. No voting, just a show of hand a lots of trust put into people only know by what they write and discuss on this new website.
A few years of work (10k edits) and a few years of dwindling participation on my side someone noticed that quite a few of those early admins never faced a vote at all. The process had re-elections when 25 wikipedians asked for a vote, took them almost three weeks, I got that treatment as well in 2009. Indeed someone had enough time to dig through and find a discussion where I wasn't the nicest person (at the same time writing and discussing on Wikipedia help me a lot to develop a healthy social skill). Well, I didn't use the admin rights anymore so I rather resigned before someone dug even deeper ;)
For security reasons those admin rights should be time limited anyways.
In my experience (of also roughly 20 years ago), the German Wikipedia is as dysfunctional as it gets.
The primary goal of the admins seemed to be to gatekeep, in particular to keep “unencyclopedic” content out at all cost, e.g. by contesting the very existence of articles on individual episodes of TV shows, software, or video games, which are all completely uncontroversial on the English one.
“Just because it’s relevant on en.wikipedia.org doesn’t mean it’s relevant over here” is a sentence I heard frequently. Keeping the number of articles down was seen as an active ideal.
For me, it was a great motivator to improve my English, and I’ve only ever looked back when the English version didn’t have a lot of information on some Germany-specific topic. Last time I checked, they only just accepted the redesign (the one that greatly improves legibility), after vetoing it for years. What a psychotic way to run an encyclopedia…
> by contesting the very existence of articles on individual episodes of TV shows, software, or video games, which are all completely uncontroversial on the English one.
In the first year or so of the english Wikipedia, I was very engaged in adding content but never really tried to engage with the community. I started adding articles about my topic of interest at the time, which was New York 80s punk and hardcore bands. Soon, I had the lot of my articles deleted for "lacking relevance".
I haven't been contributing much since.
I thought their main function was to call the cops on anyone who wrote anything anti-genocide. The German Wikipedia seems to be way more antisemitic than English (Palestinians are semites) and relevant pages actually have a big warning banner when you edit that you will be convicted if you make Israel look bad.
Yeah, Palestinians are indeed Semites, however, the word antisemitism (for historic reasons) is used to refer specifically to hatred of Jews. It makes historical sense that Germans are afraid to criticize the Jews.
I probably disagree with your opinions, but the debate would likely be useless.
Keri Smith, a former hardcore SJW activist, has documented how she and others daily targeted people through Wikipedia edits for preparing a cancel. It's quite fascinating the extend of organization and process they used.
For instance, they would not directly edit the target's page, but start working 2 links removed from it, compromise the "friend of a friend of a friend", and then work towards the actual target and finally try to cancel the target through "association with " accusations.
Skimming this: https://www.kerismith.net/
and seeing some of the people she proudly mentions - it seems like she's just switched cults.
Nah she's just going where the money is. Look at how that page is all about telling her core market what they want to hear, and that she's happy to accept their money for a speaking engagement.
What is SJW? Please avoid using unclear acronyms.
Social Justice Warrior. The acronym has been around for a long time.
That doesn’t mean what everyone is familiar with it. For example I’ve been around since internet slang first developed a life of its own. And yet I wasn’t immediately familiar with SJW either.
By the time you commented you could have at least searched for the acronym or asked AI.
In 2025, most online users have learned how to look things up using.. the internet.
While this is true, I don't think I have heard/read it once in more than a year, maybe five, actually. It's not used anymore. Pretty much anyone not MAGA has become "leftist", these days.
Social Justice Warrior but it’s worth noting that actually the acronym has cultural connotations that the words alone do not
Wikipedia isn't immune to influence campaigns - honestly, no open platform is - but the key difference is how seriously the community takes it. The amount of volunteer effort that goes into investigating sockpuppets, enforcing sourcing standards, and maintaining some kind of neutrality is incredible when you step back and think about it.
Neutrality? I’ve never seen an English language wikipedia article on a politically controversial topic that wasn’t the DC establishment/State Dept official take.
They listed Greyzone as an unreputable new source because it’s pro-Palestinian. When you Google the usernames of those who voted to ban them pro Israeli think tanks from DC come up. Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to politics. If you’re lucky you can find the real contours of an issue by seeing who’s been censored and silenced out of the article on the Talk page.
They spent basically two years rejecting the renaming of "Israel-Hamas war" into "Gaza war" (it has now been renamed) even though the full scope of the war was apparent after just a few months. It was very important to maintain the narrative that the only victims were Hamas. They protected the page so you couldn't request a rename without being a verified user.
On Wikipedia people like Icewhiz are called "long-term abusers", and there's a public list with more than a hundred of them - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA.
This is my favorite:
> ... also known for hoaxing at List of Crayola crayon colors. Obsessed with inflatable, bursting, popping, and bouncing objects
That list is fascinating. Like the obscure Canadian illustrator [1] who for a decade has been repeatedly trying to put herself into Wikipedia despite being told she's a "non-notable" artist.
I'm frankly amazed that enough people have the time to track this nonsense and stamp it out that it ends up being self-correcting. It's not just about time, either; chasing bad edits and prosecuting bad users must be a huge chore in terms of the sheer amount of work needed. I always find it amazing how horrible the tools are (like how almost anything, including having discussions, is done by editing pages; how can anyone have a discussion in such a disorganized way?), which surely must be a hindrance to productivity or to the ability to detect and deal with constant abuse. But seemingly it works. Maybe there are better tools that pro-level admins know about?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Anan...
There are a whole bunch of little utilities like browser extensions and bookmarklets and even an entire in-house cloud infrastructure that is used for hosting various kinds of bots and web-based tools for automating workflows. It's all very ad-hoc, crude and not very well organized or publicized. There have been a few efforts over the years to create a repository for all of the little tools to help with exposure and some level of vetting for security risks. I'm not sure any of those projects were ever successful (or even made it past the planning stage) but there has been some appetite for improving that ecosystem.
They have excess money as an org, why don’t they hire SWEs to improve it?
My impression has been that the project has never been fully scoped and kind of bounced around between teams with nobody ever fully dedicated to seeing it through to completion. Scope creep and a whole lot of competing ideas, on top of a genuinely hard to solve set of problems has caused it to get put on the back burner more than once.
Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough.
They're constantly hiring engineers.
She tried to add herself to a list called “professional Canadian painter”, and from what I see, she is a professional Canadian painter for 10+ years.
But not notable. Unless notable for long-term Wikipedia abuse. Maybe eventually she gets mentioned on a news site for that, and then she can finally have an article.
> But it didn't matter, because an anonymous individual also spent years pursuing Eostrix, assembling evidence
Wait, why? If the edits were so clean and uncontroversial, what was suspicious?
Sorry for asking, the wiki talk-page links very chaotic to read.
I knew IceWhiz. You are correct that he (or rather "they") eventually was kicked from the site. But he/they operated on the site for years and was the biggest PITA you can imagine. He must have single-handedly scared away two dozen honest contributors with his BS. It is very, very easy to game the rules on Wikipedia. Wars of attrition goes on for years. Normal people don't waste their time. IceWhiz and his meat puppets have endless patience and all the time in the world.
Right. The fact that someone so terrible got 99% approval and only one anonymous investigator was able to stop them makes me think that it's likely a lot of other terrible admins who didn't have an anonymous investigator go after them probably go through the process.
And the times I've brought up the fact that Wikipedia can be unreliable before, I've had numerous editors come in and claim that wasn't true and that people could rely on the claims they find in Wikipedia. This runs counter to the claim that Wikipedia editors know about these influence campaigns and openly fight about them. A lot of the active and vocal editors are openly dismissing such concerns.
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a source, so "reliable" here has to mean "reliably presenting a full range of notable sources". No editor should be saying you can rely on claims found in Wikipedia, except in the sense of relying that the claims are in the sources.
(Except the claim as stated isn't always in the source anyway. Best to check.)
I found Molly White's video here really useful for helping me understand the Reliable Sources policy: https://blog.mollywhite.net/become-a-wikipedian-transcript/
> The way we determine reliability is typically based on the reputation for editorial oversight, and for factchecking and corrections. For example, if you have a reference book that is published by a reputable publisher that has an editorial board and that has edited the book for accuracy, if you know of a newspaper that has, again, an editorial team that is reviewing articles and issuing corrections if there are any errors, those are probably reliable sources.
Love the use of the "we" word here. :) What is counted as a reliable source is voted on on one of Wikipedia's meta pages. So "reliability" is not based on any factual circumstances, but on whether the vote is won or lost. And you can trivially game that using sock/meat puppetry. Notwithstanding, White's claimed policy heavily favors Western media giants such as The New York Times and The Washington Post which many editors know about. However, the actual information they publish are often much less accurate than what is published in specialized trade magazines or even activist blogs.
> So "reliability" is not based on any factual circumstances, but on whether the vote is won or lost.
Those voters (with the exception if bad actors) are working on the basis of "factual circumstances", which they debate extensively before voting.
Yeah. Also, if a specific source is used a lot, it often gets put on a discussion where people vote on how reliable it is. If it's considered unreliable, the use of it will be banned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/P...
I wonder if there's room in using AI to gather past edits of someone, as part of vetting, and use the sentiment analysis to check how neutral their biases are.
Neutrality != necessarily accurate or useful. And the most neutral thing to say is nothing.
And most LLMs probably have Wikipedia as a significant part of their training corpus, so there is a big ouroboros issue too.
You're saying it yourself: it's a target of influence campaigns. The Wikimedia Foundation ìs not a source of them itself.
The non-profit public benefit service they provide is the openly editable encyclopaedia wiki, not its contents or its editors. The same safe harbour provisions as with other content hosters should (and need to) apply as with YouTube hosting questionable videos.
I am not sure if I agree with the statement "the only reason we know about them is because Wikipedia fights them". I am sure there are admins and accounts on wikipedia who work hard to protect the sites integrity. However, I know a lot of the misinformation on wikipedia pages, specific to the Middle East were uncovered by organizations outside of the site and with quotes of the content that have found their way to the site, so in those cases, the internal checks and balances of wikipedia didn't work.
Wikipedia is the best source of humanities "common knowledge". Yes there are users that abuse the system to push their own point of view. Many articles in Wikipedia have improved tremendously over the years; many times it is not unusual for an article to have over a hundred references. It gives you all the info you want to understand the subject before you delve further through books. Now for politics I can see the problem. Even on a well behaved site like HN you can get polarized views. Just say Israel is committing genocide or ethnic cleansing and you see the reaction. Ditto for Ukraine and now Trumpism. So yes there are pages that reflect views. Take them as such. Another advantage of Wikipedia is that many references are pushed to archive.org and saved.
"DEAR AMERICAN FRIENDS IN THE ADMINISTRATION KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF THE WIKIPEDIA"
Wikipedia's value isn't that it's perfect, it's that it shows its work
On articles that are either controversial or cover some kind of current events, I often find more value from reading the edit history and the discussions than from the article itself.
One can look into Shira Klein and Jan Grabowski's report about how the Polish ultranationalists have distorted the Holocaust topic area on Wikipedia (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2...) if they want to find a counterexample. To the best of my understandings so far, I think Icewhiz is a good guy, just that he doesn't have strong grasp about Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly regarding multiple accounts, and was the victim of sustained smear campaigns by Polish ultranationalists who were able to psychologically manipulate the admins into banning him in order to let their distortionist edits stick. Now he's an Emmanuel Goldstein figure for both the ultranationalists and the pro-Hamas editors who seek to deflect external scrutiny to their edits.
A month after that article was published (and shortly after the article was posted on Wikipedia), the Arbitration Committee opened a sua sponte case to review the topic area despite the substance of that article being "Icewhiz was right".[1] It resulted in bans of Icewhiz' enemies for distorting the Holocaust topic area. I think moderators on pretty much any other website would laugh and ignore an article like that as being whining from a user they banned.
I agree that Icewhiz is an Emmanuel Goldstein-like figure at this point who's used by pro-Hamas editors/ultranationalists. A bunch of those pro-Palestinian editors that loved to complain about Icewhiz to deflect from their own behaviour were topic-banned from Israel-Palestine area a few months ago in January.[2]
It's challenging to deal with the Israel-Palestine conflict on any website that allows for user contributions. There's astroturfing and nation-state backed influence operations from probably a dozen countries. I don't think there's any website that has successfully navigated that minefield as well as Wikipedia.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...
> I don't think there's any website that has successfully navigated that minefield as well as Wikipedia.
There's a survivorship bias in play here as we don't have a good other sample or more to compare to. After Wikipedia went big in the 2000s it was for a very long time a de-facto monopoly for people seeking out reference information on the Internet. Even Google's Knol project, which was intended to be a Wikipedia competitor, faltered after a few years. Same goes for Everipedia as well.
> There's a survivorship bias in play here as we don't have a good other sample or more to compare to.
It is not survivorship bias to point out that the survivor survived.
> Even Google's Knol project, which was intended to be a Wikipedia competitor, faltered after a few years.
Not “faltering after a few years” is part of “succesfully navigating that minefield”. If you fall out of the “race” no matter how good your policies would be otherwise you won’t be a reliable source of information. Because your can’t be if you no longer exists.
This is not a statement about what could have worked, this is a statement about what did work. And there survival is a necessary ingredient of success.
But there is a survivorship bias because doing what Wikipedia does is almost impossible.
> I don't think there's any website that has successfully navigated that minefield as well as Wikipedia.
I don't believe this is the case, the Israeli/Palestine are restricted to long-time contributors, so the articles are either messy and unmaintained due to lack of editors, or worse, edited only by members of influence campaigns who have scared away everyone else
Link [2] doesn't appear to say what someone did wrong but you cite it as evidence for some people doing something wrong
The "Findings of Fact" section has a bunch of examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Reques...
Did you read this post?
"Reliable Sources: How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges Into the Public Record"
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...
Wow! I read the entire article. It sounds like this person may have a mental illness. It’s both their weakness and strength.
The infamous "Philip Cross" always comes to mind.
There are counterexamples where this has failed/continues to fail, the gamergate article is famously non-neutral, only accepting primary sources from journalists directly involved in the controversy. This is rather than true secondary sources with less extreme and biased views, like is supposed to be the rules there. You can switch from the english one to other languages and get completely different content with very balanced point of views because the other languages weren't controlled by the influence campaign.
So, is it better than reddit? I agree, probably. That bar doesn't seem very high though.
Part of the issue with gamergate discussion is that there's a lot of vapid perspectives along the lines of "it's just video game journalism who cares" which allows an infinite amount of bad behavior, dishonesty and manipulation in the name of an abstract greater good. I believe it was used as a prototype for future wikipedia manipulation for "more important" topics.
Do you have any specific examples? You mentioned the Gamergate article but your assertion that it doesn’t reference non-primary sources needs some citations that all of the academic and media sources were directly involved. Since it was a harassment campaign involving journalists, there’s a big question about what a policy would need to look like to prevent someone from attacking a journalist and then saying Wikipedia can’t use their work because they’re involuntarily involved.
The entire story of gamergate was a campaign where the ethical problems of the gaming journalism were exposed.
Why would the journalists directly involved in that campaign be allowed to just directly malign and smear their critics and then have that be taken as fact, with no comment whatsoever to their involvement or other sources that disagreed or commented on this? Because that article stands as a beacon of unfairness and misinformation.
The idea that it's impossible to solve this problem is false. Like i mentioned, just check other languages for that article, they were not as completely destroyed by bias.
> Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? > A1: What sources can be used in Wikipedia is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard.
> only accepting primary sources from journalists directly involved in the controversy
This is false. The talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_cam... lays it out clearly: because of the nature of Gamergate (misogynist harassment campaign), the page about Gamergate is heavily scrutinized in order to make sure that all source cites follow the same reliable-source rules that are in force across all of Wikipedia. Please don't lie about Wikipedia.
This is a lie. Wikipedia directly excluded reliable sources that countered and only cites sources that are as biased as possible for that article. Like i said, literally just switch the language to japanese, translate back to english and you will get a completely different set of information that is far less biased.
Gamergate is also not a misogynist harassment campaign. Please don't spread lies and misinformation, thanks and try to be more honest and less of an idealogue.
Perhaps it is your perspective which is biased and that leads you to project that accusation towards the wiki (and the gp commenter here)
I think their comment is fair.
Wikipedias policies to promote neutrality are often counter productive.
Because neutrality is hard to define, what these policies actually do is progressively raise the effort required to keep or remove a particular point of view. Unfortunately, requiring more effort also means substituting the point of view of knowledgeable but time poor and inexperienced contributors, with the point of view of time rich chronic contributors and admins. The result is that instead of neutrality, you actually select for the strongest held points of view of a small ingroup of chronic users. The viewpoint diversity of such users is extremely low, which is why you’ll notice all controversial topics tend to lean a certain way.
Wikipedia presents consensus as a proxy for the truth. Pretty sure the consensus on GamerGate is that it was a misogynistic harassment campaign.
Anecdote != evidence.
Also, your anecdote is specifically about a social media article about an attempt to use social media spaces to harass people.
Seems extra “special case” to me.
Gamergate was not related to harassment, it was a leftist consumer action movement about unethical yellow journalism, that then obviously got smeared by the yellow journalists they criticized.
It's one of those things where honest sources exist but you have to be somewhat good at seeing contradictions and lies, then being willing to discard liars as uncredible. It's not like archives of the supposed "harassment" sites don't exist anymore either, in those days it was mostly progressive leftists posting on the 8chan threads despite being maligned as a right wing center of evil or whatever. Sometimes the truth is just so absurdly and dramatically different from what yellow journalists purport but people are just too lazy and stupid to look into it themselves. After all "who cares it's just video games" (and yet this campaign of dishonesty turned a generation against the dem party in the US and likely contributed to trump's election)
I think your view of gamergate is absolutely fucking delusional. I watched it all go down in real time like many of us did. Saying Gamergate was about ethics in games journalism is roughly as accurate as saying the US Civil War was about "states rights". In that it is kinda sorta technically true if you ignore 99% of what was actually happening.
for those doubting this claim, the secret mailing list "GameJournoPros" used by journalists to collude is not even mentioned once, and is akin to scrubbing the holocaust article of the word "jew"
You’re telling me there was a secret… listserv?! Truly, this conspiracy goes all the way to the top.
This is the ideal picture of Wikipedia. In reality they are also used to spread propaganda and are happy about it as long as it fits certain naratives.
Wikipedia is, today, a pale shade of what it once was, a source of information.
To me those links you provided, indicate a lot, of what is wrong for me with wikipedia.
Because it is extremely hard to figure out what is going on. Lots of mysterious abbreviations. Unclear timeline.
I still don't really know it, it seems the scandal is, that he had a sockpuppet account? And there is only "private" evidence (meaning not public)?
"The Arbitration Committee has determined through private evidence, including evidence from the checkuser tool, that Eostrix (talk · contribs) (a current RfA candidate) is a sockpuppet of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Accordingly, the Committee has resolved that Eostrix be indefinitely blocked."
So having a sockpuppet account is the reason for indefinite ban? Or that in combination with edits he made? Really, really hard to figure out for someone just having a quick look into the topic. And this is what prevented me since the beginning to participate in Wikipedia. I always got this impression. I made some edits here and there, but I think was mostly reverted/deleted/ignored - but no idea, I never felt like making the investment to really dive into it - and that seems required to contribute. Casual contribution seems pointless - and they likely miss out a lot through this.
"But the only reason you know about them is because Wikipedia openly fights them instead of covering them up."
So it seems good if wikipedia is more open - but from this story I just take "private evidence" with me and lots of questions about the whole process.
"Really, really hard to figure out for someone just having a quick look into the topic."
Sometimes things are genuinely complicated. If you want to understand the hardest, most elaborate forms of Wikipedia community management you're going to need to work really hard at figuring out what's going on.
Community dynamics at this scale, and with this level of bad actors, are not something that can be explained in a few paragraphs.
Thank you.
More and more, especially in engineering, I am in contact with people who just want everything to be easy to understand in TikTok length video clips or short posts.
Some things are hard to understand, dynamic systems especially, black or white answers do not exist.
(Sorry for the slightly off-topic/meta rant. This hit a nerve by me.)
Well, I believe things with serious consequences like banning someone permanently - should indeed be presented clearly. Exactly because I know some organisations like to shield themself from criticism, by having a intransparent process.
You may believe your position is: > should indeed be presented clearly. Exactly because I know some organisations like to shield themself from criticism, by having a intransparent process
but
> Because it is extremely hard to figure out what is going on. Lots of mysterious abbreviations. Unclear timeline.
> But in a real court, I can see the verdict and the laws that were broken. All in complicated, but readable english. Which makes it clear (usually). But in wikipedia to understand a indefinite ban, I have to understand global wiki community dynamics first?
your position aligns with someone who desires decision with serious consequences to be easy to understand.
It's pretty straightforward but nothing on Wikipedia is really black-and-white. Most decisions are made through a consensus process. It's really quite different from what most people are used to.
A good place to start for information about how user blocking is done would be the following links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guideli... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry
In this case I think that a sock puppet account can be trivially blocked without much process as long as it can be proved that it is operated by someone who is already blocked for some violation. The sock puppet is an attempt at evading the block that was placed on that user's other account.
Oh in general for sure, but my first (attempted?) edit for Wikipedia was 20 years ago so I am not a completely newb.
And this is kind of like a court decision.
But in a real court, I can see the verdict and the laws that were broken. All in complicated, but readable english. Which makes it clear (usually). But in wikipedia to understand a indefinite ban, I have to understand global wiki community dynamics first? I am a bit reminded of Kafka - The Trial.
> But in a real court, I can see the verdict and the laws that were broken. All in complicated, but readable english.
Thats not really true either. There is a lot to unpack to understand court cases. Just the hearsay rule and its exception would fill a book. Jurisdiction, double jeopardy, means rea, “reasonable man”, Brady disclosure, fruit of poisonous tree, presumption of regularity, habeas corpus, SLAP, reasonable doubt, writ of mandamus, motion to dismiss, motion to supress, motion for change of venue, motion in limine, amicus curiae, consideration. Just to unpack the latin terms makes your head spin, and then you will be caught out by some term with some seamingly easy to understand common meaning used in surprising ways.
One can almost say it is a whole profession to understand what is going on in court. We could call them lawyers or something if we want to be fancy about it. And then turns out even those specialist further specialise in narrower areas.
Right: and at least in the court system a whole lot of people are being paid a whole lot of money to help move that progress along.
Almost all of Wikipedia's community administration is done by volunteers working for free!
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.
I have in the past, but three things put me off doing so now;
Pages where I can spot inconsistencies are often controversial, with long dense discussion pages, edits here are almost impossible beyond trivial details. I dont mind fixing trivia, but not if the actual improvement I think I can make is rejected.
There is a bit of a deletionist crusade to keep some topics small, for example, Ive had interesting trivia about a cameras development process simply deleted. Maybe it is truly for the better, but it is not really that easy to add to the meat of the project, without someone else's approval.
Third, the begging banners really feel a bit gross; I know the size of the endowment, and how long it would be able to sustain the project (forever essentially)... It really feels like the foundation is using the Wikipedia brand to funnel money to irrelevant pet causes. This really puts me off contributing.
I made an edit last year, it immediately got reverted and I got a banner on my user page for vandalism. I complained about that, other people agreed with me but the person who reverted my edits never responded. So there it sits.
The only few times I tried to make small edits, typo corrections, or similar, they just got immediately reverted as vandalism. So when I found a page that is largely wrong about a relatively obscure historical figure that I actually know a lot about and have plenty of source material for, I didn't really feel motivated to put the work in to clean it up.
I made a small edit to fix a mistake once and it didn’t get called vandalism but I sort of got a harsh message telling I did it wrong and didn’t follow processes
There must be some admin-level expectations of how things should be done but the editor flow gives you zero warning or indication. This was a while back so maybe they changed the flow
If there's a dispute and the person you're having a dispute with never materialises to argue their side of the argument, you're fine to just revert the banner.
How are people supposed to understand these hard to follow and shifting rules?
I've also edited random things in the past. Like inaccuracies in Comp.Sci. topics.
I used to like Wikipedia but I'm changing my mind. One thing amongst many others was seeing some company that competed with the startup I worked in basically introduce marketing material into the site. It just feels like it's too big and there are too many interests that want to distort things. I was surprised to see some article recently removed effectively rewriting history and directing to some alternative version. I just checked again and it's been restored but it just seems like the wild west.
I'd need some serious convincing to restore my trust in it. There are still some good technical/science articles I guess. It kind of sucks that instead of getting more reliable information on the Internet we're trending towards not being to trust anything. It's not clear how we fix this since reliability can not be equal to popularity.
> It just feels like it's too big and there are too many interests that want to distort things. I was surprised to see some article recently removed effectively rewriting history and directing to some alternative version. I just checked again and it's been restored but it just seems like the wild west.
In fairness, this does mean the system is working.
Yeah- Maybe it's "eventually working". It's hard to trust when it seems so fluid. Maybe there needs to be some mechanics to make it harder to change. Something like being able to suggest changes/corrections but having those come out on some schedule after a review? (thinking software release process here). Quarterly Wikipedia releases? Creating some "core" of Wikipedia that is subject to tougher editorial standards?
Not sure.
Its definitely an eventual consistency kind of model.
There was some attempts at change review (called "pending changes") that is used on very continous articles, but it never really scaled that well. I think its more popular on german wikipedia.
Wikipedia is so dominant that it has kind of smoothered all alternative models. Personally i feel like its kind of like democracy: the worst system except for all the other systems. All things are transient though, i'm sure eventually someone will come up with something superior that will take over, just like wikipedia took over from encyclopedia briticana.
It will unnerve you to know, that this is the state of the art, and the information environment we run in, is incredibly fragile at the speeds at which it is moving.
It may also hearten you to know, that small, consistent actions like yours, make these collective systems run.
Mechanics like that exist for when warring over a page escalates. See the old essay (20 years old now!) "The Wrong Version": https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version
Harder to change doesn't make it more or less correct, just means wrong information sticks around longer. Because revision history is kept and changes are instant, it's easy to fix bad changes. For topics that see extensive astroturfing, they can be restricted.
It’s worth remembering that the entire point of a wiki is that it’s quick and easy to make a change (the name means “quick” in Hawaiian). Being quick and easy to change was the defining quality of Wikipedia and its advantage over more rigid traditional encyclopaedias. These days editing Wikipedia seems like you have to fight bureaucracy and rules lawyering, and doesn’t seem very wiki-like at all.
I think the "deletionist" tendency is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. At least it's the main thing that prevents me from making significant contributions. I say tendency, but maybe it really is more of a crusade. Deletion and rejection definitely seem to be the default "predisposition." I've seen a lot of examples of apparently well meaning contributors being pushed away by the need to establish "notability" for a subject and the expectation that all information must be referenced to a fairly limited number of approved reliable sources. These are norms which have been built over a long period of time so it would be incredibly difficult to change them now.
Exactly. It makes it basically impossible to get niche industry/trade information and history onto wikipedia unless it was so newsworthy it's covered everywhere.
It really feels that way because that's what they're doing. There's a legit non-profit internet encyclopedia barnacled with a bunch of generic left wing political stuff, except the barnacle is bigger than the boat.
Yeah I stopped donating to Wikipedia once I learned where the money goes.
Even if it ends up supporting causes I agree with, why would I need the Wikimedia Foundation as an intermediary? I could just give money directly to the causes!
I created a page, it got declined because the guy who two films have been made about didn't count as important enough. I kind of get it, but still, did kill the energy slightly.
The notability requirement is a real bane, but it also kind of makes sense when there's really insufficient manpower for the articles they already have. But then, maybe they'd have more manpower if they loosened the notability requirement.
If you care about a topic and want to edit Wikipedia but do not want to deal with the process, you can simply talk about what you want to change on the discussion page. Is there an equivalent workaround when it comes to creating new pages?
I suppose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creatio... is the closest equivalent but not really the same thing.
You can create a page as an anonymous user. The content and subject is much, more more important than the fact of being created as an anonymous user. If that's the process you want to avoid, there's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creatio... but that one is more geared towards people who are already engaged with Wikipedia. An outsider saying "well, someone, but not me, should do something about this problem," is just as welcome on Wikipedia as it is anywhere else.
I edited mostly a single page many years ago. It wasn't a controversial subject really, just one where there is a lot of garbage popular history and some light revisionism that made it a bit of an effort to remove unreliable sources and add some better sources. Never any issues or fights over it, but I got bored eventually and just let it be.
Recently I edited a page or two, then tried to edit more, but everything is so complex now. All the special markup and stuff to consider is really off-putting. Took me forever to figure out how to properly fix the year of death of a person and some other data I just ignored because it was too much red tape. Wish it was more simple plain text. Makes quick drive-by edits too much work.
I spent like 30 minutes trying to fix a busted citation link a while ago before giving up. I write code and markdown for a living. :shrug:
I’ve tried, but every article even the most inconsequential seems to have an angry bird in the roost enforcing whatever their particular vision of the article is.
It's even worse when you add a source and you get reverted for reasons quite clearly disproven in your source. I had to make a single edit three times because it got undone twice by two separate administrators. A less stubborn person would've just given up on the first baseless revert and never edited Wikipedia again.
Edits are public so other members of the community can eventually make a case against or for the actions of a dedicated maintainer. Keep trying.
Sounds like stackoverflow defenders. I'm another person who tried about 5-7 times over the years to do larger improvements all for it to go to waste. Minor edits many times survive but even those I stopped doing because of the sour effect of the larger ones getting denied.
I tried on a completely uncontroversial page that documented a certain idiom and examples of where it was used.
My edit was reverted, twice, because apparently there is no such thing as a notable source for lines from a 1980s British TV episode, not even a fan website that has a transcript for all of them. Gave up after that.
That's an error, because episodes can be cited directly, and the template "cite episode" exists for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_episode
It can be seen in use for instance on the Beavis and Butt-head article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beavis_and_Butt-Head where the citation looks like this:
"Werewolves of Highland". Beavis and Butt-Head. Season 8. Episode 1. October 27, 2011. MTV.
Sounds like that might have been a copyright issue? In the UK a transcript of a show would need permission of the writers/owners to be reproduced. I can see Wikipedia would be sensible to disallow infringing works as being bad sources.
Ironically an excerpt of the script/transcript would be allowed by UK copyright - but a site with only excerpts would probably but be a good source for Wikipedia's purposes.
To offer a counter-example to the many anecdotes about being gatekept(?) by veteran Wikipedia editors: I have the opposite experience.
I occasionally contribute to various topics, and in many cases experienced editors silently fixed formatting errors I made, allowing me to focus on contributing to Wikipedia without having to keep up with the best practices.
I also participated in a deletion discussion once, and - despite being inexperienced and in the minority position (keep) - the experienced editors considered my arguments and responded to them.
Since so many commenters here have bad experiences, I'll provide a counterweight. I've made numerous edits and have run into little to no resistance. I'm sure asking people on a forum does not evoke a representative response.
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"
I've been an editor since 2004. It's getting really, really hard now. Like, it is really off-putting and no longer enjoyable.
Curious, as a longtime editor, what's gotten harder for you recently?
As a casual, very infrequent editor, I echo everyone else's complaints that it's intimidating to have your additions reverted by the old guard who seem to have an increasingly particular vision of the site.
With how hostile userbase is on wikipedia, no - i would rather not. especially in my native tongue.
I tried volunteering and contributed a few thousand edits, and ended up brigaded into hours of silly reviews by sock puppets and their crony admins. The bureaucracy is nuttier than a Monty python sketch. Endless futile debates on talk pages.
It’s not supposed to have many rules (according to the Jimbo gospel), but admins apply policy pages as law , and given how many inane and convoluted policies there are, you can be censured for practically anything with the right quote. You can see these sockpuppet brigades watching and pouncing on the edit history of any semi controversial page.
It’s a pathetic monoculture that lacks any self awareness or sense of introspection. Critical discussions are quickly shut down and the authors are put into a penalty box.
Leadership needs to address the power dynamics, and come up with a better self regulating structure. Editors need to identify themselves and their agenda. Networks & brigades need to be monitored and shutdown using activity tracking.
Wikipedia’s social network is operating with 1990s era protocols but their influence via syndication on every common news surface means they are way too influential. Google, Alexa, LLMs and mainstream media all syndicate Wikipedia content as gospel. But the content is completely unregulated.
And don’t get me started on Wikimedia Foundation.
Years ago I tried adding a weblink directing to a community, to an article about a game, where there were already weblinks to other communities, which were in no way any more official or proper than the community I linked to, but this edit never made it into the page, because someone played gatekeeper there, probably a person of the already linked communities. Since then I don't even bother editing wiki any longer. It is gatekeeping by people with their own agenda. What else I read about edit wars did not inspire confidence either.
I always wonder why certain topics are locked.
For most things the talk pages will explain why it is restricted, but if someone forgot to put a notice there, there's also a giant list of "the following topic areas reliably attract disruptive editing and get people angry, so admins move much more quickly to restrict editing than they would otherwise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Ac...
> please edit Wikipedia. It is easier to do than you probably think!
Last time I tried to do that, I flagged a citation that went to a book saying the opposite of what wikipedia was citing it in support of as "failed verification".
This attracted the attention of an editor, who showed up to revert my flag, explaining that as long as the book exists, that's good enough.
Wikipedia could improve noticeably by just preventing the existing editors from making edits.
Why is their editor so awful to use?
I'll add: please edit in areas where you are an expect. Over the last 20 years I have racked up a few thoudand edits, rewrites, new articles, etc.. Don't contribute to the low effort noise everyone is screaming about. In a century an edit in transcendental number theory with a citation is going to be a lot more important than whatever the current culture war is.
> Fixing typos is valuable. Adding photos is valuable. Flagging vandalism is valuable. Please edit Wikipedia.
Wise that you omit adding other credible sources that do not agree with the main editor's views. What you're describing sounds like already preserving their work, no matter if it happens to be provide info based on multiple convergent sources or not.
I used to edit Wikipedia actively. I was was active on the conflict of interest notice board and involved in pushing back against a few self-promotional scams. The worst one involved the "binary options" industry, before it was shut down. "Better Place", a hype-based electric car startup that went bankrupt, was another.
A few years previous, most heavy promotion on Wikipedia was music-related. Then business hype dominated. Then political hype took over. Trying to push back in the "post truth" era is valuable but painful.
It was worth doing for a while. But not for too long. It's wearing.
I've tried this but my edit is either auto reverted for some bureaucracy violation, or the article requires extended confirmed status to edit at all.
Please do not edit, write for, read, or cite Wikipedia. If you care about or know about a topic, consider writing a book or article about it.
Understand the sentiment. Less reasonable people that edit Wikipedia will continue to make it a hellscape for the rest. Please try to edit and create.
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".
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".
The Heritage Foundation has been open about their desire to strip Wikipedians of anonymity, this is just the government putting that plan into practice:
https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wikipedia-project-2025-...
To be more clear, it's operatives of the Heritage Foundation who now work in the government putting this into place. Does anyone think Trump actually does much day to day? He often seems completely unaware of what's going on in his own government. I invite anyway to watch his evening press conferences where he's handed a bunch of Executive Orders, is told what he's signing (he has no clue), and signs it.
The easiest solution is for the Wikimedia Foundation to move out of Us jurisdiction to a more democratic country.
I don't think that would work. The US would just attack those countries as they are doing right now, trying to force us to give up DEI and ESG.
If the HF is behind this, then Wikipedia is doomed beyond any legal defense. Back it up entirely and move it overseas.
Their entry on Wikipedia is well worth a read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
Kind of explains a lot in the balancing act in Trumps rise to power while trying to look like a marionette for various interests this term. They should remember Hitler's rebellion from his masters.
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.
This is legal communication written by a lawyer and intended to be read by lawyers.
Consistently, the first thing every lawyer has said to me when preparing for any interaction with third parties that had a legal aspect was "never volunteer information you were not explicitly asked for". Of course lawyers would practice this among themselves. The law requires him to suspect something wrong to investigate, so he states "I hereby formally suspect something wrong". If the investigation leads to a court filing, the law would then require him to submit evidence, so he will strategically decide which evidence to submit and submit it. Why would he commit in advance to what evidence he believes relevant if not required by law?
But also, if reading the letter as if written in good faith - which I find hard to do - those are all true reasons to suspect something wrong (it is common knowledge and well established that Wikipedia is a very influential source of knowledge, and that there are attempts at foreign influence), and great questions to ask to investigate whether the Foundation is making a reasonable effort to fight it if you were a regulator or auditor or other investigator, all of which have great answers already written up that prove the foundation is doing a very good job at establishing and maintaining processes to ensure the neutrality of its articles. In my headcanon, Wikipedia's lawyer responds simply with a list of URLs.
What is happening is very scary. Many people don't seem to care about any evidence or sources. They blindly follow whatever lies that their leaders say. I think this has been the case at anytime in history. However, now, with the internet, it is easy to spread such lies to mass and easy for such leaders to make blind followers.
Clearly people care very deeply about sources and evidence -and they're attacking things (wikipedia, various gov websites) which can be used as objective sources.
If you don't have objective sources, it's easier to lead people around by the nose -hence the attack.
Here's the root of the problem though: wikipedia isn't an objective source by its very nature. Wikipedia requires mainstream established news sources for a lot of articles that aren't academic in nature, and especially for articles about people. You cannot include information that isn't supported by corporate news articles, which means corporate news is now the arbiter of truth, and corporate news lies all the time about everything.
Wikipedia is, and always has been, the encyclopedia of the elite and billionaire narrative, and especially the left-wing narrative, which dominates nearly all corporate news groups. I say this as a far left person myself.
> Many people don't seem to care about any evidence or sources. They blindly follow whatever lies that their leaders say.
I’m one of those people you complain about. When I did deep research about DEI, I presented evidence and sources to people like you, including judges that I knew in my private life.
It seems you didn’t care, to a point that I had in my hand a document printed from a department of justice’s own website (about mothers’ own violence on their children, which is as high as men’s given the scope you decide to choose) and the person who in his public life is a judge, didn’t even bother discussing the thesis and just told me: “This document is false. You changed the figures before printing the document”.
You may say that Trump is bad for dismantling your administration, but you guys don’t care an inch about truth, evidence, sources, honesty, bad faith, or even for the number of children who are beaten to death by their mothers.
"given the scope you decide to choose"
By changing the scope, you changed the effect. Unless you did every statistical validation here... Yeah. That reads exactly like data manipulation. t-distribution approaches standard normal distribution, when the degree of freedom increases. That's not something that anyone should ignore and give credit to. It's the same bullshit that Donald has repeatedly tried to do, to prove himself doing the right thing, even as everything falls apart.
Caring about the truth, requires caring about the methodology, and not just the conclusions.
> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.
This is getting ridiculous. Is there anyone associated with this administration who does not have a record of promoting Russia's positions?
Martin was also at the coup attempt on Jan 6 and on that day said "Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews". https://archive.ph/jekzQ
That's more relevant. RT has had some fairly legitimate people on it such as Larry King, Julian Assange, John Pilger, Amy Goodman... Many Pulitzer prize and Peabody winners ... It's a mixed bag, people can't be so reductive about it.
Not defending it, but just saying that being on RT doesn't necessarily imply anything.
These things are complicated. Alex Jones and Michio Kaku were both on Genesis for instance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Communications_Netwo...
We have the capability of being adults here. Whether we are or not is always a choice.
One time sure, 150+ on the Russia propaganda network ? I’m drawing my own adult conclusions about it: “The friend of my enemy is my enemy”
Yes. 150+ times is akin to Funding an individual, rather than seeking to add a unique perspective.
I'd argue that there's another perspective, more complimentary to US politics. There's obviously a list of "experts" aligned with RT narrative which they use depending on the topic. No media like RT wants someone from this list to be too visible and appear too often, whether they are pay-rolled shadowy or not. So it looks like not so many "experts" are eager to be on alert on this list.
That’s not how foreign policy and international politics work. Every country would be enemies with every other country in that case.
All the pro-Palestinian anti-Israel country would be enemies of the US then, including Japan. You’d be supporting Trump’s tariffs and anti-China us or them stance then towards every country that has friendly business relations with China, which is everybody at this point. Heck, even Taiwan and China are friends more than Westerners would like to think. Meanwhile, America is friends with countries like Saudi Arabia and countries that keeps a blind eye to the funding of terrorism in America
There’s a reason the famous saying is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” rather than “the friend of my enemy is my enemy”
Comparing the choices of individuals with foreign diplomacy is specious. It is much harder for countries to have principles than individuals.
The same can be said of boardroom politics and board of directors. Or investment circles such as tech venture capital
They don't have principles.
Even "maximize the hegemonic monopolistic power of my claws" can be taken as mindset principles.
Having principles is orthogonal to striving adoption of ethical fair well being for everyone.
"les états n'ont pas d'amis, que des intérêts."
States are very different beasts, unlike human individual which have clear skin borderies as a given, they are able to take parts of each other and assimilate them. Even when they are not in official direct opposition, rampant dirty plots are always going on in the parallel background of any the official sympathy to everyone, be it because even within a state there is a broad variation of contenders.
RT is not legit. It is Russian propaganda. When those people participated they were collaborators.
Ex-CIA head Brennan famously remarked in an MSNBC interview [0] that when he says something is a Russian information operation that includes dumping accurate information.
So really it isn't enough to identify something as Russian propaganda - it is necessary to analyse whether it is propaganda of the accurate and informative variety, or the inaccurate variety.
Propaganda really just means someone is arguing a viewpoint. The BBC is classic propaganda, but nonetheless a pretty reliable source of information and a lot of the views are very agreeable.
> a lot of the views are very agreeable
That's why you don't "ignore" propaganda, but consume all, from all sides. Just consuming agreeable propaganda simply means it is working.
Nope, you shouldn't. Because propaganda is effective.
Humans are by default not influenced by logic, but rather respond on beliefs and emotions. This is one of the hardest thing to swallow for us people, we do see ourself as independent rational thinkers. We are sometimes able to, with effort.
To understand it better, you should know that Russian propaganda is not designed to instill a certain belief, but rather to make you not belief the truth. The Kremlin is happy to push different, conflicting stories. You end up with a society of nihilists.
> We are sometimes able to, with effort.
and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort, because otherwise, people and democracy gets taken over. It's one's civic duty to ensure that you are not making choices based on lies or manipulations.
> and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort,
Agreed. But I would add that one shouldn't stick their head into stuff that is deliberately trying to steer you away from the truth and seeks to undermine your moral compass.
I think it would help people immensely if they first could filter their sources on intent and principles. The Guardian is a better source than the newspapers from North Korea.
The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint. It’s good to be aware of media bias, but it’s reductive and cynical to view all media as propaganda.
> The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint.
If it isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down? Why would they be funding something that was pushing viewpoints that undermined Britain? This is simple incentive analysis stuff, this organisation isn't being funded for billions of dollars because the Brits happen to just be uniquely dedicated to the cause of the truth even if it hurts their interests. They're British! They're one step removed from the people who invented espionage, there is a long history of information warfare here.
RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda. The US has been running this experiment for centuries now, it has been well established that the government-sponsored perspective isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's.
The British government has repeatedly tried and failed to shutdown the BBC. They have repeatedly withdrawn funding. MI5 have had agents deployed inside the BBC to try and subvert it.
As of 2017, it runs by royal assent, and there is just about bukpus that the Parliament can do about it. Because at the same time, funding was moved to a trust, to prevent political interference - a trust that both main parties attempted to shutdown, and control, at different times, but were told that they could only operate within the rights granted by the royal charter.
> The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
Its not a perfect system. But it is very far removed from the daily pressures of propaganda and an angry government. The BBC is not really "state backed". They are independent.
My eye is drawn to the section:
> The various foreign services of the BBC have always been tied, in some manner, to the national interest. In the 2017 Agreement, that means the Foreign Secretary. Article 33.6 (right) is subject to the Mission and the Public Purposes of the BBC as defined in the Charter, but it supersedes Article 3 (independence).
> Taking account of the strategy and the budget it has set, the BBC will agree with the Foreign Secretary-
> (a) objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service;
> (b) the languages in which the World Service is to be provided
> (9) In addition to the specific provisions of paragraphs (4) to (8), the relationship between the Foreign Secretary and the BBC for the provision of the World Service is based on the following principles-
> (a) the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence and integrity in the provision of the World Service, within the structure of the Charter and this Framework Agreement;
> (b) in particular, the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of delivering the World Service; and
> (c) subject to compliance with the Charter and this Framework Agreement the BBC may generate other sources of income for the World Service.
> RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda.
False equivalence.
By your logic, any government support automatically makes an outlet propaganda. So, NPR and PBS would also be propaganda, since they get a small grant.
RT and other Russian-sponsored outlets, in case you didn't know, try to both push the state narrative, and push conflicting conspiracy theories in different markets to convince people that there is no objective truth.
Like, for example, claiming that reliable Western news sources are government propaganda...
Every news organisation reports its own point of view and could potentially be shut down by whoever controls the purse strings. Your logic will lead you to the conclusion that all news is propaganda. That might be technically true in some very broad sense, but it tends to lead to absurd comparisons like your comparison between the BBC and RT.
Incidentally, various British governments have tried quite hard to shut down (or at least neuter) the BBC and failed. You're failing to take into account the fact that the BBC is a popular institution and that there would be domestic political consequences for a government that attacked it too strongly. If you think that your average British government minister goes around thinking "thank goodness for the BBC's news coverage!" then you may be a little out of touch with British politics.
> This logic will lead you to the conclusion that all news is propaganda.
A lot of media groups are pretty transparently in existence for propaganda purposes, but the logic doesn't imply that. It could be a media organisation exists to make their owners money while meeting an under-served need in the community. That is why most businesses exist. It obviously isn't why the BBC exists because there are a whole bunch of laws and public funding propping it up and it isn't independently profitable.
> ...absurd comparisons like your comparison between the BBC and RT.
The BBC had a policy for 60 years [0] of vetting applicants through MI5 based on their politics. And realistically it took 60 years to find that out we'll probably find out what the current vetting arrangements are in the 2040s. Any media organisation with that sort of historic tie to intelligence can be safely compared to RT.
> Incidentally, various British governments have tried quite hard to shut down (or at least neuter) the BBC and failed. You're failing to take into account the fact that the BBC is a popular institution and that there would be domestic political consequences for a government that attacked it too strongly.
That seems to be largely irrelevant. I'm sure there are factions in the Russian government that see RT as a waste of money on any given day and I'm happy to accept that British propaganda is popular in Britain.
It's mere cynicism to argue that the BBC must exist for propaganda purposes simply because the British government (very indirectly) pays for it.
>we'll probably find out what the current vetting arrangements are in the 2040s
We'll find out because the BBC is subject to public scrutiny. Good luck finding out about the historical vetting arrangements of CNN or Fox news! Or indeed, those of Russia Today.
You only have to look at actual examples of BBC news coverage from the period you mention to see that it wasn't government propaganda with the goal of making the British government look good or expressing some nebulous "British point of view":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gbms5
Margret Thatcher, the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century, hated the BBC. She had 11 years to get rid of it. She couldn't because it's an independent institution and the UK has (imperfectly) a system of democratic norms. Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them.
> It's mere cynicism to argue that the BBC must exist for propaganda purposes simply because the British government (very indirectly) pays for it.
So what's your complaint about RT? Because I'm seeing arguments here that suggest if it were subject to public scrutiny it isn't propaganda, if factions of the Russian government want to shut it down it isn't propaganda, if it says something critical of the Russian government it isn't propaganda. If it is funded by the Russians it isn't necessarily propaganda.
None of those arguments in defence of the BBC really get to the root of the issues, RT could sit on any pole of all those observations and it'd still be Russian propaganda. We don't need any of those details on how the sausage is being made. The issue is that the reason it exists is to push the Overton window in directions that are favourable to the state known as Russia - and the BBC serves the same purpose for Britain and hits the same triggers as RT for identifying propaganda.
> Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them.
I never put either of those things. They are both obviously untrue.
Margret Thatcher wasn’t a “faction of the British Government”. She was Prime Minister for 11 years. Do you really think RT would still be here if Putin had wanted it gone for the past 11 years? People and institutions that Putin wants rid of don’t tend to hang around quite that long. And what sort of effective public scrutiny can you possibly think that RT’s journalism is subject to?
But more broadly, you’re arguing at a level of abstraction that rises above actually looking at the content produced by the BBC in comparison to the content produced by RT. You only have to watch each for 15 minutes to see the very clear difference. Perhaps your theory of the world tells you that the BBC must be British propaganda because it depends to some extent on the British government for its existence. Ok then — so much the worse for your theory of the world. Believe it or not, there is actually such a thing as public service broadcasting as distinct from state propaganda. The BBC is really the obvious counterexample to any claim to the contrary.
> Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them. >> I never put either of those things. They are both obviously untrue.
You asked “If [the BBC] isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down?” That clearly suggests that the government of the day could defund the BBC if it displeased them.
Thatcher certainly wanted to put the BBC in its place after the clip I linked above. Her husband memorably complained that she’d been “stitched up by bloody BBC poofs and Trots [Trotsykists]”.
> Margret Thatcher wasn’t a “faction of the British Government”. She was Prime Minister for 11 years.
Fair enough, faction of British politics. She didn't have the power to shut down the BBC, so she obviously didn't represent the consensus position. Again, the argument seems like it would be that the BBC isn't propaganda because the British PM is relatively weak. That doesn't hold together. Besides, Putin isn't the PM of Russia, Wikipedia tells me that is Mikhail Mishustin.
> But more broadly, you’re arguing at a level of abstraction that rises above actually looking at the content produced by the BBC in comparison to the content produced by RT. You only have to watch each for 15 minutes to see the very clear difference.
So if RT was better written then it wouldn't be propaganda? Because the fact that the BBC has better journalists and targets the middle and upper class in style doesn't particularly mean much except they're better at their jobs than the RT people. You're mistaking propaganda for low quality writing with that one. Good propaganda relies on truth and being mostly credible (see also - the model pioneered by the BBC with enormous success).
> You asked “If [the BBC] isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down?” That clearly suggests that the government of the day could defund the BBC if it displeased them.
"displeased" is a bit vague but yes if there was a consensus in the Houses of Lords and Commons that the BBC wasn't advancing the interests of Britain I imagine it'd not last long. The parliament is quite powerful when it unites on a question of policy. That doesn't mean a PM can just snap their fingers and the BBC disappears, it'd be a long process.
The BBC certainly serves the interests of Britain, but it does so precisely because it is not merely a state propaganda service. You mention the limits on the PM's power. More generally, there are reasonably effective democratic norms and institutions that prevent the BBC's independence from being subverted by the government. Independent journalism isn't unbiased or uncolored by its political environment, but it's distinct from propaganda.
If you want to say that the BBC is British propaganda just because the journalists are British and present a British point of view (rather than, say, a Surinamese point of view), then ok, but I don't think that's a very interesting point. By that definition, every American news service is American propaganda.
Some of your other points here are transparently not serious, such as the suggestion that I can't compare the British PM to the Russian President because the latter has a different title.
> but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint.
Id does exactly that, as does all State-supported media (such as RFI in France or Deutsche Welle in Germany).
The BBC’s editorial line isn’t determined by the government of the day. I’m not familiar with the output of examples you mention, but there’s no comparison with RT, which is simply a propaganda arm of the Russian state.
This applies to all state owned media. The US is unique that even privately held corporations push propaganda.
The most gratuitous example is NYT, as documented by Ashley Rindsberg in his book “The Gray Lady Winked.”
> The US is unique that even privately held corporations push propaganda.
How is that unique to the US?
Ed Martin made 198 TV appearances on RT in 2023 and 2024.
How many RT TV hits did Larry King do? How recently did King appear on RT?
> Amy Goodman
Source for that? My impression is that Democracy Now!, while it has a clear perspective and set of biases, has been fairly independent. I don't think Goodman herself would be involved with them, but I think some of her sometimes guests have been.
In general I agree with folks replying to you that RT is not trustworthy and someone being involved with it is a red flag.
Here's two: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x61wly8 or https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvxx8j
Chris Hedges had a show as well.
Thanks for the first two. So she was a guest on panelist/talking head shows about her antiwar positions.
I know about Chris Hedges. I wasn't asking about him.
> That's more relevant. RT has had some fairly legitimate people on it such as Larry King, Julian Assange, John Pilger, Amy Goodman... Many Pulitzer prize and Peabody winners ... It's a mixed bag, people can't be so reductive about it.
Can you back up your accusations with facts? I can state that I have not seen any reprehensible reporting from Amy Goodman; but rather the opposite, backed up by facts (e.g. about mass graves on Russian-occupied areas [0]).
[0]: https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/29/ukraine_russia_mass_g...
Yeah, like 10 seconds of google search. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x61wly8 and https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvxx8j
It's not too difficult to draw connections between Wikileaks, Assange, RT and Russian government. It's known that the GRU funneled info to Wikileaks many times, and at the same time they never published anything that could seriously affect Putin. Examples: the Dirt on opponents were published by UK newspapers. The Fancy Bear papers were published by hacker groups and online news. Pandora Papers by the ICIJ.
The only leak than contains something barely close to Putin and was published on Wikileaks were the Panama Papers, that names three friends of him, not in the government. The lack of any russian officials in those papers speaks volumes.
Best case scenario, they are tools. Worse case, they are assets.
> Not defending it, but just saying that being on RT doesn't necessarily imply anything.
I'm not sure who's claiming that here. The RT appearance in question is about him spreading disinformation and Russian propaganda on the eve of Ukraine invasion.
It's pretty constant on hn. People paint everything from country X, holistically, with some broad and blunt moral brush.
It reads like a cartoon. Everything from China is loaded with secret spyware snooping on you for countless unspecified evils - everything out of Russia by anyone is part of some secret global propaganda network.
I point it out as absurd and reductive whenever I see it and people dogpile on me like I desecrated a sacred cow.
The world is incredibly complex and a simple label doesn't cut it. Wernher von Braun was a Nazi but that doesn't mean his work on rocketry was fictional lies.
You need to assess things based on the merits of the thing, not on any narratives of attributive associations you're choosing to assign.
Yes but in this case, the dude in question was uncritically parroting Russian propaganda - as do most people on RT, since that's its purpose.
>everything out of Russia by anyone is part of some secret global propaganda network.
Who has claimed all Russians are part of a large propaganda network. This is about a government news network.
State media in fascist dictatorships don't reflect the diversity of their people. It is untrue that humans of any nationality have free speech and a free press as a check against their government's actions. It is untrue that any country's government is legally obligated to transparency that is required in a democracy.
When people say that Russian and Chinese state media are propaganda, it is not always because they are racists. Many people say this because they make a distinction between a government and the people, and understand the difference democracy makes.
It's great that you're trying to emphasize with people in other countries. Empathize deeper and think through how it must be like to live in such a political environment to their full conclusions.
The media in liberal democracies don’t reflect the diversity of their people.
Sometimes focusing on each of the individual puppets distracts you from who is pulling the strings.
We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work
Sure, but you also voted for a system of checks & balances, laws, and separation of powers - whatever happened to all these laws and stuff from the Cold War where even a hint that you may have ties to Russia would get you a Visit?
Do you think it's legitimate when the administration transgresses constitutional limits? With legal eyes nobody voted for that, you can't vote inside the system to break the system, office holders are expected to follow the law once elected.
Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this
The majority that did vote, voted for this. The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Given the standards of media literacy and civics education, there's no evidence that a higher participation rate would have changed the outcome.
Everybody votes in Australia (not sure how rich, but in top 20 for sure). If you don't you have to show cause or pay a AUD$50 fine. I know some think this is anti-freedom, but it does prevent farces like the current USA. Historically there have been problems in the past (30 years ago) but these days the Australian Electoral Commission (Independent from government) revise electoral boundaries to ensure no more gerrymanders.
In Belgium attendance is mandatory as well. I think it's a positive as it means complacency ("my side has already won, no reason to go out and vote") is never a factor in the outcome.
> The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries.
The general election in 2022 had 84,2% of eligible voters in Sweden.
Italy had 64% for the parliamentary elections in 2022, which is the lowest ever but it's pretty far from 30%.
just to note that if “30% voted for this” participation was roughly 60%
63.9% per https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers Which apparently was quite high. Only 3 presidential elections in the past 100 years exceeded 63%: 1960, 2020, and 2024.
Plurality, not majority. It may be pedantic but it's an important difference.
I was going to say that it was a majority this time, but it seems like the results shifted as more votes were counted after election night, and he ended up with 49.8%. Still, unbelievably, pretty close to a majority.
We regularly have 92% - 93% participation in federal elections here in Australia. Having one next weekend, and already record numbers of pre-poll votes.
It’s almost like elections are held on Saturdays and participation is compulsory.
Almost…
And those that don't vote have to show a very good reason, or pay a fine, or face gaol.
Correction: those that don't enter a polling station. What you do in there is up to you. You can cast a vote, spoil the ballot, cast a "donkey vote" (numbering the options in the order printed), leave the ballot empty, as long as it goes in the box.
Under fifty percent for what it’s worth. And there was a lot of disenfranchisement
There’s also no evidence that increased turnout would have had the same result.
What seems to be overlooked in these conversations is the skill with which American voters have been disenfranchised by partisan forces.
It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.
<< It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.
I hesitated while reading this part, because I wholly agreed with the first 2 sentences. Do you mean physically difficult in terms of barriers to voting or making a less direct comment about the usefulness of that vote? If the former, I think I disagree compared to other countries ( and the levels of paperwork needed ). If the latter, I would be interested to hear some specifics.
In fact there was an extensive analysis of the election by Democrat pollster David Shor, who found that 100% turnout would have resulted in an even larger Trump win, by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...
This has been the pattern for awhile now. The pool of politically unengaged people are especially Trumpy compared to regular voters: https://abcnews.go.com/538/vote-back-trump/story?id=10909062...
That an enormous sample size. Statistically a complete participation should be very close, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim it would be different. Regardless of whether Trump would have won or not, that is a clear indication of evenly split public sentiment. So we still get to justly reap the fruits of our collective choices. There is no exoneration by whimsically dreaming of improbable alternatives.
I don't think it is was that hard to vote. That is a straw man to avoid facing the hard truth of American apathy. Now next election, perhaps we can have a conversation on that point. Things a trending rather poorly right now.
"I don't think it is that hard to vote"
Says a person commenting on HN that almost certainly isn't in a demographic that it has been made intentionally difficult to register, stay registered, and get time off an hourly job to stand in line for hours to vote.
The electorate self-selected into voters and non-voters, it wasn't a random sample. Some chose to go to the polls and some chose to stay at home. Voter preferences don't say a lot about the preferences of non-voters, who've already shown they choose differently.
There’s also one party that disproportionately targets specific voter demographics for suppression.
Arguments based on voter participation overlook that voting is a statistical sample of the population. The people who don’t vote broadly break down roughly the same way as the people who do vote. And even to the extent they don’t, it’s risky to make assumptions about how they would have voted.
If you can generalize about non-voters, it’s that they’re broadly more anti-institution than voters—which is what causes them to put less stock in the institutional practice of voting. In the U.S. in the Trump era, that has meant that non-voters or infrequent voters support Trump somewhat more strongly than regular voters.
> The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries.
Australia has entered the chat.
For reference, informal votes were around 5% in our last federal election:
https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/website/HouseInformalByStat...
This article contains a fun breakdown of the types of informal votes including a category for "the usual anatomical drawings" (0.7% of informal votes):
https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/04/22/2025-federal-election-p...
You can't bring them up without including that voting is compulsory there.
See my sibling comment. Getting your name checked off is compulsory but nothing stops you from handing in a blank ballot.
For the purposes of this comparison, those "informal" votes still count in the typically used participation statistics. Voters intentionally case "wasted" ballots in other countries too.
Why would you hand blank ballot at. That point? You might as well vote.
"I don't like any of the rat-bastards." "I don't care." "I think it's funnier to draw a dick. (And I don't care.)" "I trust other people to make the right choice." "I refuse to participate in this bourgeois sham election." ...are all reasons I've heard, even if I don't actually understand any of them.
> The majority that did vote, voted for this
Nitpick: Trump got less than 50% of the votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...)
More importantly, I think quite a few who voted for Trump didn’t vote for this extreme version of Trump.
The majority did not vote for Trump, and I question how many of the minority that did vote for him voted for this, specifically. Almost certainly not all of them, given his approval rating is now well below his popular vote share.
100% of voter age Americans made a decision. That includes not registering to vote or not voting.
Pretend I want a snack, I can choose between a cookie and an apple. If I dislike both then I also have the option to not get a snack. Neither is selected.
This is different from not voting because a candidate still wins.
If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it. There is no incentive when there are known costs...at least since the wild inflation of the 80s when it got prohibitive to lose a shift and the slow dissolution of union jobs. This is the result of the tyranny of indifference. Those that benefit continue to promote and benefit, those that do not, are disenfranchised. It's a common theme in history.
>If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it.
I agree but it doesn't actually matter. 97% can vote by mail, early, or another method besides election day according to this article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/map-early-voting-mail-ballot-st...
>There is no incentive when there are known costs... is the result of the tyranny of indifference.
What is the cause of the Indifference in your opinion ?
stop. Voting is incredibly easy. Voting by mail is incredibly easy. Theres no reason you cant vote by mail. The reason people arent voting is because they dont want to/cant be assed
Voters who do not vote say "I'm fine with all winners", like "What pizza do you want?" - "I'm fine with every pizza".
David Schor’s analysis found that if everyone had voted, Trump would have won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...
There is no democracy without a free press, or else no one can make an informed decision. I doubt that the press can be called free when it’s owned by oligarchs.
It’s interesting that people who claim Americans live in a democracy will slam-dunk any topic based on a completely binary decision made every four years.
No discussion beyond that point is needed.
> We voted
Depends if your “democracy” have one person = one vote. Or if the land is included somewhere in the vote.
I mean yes? Democracy is a pretty poor model for governance. IMO peak enlightenment happened circa the 17th or 18th century when classical liberalism decided government should be based on individual liberties and anything outside of that is decided democratically not because it is a good system but because votes are roughly a tally of who would win if we all pull knives on each other because we didn't like the vote.
Democracy is not 2 parties doing voter suppression and gerrymandering as a filter to pass the result to an electoral college.
The US system was never designed to be fair to individuals in the first place, pointing at it as a failure of democracy is IMHO pulling the actual issues under the rug.
It’s basically impossible to engage in meaningful voter suppression in a country where election results can be cross-checked against high-quality polling.
“Gerrymandering” also has no effect on Presidential elections. And in 2024, Republicans won a larger share of the House popular vote than their share of House seats.
Voter suppression is the act of limiting the pool of voters. That includes putting large swaths of the population behind bars or flagged as non eligible to voting, putting barriers to voter registration etc.
It can never be 0 and every country will have a minimum requirement, but the degree to which it is done in the US is far ahead of most western country.
Gerrymandering has an effect on the criteria for voter eligibility, the voting rules in the state etc. It's not direct but who's in power has a sizeable effect on who will have an easier time voting.
No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting. Society determining that categories of people shouldn’t vote (children, felons, non-citizens, etc.) isn’t voter suppression, it’s simply establishing qualifications for voting. The goal isn’t to get to 0 or try to get as close to 0 as possible. People who should vote should be able to vote, while people who shouldn’t vote shouldn’t be able to vote.
In the modern era, we should probably narrow the franchise, instituting civics tests and restricting voting to natural born citizens. Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.
Voter suppression is suppressing voters one way or the other. Your idea of restricting by birth rights is of course another form of it.
It's fascinating to look at that proposition for a country that mostly got rid of its indigenous population.
How can someone talk about democracy peaking when the franchise was extended to a tiny minority of the population. You don't give a damn about individual liberties, you only care that the "right" people have liberty.
That poster is specifically arguing against democracy
Your right. I stand corrected. They don't give a damn about democracy or individual liberties.
Hmm. What if I told you that the parent was clearly in favor of the republic? Would that change your disposition? If not, why not.
Ah yes, the wonderful time of enlightenment when all straight white Christian land-owning men's rights became recognized, not just the nobility's. Just a few short centuries from there, the rights of poorer white men, children, women, people of any other skin color, non-Christian, and LGBT people would be recognized too.
You jest, but skin in the game is argument is not irrelevant. It is called a franchise for a reason after all. You want a slice of the pie, you should be able to prove that you know what you are doing. Owning land was a good enough proxy then. We can argue what would be a good proxy now.
Having the laws of the nation apply to you means you have skin in the game when it comes to deciding what those laws are. Owning something, land or whatever else, doesn't give you even one iota more "skin the game" than those that don't.
You’re saying that people who owned land (and humans) as property had skin in the game while everyone else did not. Just stop.
There is no reason to conflate the two. To be frank, I explicitly stated land ( and not property as a more generic term ), which makes me question how much of a good faith of a conversation this is. My point stands on its own merits, but you seem to want to rely on cheap rhetorical theatrics a good chunk of the audience here can see through.
Okay, owning land then. My bad. All humans existing in the nation have skin in the game by the fact that they exist there. How do landowners have more of a stake?
Whatbexactly are values you consider enlightened and did you ever bother to read history, specifically the parts about how society functions not just where armies went?
I assure you French prior, dueing and after French revolution was not pinacle of great governance. More like, the low.
Democracy built lies, decide, and rejection of facts through propaganda.
Really need a viable means to fight it, say allowing an elected official's constitutes being able to sue them for no less than $10,000 for incidence of bearing false witness. Help erode the dark money networks.
Also having a 4th branch of Governments, the people with State and Federal binding resolution, would help. Only way to overrides those in power is to unionize the will.
The suing thing would be cool but the court system is slow by design. I can't see it working in practice however I'm also really fed up with the bullshit so i understand.
Good luck relying on a court of law when the President suspends courts and arrests judges. The latter is happening right now.
[flagged]
If they were any good at it there would probably be less overt Russian sympathizing.
They'd be the exact same.
It's like like Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics was a wish list.
Except that's not coming from the top. Tens of millions of people wanted this.
Maybe this is indeed what Russia would do to us. But we're beating them to the punch by doing it to ourselves.
Why do you assume it has to come from just the top?
The Internet Research Agency explicitly focused on the masses.
Well, considering they have a very high ranking guy in the Putin regime who considers that to be his full time job, google "Vladislav Surkov", they seem to be doing a fairly effective job of it so far.
Russia has a pretty high ranking guy in the US Government as well, google Krasnov.
Yeah, everything about this administration makes perfect sense if we assume that Trump is a Russian asset. Of course billionaires like Thiel and Musk have their say as well.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see America sell weapons to Russia, and provide them military support in the future when they launch their next invasion.
Acting DC AG Martin has a history of sockpuppetry. Bought a sycophant a laptop and then ghostwrote Facebook posts attacking a judge in a case against Martin. Should have been disbarred.
https://www.propublica.org/article/ed-martin-trump-interim-d...
It's always projection with the MAGA crowd
Wikipedia website even says your donation goes to other projects. As a 501c3, they are banned from making political contributions. They should change from 501c3 and break off their political arm into another appropriately categorized IRS recognized model.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/wikimedia-foundation/recipi...
no, it's about using the power of the state to attack and hopefully silence your political opponents
something commonly seen in e.g. Venezuela, South Africa, and now the US
I understand the sentiment but all they have to do is create a PAC for political stuff not under 501c3
I am not a lawyer but this sounds absurd. Even if everything in here were true it seems irrelevant to their non profit status. There are issue based non profits that do nothing but publishing information with an ideological slant. There is no restriction on a 501c3 being run by non-citizens let alone influenced. 501c3s can even engage in lobbying.
I know taking it at face value isn't the point but this claim is particularly galling.
Obviously this would happen with the current administration in the USA.
The foundation should be moved to a country where the rule of law and neutrality are respected. Switzerland perhaps?
Letter should be thrown in the trash. Let him bring up charges if they feel a crime has been committed.
Haven't read the article in full yet, but it reminded me of this nice excerpt on Wikipedia and truth and the best of what we know:
https://emilygorcenski.com/post/on-truth/
""But one of the most significant differences critical for moving from polarization to productivity, is that the Wikipedians who write these articles aren’t actually focused on finding the truth. They’re working for something that’s a little more attainable, which is the best of what we can know right now. "
I have a question on non-profits in general. What exactly is the advantage of being incorporated as a non-profit, when all you have to do to not be taxed as a for-profit corporation is spend all your money each year and not show any profit? It seems you'd have more privacy as a for-profit corporation, since you don't have to disclose donors.
If I donate to a 501(c)(3) organization, the donation gets very favorable treatment by the tax code, reducing my taxes (provided I have income that can be cancelled out by the donation).
hmm, please correct me if I'm wrong, but donations just decrease your tax liability by the amount you've donated. It's the same as if you donated your pre-tax dollars to 501(c)(3) org.
The second sentence is mostly accurate, but the first implies something else.
If your taxable income was $50,000 and you donate $10,000, and (some other conditions) your taxable income would now be $40,000; same as if you managed to move the money pre-tax.
However. If you donate aprechiated capital assets, you get two benefits. Your taxable income is offset by the value of the asset, and the capital gains disappear. It's much better than selling the asset and donating the proceeds; and it's handy if you don't have good records for your cost basis.
Charity non-profits -- 501c3 organizations -- have donations that are tax deductible for their donors. Other kinds of nonprofits have other advantages to their stakeholders, but usually the attention around "nonprofits" is specifically about 501c3 orgs.
Eligibility to receive grants & tax deductible donations, public perception & credibility
Wikipedia needs decentralized hosting infra, away from any single country. It is way too important.
Decentralization typically means instead of being subject to one crazy government you are subject to multiple and have to deal with all.
I think wikipedia's approach of centralizing in one place but allowing downloading backups and making all sourcecode and server config public is better. If the worst happens anyone can setup a fork.
The hosting isn’t important, it’s easy to move or have an offline copy already. The access to fundraising is much more important and more complicated.
I didn't immediately consider this, but I think I agree. In a weird way, the access and reach wikipedia has is a lot more valuable from that perspective. And if there is one thing that the US government can do is restrict that in ways that would effectively neuter it.
Moving to decentralized hosting would be extremely hard without compromising performance, reliability, or the ability to moderate effectively
One of the few truly good sites remaining. I'm afraid decentralization will take away the credibility even further but also would be very sad to see it fall.
Start backing it up now. Partisan influence could be as minor as forcing some edits or as major as pulling their DNS. Every authoritarian in the world follows this same playbook. Over started looking into kiwix.
IA is at risk too.
You can download backups of Wikipedia articles at dumps.wikimedia.org. For the IA they had a plan to move to Canada back in 2017.
This admin has no shame. They’re burning everything good/stable about the US because of an unstable, megalomaniac idiot happened to win the presidency.
The US are no longer a safe country for volunteer projects.
You may want to elaborate a little ideally listing countries that would be a safe alternative. In short, it seems like an easy throwaway comment.
A worrying thing about this, along with a few other examples such as the case of Harvard, is how branches of the federal government are using tax regulations, legal structure status and grant rules as mechanisms for openly threatening certain types of tendencies and practices in what are basically independent organizations. I don't know how novel it is for the feds to do this, but it's a chilling technique that sets dangerous regulatory precedents on speech control in a legal system that "supposedly" protects free speech.
I could argue that it's ironic coming from the supposedly free speech-obsessed Trump government, but given how bloviatingly, mendaciously hypocritical that particular swine is, there's nothing surprising here at all.
Also, nice to see the WaPo actually covering this, considering Jeff Bezos more recent and not so subtle sucking up to Trump.
Edit: and Yes, this tendency I mention above is much more worrying than any idiotic authoritarian canard about "spreading misinformation and propaganda".
So the issue is “allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.” and they are going after wikipedia instead of say TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X?
Wikipedia definitely isn't perfect - bias in editing is real, and it's fair to critique how reliable it is - but threatening their nonprofit status over it is wild.
Nearly everyone has a viewpoint and taking the time to contribute is a strong clue the viewpoint is deeply-felt. Some people primarily adopt the Wikipedia rules as their viewpoint, but in hotly debated social issues like (oh, pick one out of a hat) the Covid-19 crisis and origin investigation-- Wikipedia is drowned in other viewpoints, and, because administrators mosly are alike, substantive groupthink.
I'm impressed by Wikipedia's efforts to root out "abuse" but in the end it's all a contest over truth, and Wikipedia fails in precisely the dynamic, high-interest, high-consequence topics that users seek out on the site.
Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power.
There is a long legacy of authoritarian regimes attacking curious places, universities, historians, museums, books or any institution that grounds itself in reality which provides you a way to reasonably criticize authoritarian actions. Many authortarian regimes will "purge" as many of the country's intellectuals as they are able.
Wikipedia is absolutely the enemy of this administration and authoritarians everywhere in the world would love to see it's demise or collapse into chaos.
Whether the Wikipedia page for Israel says Gaza is a genocide or not, or that it's an ongoing debate matters. It matters because it influences what people think and therefore what they consent to or what they deem worth fighting for or applying resources to and that goes for just about any issue out there. If you can't read about the suffering that racism has caused, then how bad is racism really? If there are no examples of successful labor movements, then why would you hopelessly start one?
> Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power.
Well said.
Hannah Arendt wrote a great book about this, but it sounds like you might have already read it.
I haven't. I would imagine Timothy Snyder is an avid fan of, if not a major historian of, Hannah Arendt and I probably got that through Snyder. I had actually not heard of her specifically yet.
https://history.yale.edu/news/timothy-snyder-has-been-awarde...
Apparently Snyder received the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought.
He quotes her here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/preparing-for-an...
After the Reichstag fire, political theorist Hannah Arendt wrote that “I was no longer of the opinion that one can simply be a bystander.” Courage does not mean not fearing, or not grieving. It does mean recognizing and resisting terror management right away, from the moment of the attack, precisely when it seems most difficult to do so.
According to its cofounder, Wikipedia abandoned truth long ago.
It’s pretty clear from this blogpost that Larry Sanger has abandoned a pursuit of truth and neutral point of view and instead does not like how reality fails to conform to his personal biases and preferences about the way the world is.
If nothing else, the rambling about global warming and MMR vaccines makes it obvious. It’s not neutral to spread many times disproven lies. Especially how he wants to spread it, without saying that it’s not true, because that’s not neutral. He just forgot that saying that something is true is also not neutral.
I understand the caution, and we need to be more cautious in today’s world. And I do in controversial topics quite frequently. For example, giving points for women during university admissions just for being women in Norway seemed outrageous. And when I feel that way, I immediately start to check its validity, especially that the article “forgot” to mention how many points. At the end they give out 1 or 2 points on a scale of 50, and not to just women but also men, where they are underrepresented. The article just lied about that we should have outrage. It’s a lie.
Larry Sanger wants such lies on Wikipedia. He should be way more cautious when he’s outraged. Also 100% of people who commented under this article on Reddit should do the same.
What organizations, institutions, or media do you think have a greater commitment to truth, or even just a commitment to truth?
Organizations can't have commitments to truth. Only people can. And there is no mechanism that ensures that editors and admins have a commitment to truth.
OK, I can't argue with that. Timothy Snyder might make a similar correction, "markets can't be free, only people participating in the market can be free" is something he says frequently.
If only people can have commitments to truth, which organization, institution, or media do you think has a leader that seems to have a commitment to truth, especially truth in their institution? Who is our gold standard of "as good as it gets"?
I think for very scientific and technical matters that is entirely divorced from politics Wikipedia is fine, not great, but entirely serviceable.
For everything else I won't trust it, which sadly includes matters of war and history, as almost all causal claims about the world rests on counter factuals, and therefore does not merely depend on what is.
Politics also concerns what ought to be, not what is, and most editors of Wikipedia do not agree with me regarding what ought to be or even how one should determine what ought to be.
Wikipedia would do better if they could figure out a way to manage bias rather than try to eliminate it. I don't want to be overly critical. Wikipedia is useful, but it's really very far from ideal and I would not want my tax money going anywhere near it.
Wikipedia is a great point of entry for history.
Roughly ~20 years behind current academic research on most subjects, makes it 10 to 40 years more advanced than other encyclopaedia and school curriculums.
But its value is on the bibliography. You have research papers linked, which makes it infinitely better than most other sources. The only way to get closer to the truth in history is rigorous demonstrations, and those only exist in academic papers.
The view on Wikipedia on the French revolution are mostly Furet's views, which is 20 years behind, as it is the case in the Anglo world. Furet isn't the only one cited in Wikipedia though, and his point of view is nuanced with research from the 90s and 2000s, all with links to actual research. The last time I checked, research from JCM on the recently (late 2000s) discovered 'archives du comité' isn't discussed yet there, but all that makes it infinitely better than encyclopaedia brittanica. Infinitely.
Do you have any examples to show why I shouldn't trust it in regards to political topics or history?
You also really avoided the "what's better"/"what's a better model" question.
Social consensus, consent, and political mandate aren't ideas that can be hand waived away, they matter and they effect you and they are deeply impact by what people perceive to be true.
So the question still stands, if you mention a topic like Mao's cultural revolution, where should I go to get a primer and verify that the way you're talking about it appears to be grounded in reality.
Imagine sharing this link unironically thinking the content makes great sense.
> Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power.
I agree. Only thing I would add is that the 'seeking of truth' is also important. Academics get it wrong all the time, but self correction is built into the process. Finding and fixing errors is important.
Wikipedia policy is verifiability and giving the reader a first step. Truth is something that the reader decide for themselves. Wikipedia are neither the enemy nor a friend for regimes or political movements.
It is not the role of Wikipedia to authoritative say if the war in Gaza is an genocide. Their role is to say what reliable source has reported, which in this case has so much reliable sources talking about it that there is a dedicated article about just it.
There more reliable sources are talking about a subject, and the more the subject gain notability, the more likely it will be included in Wikipedia. Editors can apply some common sense, but they are not the arbiters of truth, nor should they ever be seen as such. If a readers want simple and single truths that they can believe in then they are better served by whichever news papers that can cater to their particular world views.
an encyclopedia is supposed to be broader than any other biased information source, so i think your last paragraph is false. people are supposed to make up their own mind
Aren't you making their point though?
The ADL and other Jewish organizations have pointed out that aside from articles about Israel that articles about or mention Jewish topics generally have been editing with disinformation or that made Jews out to be the aggressors.
I agree with you that in order to believe in the ideals of liberal democracy that we must have a core belief in truth. And it's absolutely true that the Trump administration has taken a position that is deeply chilling on the issue of speech. It's clear they want to be the sole arbiters of what "truth" is and they want to use their power to manipulate the reality.
All that said, I cannot as a Jew ignore the fact that Wikipedia is not in itself neutral, and that "more eyes" does not negate systemic bias. What I've seen as a Jew is what the true meaning of marginalized minority is, which is to say that if you are truly a minority and truly marginalized then in a vote of "truth", your reality will be dismissed if it conflicts with the vast majority, and that Jews are only 0.2% of the world population.
While I brought it up, I am not debating the issue of antisemitic bias in Wikipedia[1] as anything other than an illustration of your point of objective truth being true, but also that we can't simply rely on the wisdom of the crowd to materialize that truth.
To preemptively address the issue that's bound to come up when I post this- I'm not arguing that the evils of silencing the entire Wikipedia project are equal to or a fair response to Wikipedia's antisemitic bias. I do believe Wikipedia needs to address its bias problem and that's best done through internal reform.
Two wrongs don't make a right, nor are two wrongs always of equal weight.
[1] Firstly because my point is separate, and secondly because I've encountered the exact issues I've found in Wikipedia elsewhere, which is why I'm sure I'll be voted down.
Anti semitism or anti Zionist? Asking as the ADL doesn't seem to understand that there's a difference.
I agree 100%. It's exhausting fighting against antisemitic bias, and it feels like it's everywhere these days. My problem with Ed Martin is that what he is doing is clearly wrong. Hannah Arendt wrote a book about people like him.
The fact that my comment is -2 on HN is a great example of the problem.
I'm working on a solution to the effects of this isolation, but it's not ready for a big announcement.
Could one of you point me to antisemitic bias on wikipedia just so I have a concrete example at hand?
Basically, almost any time Zionists are mentioned, they're mentioned in a negative light and with genuine disinformation, such as that Zionism is the belief that Arabs needs to be destroyed. That is like saying the Civil Rights movement in the US was about killing white people.
They also position things in such a way that implies antisemitic things, such as saying that Zionism is only 200 years old, or discussing the Israel wars only or primarily through an Arab lens.
These biases around Jewish topics are small individually but large in aggregate, especially in how they present Jews and Jewish topics.
Multiple Jewish and civil rights organizations have done a more comprehensive job at discussing this, even organizations who don't usually agree on things. While they talk about "anti-Israel bias" Wikipedia articles on or mentioning Zionism (80% of Jews are Zionist) are IMHO just as, if not more damaging, and demonstrate the issue.
Most importantly though, talk to the Jews in your life about this. They will tell you.
https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wikipedia-entrie...
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-846563
https://cameraoncampus.org/blog/seven-tactics-wikipedia-edit...
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/editing-hate-how-anti-i...
https://www.standwithus.com/post/it-s-time-to-correct-wikipe...
https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-edit...
>Basically, almost any time Zionists are mentioned, they're mentioned in a negative light and with genuine disinformation,
Your first statement is a sweeping generalization that you can't prove
I don't know if that statement is true or not, but it certainly seems like a specific enough statement that could be proved or disproved given enough effort.
Most of the jews I know are through anti-genocide activism and they have a different view of this. I wanted to check because it is important to me that I not engage in antisemitism. Thanks for the info.
The idea of contrasting what I said with being "anti-genocide" implies that people who disagree with you are "pro-genocide".
Once one believes that those who disagree with them are "pro-genocide", then they can easily dismiss anything the other has to say say or any view they have, since they're functionally dehumanized.
I would ask that, if you can, try to consider that there are nuances, and that using triggering language does not bring understanding, it only amplifies conflict.
That said, this conversation has been too difficult for me, and I'm not going to engage with you on it further.
> Once one believes that those who disagree with them are "pro-genocide", then they can easily dismiss anything the other has to say say or any view they have, since they're functionally dehumanized.
I would really like you to read this back to yourself and think about it deeply, really deeply.
No I mean literally we are part of an organization focused on preventing and ending genocide broadly. Israel-palestine is one of them but there are several others ongoing and several more that may escalate into genocide in the next few months or years. I do see why you have a hard time with wikipedia.
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/editing-hate-how-anti-i...
Read it for yourself.
I tried giving it a shot. It starts with an "executive summary", followed by an intro to how Wikipedia works. The very first link to any concrete evidence is by a guy who has a page on PragerU with gems like "Russian collusion hoax" and how the "mainstream media" is "fake news".
It's a pretty simple case of Wittgenstein's ruler for me. It tells me more about ADL as an org than the content.
The analysis there is not convincing.
It is obvious that Wikipedia admins communicate with each other. The fact that Aljazeera is referenced is also okay.
In fact, this is not the official Israeli narrative, it seems rather trustworthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co...
The ADL destroyed any credibility they had worked to build when they started conflating criticism of israel with antisemitism.
Instead of posting another person's argument that contains your source can you be more specific?
This is like citing an entire book to prove a point.
I'm not sure the organization that defended Musk's Nazi salute is a reliable source on antisemitism.
This is the same ADL that said that Nazi salutes are fine, but that protesting against genocide isn't? Why do we care what the ADL says about anything? They're fascist sympathisers.
It was not remotely okay that they did this, and I agree that refusing to speak out severely hurt their credibility. The next time I get a fundraising email, I'm going to tell them they can kiss something.
Demanding moral perfection from an organization in order to believe that discrimination exists is a standard that I don't believe is fair to any group.
I don't demand "moral perfection", but I draw the line at overt fascism. The ADL are fascist sympathisers.
Did you read the statement they put out later that day about Musk, or the day after?
I agree this was a terrible move on the ADL's part, and there have been others, but you're essentially labeling the oldest anti-hate group "fascist" because you disagree with one statement they made.
This dismisses any concerns they raise, or if someone else says the same as them, then they too must be pro-facist.
He also tweeted in approval of this tweet putting forward the "Jewish people planned it" antisemitic form of great replacement theory with "you have said the actual truth":
> Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.
> I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much.
> You want truth said to your face, there it is.
Then a bit later Musk gives the heil Hitler salute twice in a row, once facing the crowd, then turned around and gave it facing Trump.
The stuff the ADL put out after the salutes was only after he added on jokes involving Nazi party members, right? Or was the one later that day before that?
Could you point me to an example of what you have in mind on wikipedia? I'm admittedly not as practiced at discerning subtle antisemitism as I am some other forms of discrimination. But also usually when it's being alluded to in the abstract like this people mean something closer to "criticism of israel's actions."
I didn't read that because the person asked for an example and you directed them to a 150 printed page article where you didn't specify which page(s)
This is the equivalent of stating that dinosaurs evolved into birds then when asked for one piece of evidence directing a person to a book, by another author, on how dinosaurs evolved into birds
> provide alternative legitimacy to authority.
Authority is never legitimate. Those that claim special rights to it because they bring "truth" or "reason" are the most suspect of them all.
> Many authortarian regimes will "purge" as many of the country's intellectuals as they are able.
This is a letter not the killing fields.
> It matters because it influences what people think
That people find this a defensible position and believe that just finding the "right editors" or "true guardians" can vouchsafe this poor outcome for humanity is always surprising to me.
Shouldn't people have access to reported information and then come to their own educated conclusions?
> If there are no examples of successful labor movements, then why would you hopelessly start one?
The existence of Wikipedia is a convenience and perhaps not one that should be given tax free status. I think the selected history of labor movements will be just fine.
Even if Wikipedia died tomorrow because of one letter you could still walk into any bookstore in America and buy a book on any subject you want.
>The existence of Wikipedia is a convenience and perhaps not one that should be given tax free status.
Because it's a convenience?
So everything wiki mods believe is truth? What about those who never even got a chance to speak out?
It's always controlled by. Winners write the history. Now Americans decide what's truth and fact
Wikipedia has at least 15 million articles in languages other than English and around 7 million English articles.
Are you asserting that it is standard that Americans are writing and moderating all of these articles in other languages?
In my country, one section mentions English articles (written by amercans) to prove their point.
In my humble opinion Wikipedia is the single best thing thing to emerge from the Internet boom. Its name is a wordplay on one of the most important intellectual projects of the Enlightment.[0] The DC prosecutor letter reads like something straight out of the totalitarian playbook.[1]
Please donate now to show your support. It's time to fight back against this crap.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die
[1] "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_giv...
As much as a I agree with the first paragraph I don't think that is a reason to donate money.
Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it embodies the idea that knowledge should be built collaboratively and made freely available to everyone
Hi I don't know if you know it but Wikipedias not that poor or hard pressed... Atleast, the whole "donate or we broke" narrative that they build every few months is complete bullshit https://youtu.be/3t8GUbzVxmQ?si=sa_oHe3DA_QmpGcE
Neither is Google, yet there is still probably multiple ads on that video you linked.
It's 2 paragraphs... What's the substance of the allegation?
He doesn't have a leg to stand on and he knows it. Otherwise he would empanel a grand jury and wait for indictments. He is a partisan sadist and he loves to use the legal system to abuse people.
It’s a similar nonsense letter to the same ones he sent to several prominent medical journals. Speech chilling, 1st amendment violating unsubstantiated threats on DOJ letterhead. Of all the unfit people in this administration, he’s likely the most unfit. His entire career has been deeply unethical and partisan and often borderline illegal.
Wikipedia is a shining example of what the internet could have been. Before the internet was "Enshittified"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
I am going to increase my monthly contribution.
Ed Martin seems like a SME when he himself has been influenced by foreign agencies and spoke their case.
"Trump appointee Ed Martin accuses the online encyclopedia of “allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.” April 25, 2025 at 6:54 p.m. EDT"
How about these wankers turn their attention to their own administration ...
Oh, pardon me ... what a ludicrous thing to suggest.
Same person also threatened the New England Journal of Medicine. Thought crime is real.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/health/nejm-prosecutor-le...
Remember as you read more and more news like this that many of the owners of Y Combinator supported this.
The only YC figure who espouses any position on U.S. federal politics is Paul Graham, who loudly campaigns against the current administration almost every day on Twitter.
Hi Tom.
You're burning your credibility here fast as the new moderator. dang derived his respect as an admin from not getting into fights in the threads. It additonaly tarnishes your credibility as you're doing this in defense of your employer. You look like a rage-poster who has the same response copied and ready to go from thread to thread.
Please take a moment to step back and examine if this is the image you want to be projecting as the official representative of YC and HN.
Alternatively, hi tom, you're a human being with opinions and you're allowed to discuss whatever you like on this site just like anyone else.
i think dang is successful at moderation in part because he does have a reputation and track record of being fair and unbiased in his moderation, and i do agree showing bias in conversations can make people question moderation decisions more, but i'm not sure tom is showing bias by including information relevant to people he knows, and i think he can both discuss however he likes while also being transparent and genuine in unbiased moderation
tom has and does stay out of debates and in-depth conversations around HN related stuff. he's simply dropping some information in to dispel disinformation, which i think is reasonable
Who, specifically, are you referring to; and what have they done or said to make you believe that they support this?
Well, the good news is that there's a very convenient link at the bottom of the page here on HN for the AI startup school [1] which is host to a bunch of people that you should recognize.
Not an answer to my question.
It is actually, unless you are unable to parse information without being spoon fed to you.
Wealthy people who could be coined liberal-tarians or just your average tech bro political grab bag largely backed Trump out of financial interest and who, imo, deluded themselves that the administration would be unsuccessful at "the bad stuff" much like his 2016 run.
No amount of shouting from the rooftops that this time was actually different convinced anyone. I can't really blame us collectively, we resoundingly voted for this— it's as much of a mandate you're likely to ever get in the US and we're in the find out stage of fucking around.
Looking back on old social media posts the theme is that everyone, supporters and not, were high on copium that Trump would do <list of things I like | aren't so bad> and the <list of truly terrible things> was just obviously crazy and wouldn't actually happen or were a joke.
Who specifically was the question.
This isn't really a hard list to compile.
* Paul Graham
* Mark Zuckerberg
* The Ghost of Elon Musk before he fell down the alt right pipeline and now is no longer liberal-tarian.
* Sundar Pichai
* Jeff Bezos
* Sam Altman
* Jensen Huang
* Tim Cook
A who's who of people who felt their businesses were being threatened by the Biden administration with a starry-eyed view of how this next round might benefit them and being in denial of the crazy.
Many of those probably wanted Biden to win but don't want to antagonize Trump after he won. If I had to guess there at least Sundar and Bezos didn't want Trump to win
Elon and his loud hangers-on in the VC community have made SV look a lot more MAGA than it is
Their silence now is cowardly.
In before this thread is also flagged for being "political".
The only moderator action taken on this submission was to prevent it from being downweighted by community flags – 5 hours ago.
There's a post that the FBI arrested a judge who helped an illegal immigrant avoid capture during a court proceeding.
900+ upvotes
- it has nothing to do with tech
- it's about a hot button political issue
- it helps the Republican cause.
Not flagged
I'm just curious why you think it helps the Republican cause? When I saw this reported in the media my feel was this is something Democrats are going to latch on to demonstrate the government is seeking to intimidate the judicial branch.
I guess it can have different interpretation.
Either way I'd really prefer not to see this stuff on Hacker News. We have enough things that push people buttons in other places.
HN has degraded a little since I joined some years ago. It is still better than most of the online fora out there, but you can feel the change in the posts.
As a non american that edited wikipedia.
You guys control the servers, if anything you have the psyop advantage.
However, the librarians are very vocal about self determination and keeping wikimedia out of important decisions.
Similar to TikTok, ADL were effectively banned from Wikipedia.
This coincidences nicely with all of this.
only about 10% of their contributions are needed to run the websites. WMF should have their non-profit status revoked since they are defrauding contributors . They need to restructure and break up the scam into “real Wikipedia” , a legit nonprofit and the scam that consumes 80-90% of contributions.
How do I start worshipping Wikipedia so it can become a church?
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...
Yarvin putting his intellectual mediocrity on display: the nazis, for example, dismissed relativity as "jewish science".
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.
“allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.”
How dare they? Don't they know that's our job Mr Putin?
The scale of deep body trauma that has been done to the US will not seem clear today, but it will have dire consequences for the future trajectory of US. I am sad for this, for the current status quo I was born under, but I suppose History must happen.
I'm not sad for myself. I'm older and established. I'm scared for my cousins, nieces, nephews, and children for the fucking train wreck they're going to step into.
It was bad enough with 2001, 2008, and 2020. But this is next level.
The PhD institution I went to reduced their acceptance from 50 to 26. There is fear of not securing funding. The damage done is projects that are promising were cut. These projects will get picked up by other countries. The damage in the long term will be losing our edge in many regards, which will harm our economy. Where I did my undergrad just replaced their dean with an AIPAC member who has no experience in academia (a first in nearly two hundred years of this institution's). It is insane what is happening. A judge in Wisconsin was arrested today. There are those who believe America is resilient. The damage being done (I can promise you) will cause this great nation unbelievable harm in the long run, when this traitor in charge and his foreign allies (Putin and Netanyahu) which he promises allegiance to OVER our constitution and our moral values have long since passed. There is much noise, much of it as a distraction, but on the small level, many changes (most recently the NSF director leaving) are tangible changes that have a real impact that is certainly felt immediately in budget cuts, but will be even more drastic in its long term strategic impact. Also, I fly a bunch, and I see an immediate change in the respect America used to command abroad. Our values and reputation, which took over a hundred years in the making, became a laughing stock, and our closest allies no longer view America as a beacon.
The US has not been a force for good in the world in some time, if ever.
Unfortunately for Americans, it has to get worse before it can get better. Much worse.
The institutions are deeply corrupt, and have been for decades. They must be destroyed and possibly replaced. It sucks, and it will hurt. It may even possibly require an entire revolution, as many of the deeply evil US institutions such as the CIA and FBI are so deeply and tightly integrated with the federal government that it may require destruction of the state itself.
The status quo has been comfy for a lot of Americans, but the world as a whole is not a better place because Facebook and Lockheed and the US CIA exist.
This has been pending for most of a century.
What comes after will be more transparent, more fair, and more integrated with society.
> but the world as a whole is not a better place because Facebook and Lockheed and the US CIA exist.
You've cherry-picked a few bogeymen.
What about Norman Borlaug, Bell Laboratories, the Gates Foundation, Margaret Sanger and the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology?
> What comes after will be more transparent, more fair, and more integrated with society.
No one is claiming that US been or will ever be perfect, but what are you smoking? Everything that's happened in the current administration has gone the opposite direction of transparent, fair, and integrated.
> What comes after will be more transparent, more fair, and more integrated with society.
Can you walk me through how you see this playing out, step-by-step?
I want to believe!
Revolutionaries tend to suffer from extreme naivete or arrogance. They don't understand that idealists like them usually get pushed aside or killed by the real crazies during the power vacuum stage, then the country becomes significantly worse. It's happened so many times in history. Until the US starts killing half of its population like Pol Pot did it can always get worse.
Over the last thousand years, humans have become more educated and more connected. Violent deaths have been steadily falling.
Over the last hundred years, American military and paramilitary forces, and their vendors, have subverted transparency and democracy to turn America into a military dictatorship.
There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come) will reverse the thousand year trend of increased education and decreased violence.
The culture of the 3.6% of people who live in the current territory of the USA will be irreparably damaged, however. This may not be entirely a bad thing, given how significant an outlier the US lifestyle is compared to the rest of the world.
> There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come) will reverse the thousand year trend of increased education and decreased violence.
The US recently put the world on notice that everyone needs a larger military and should develop their own nukes if they can. I fail to see how that will continue to decrease violence.
> There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come) will reverse the thousand year trend of increased education and decreased violence.
We're talking about long-term cycles of change here so it is difficult to opine with certainty leaving a lot of room for differing opinions. Unfortunately, however, I think the end of Pax Americana will usher in increased conflict and violence, particularly in the West which has experienced a long period of peace due to American dominance.
Regardless of all the nasty things US has done, if it goes down, it will get much worse for everyone else as well. Quite possibly worse than it will for Americans themselves. For one thing, it's such a big actor economically that its downfall will hurt everyone a great deal just from that alone. But secondly, when empires go down, they usually do so flailing at any real or perceived enemies around them - and given the sheer military strength of this country, it's not going to be pretty.
Remember when people pretended it was the scandal of all scandals that the IRS was reviewing PACs who were forbidden from doing political activity for political activity? And now many of those same people are cheering this, and the act blue ‘investigation’, and the threats against Harvard’s tax exempt status for nakedly corrupt reasons? Man I wish shame still had some stopping power.
All US organizations should seriously consider moving out of the country, at this point; it might become harder to do it in the future
Fascists hate knowledge, as is made apparent by Trump, Musk and co's repeated claims that Wikipedia is "radical-left woke DEI propaganda". I can only hope Wikimedia considers moving the bulk of their servers and organization to outside of the US before it is stolen by the evil bunch.
A "NOBUS" weapon. Any system (country/gov/para-...) needs the right 'tools' for people-manipulation and people-programming. And such weapons should not be allowed to be used against 'us'. Kinda like devices that must accept (and malfunction) but not cause interference.
So, for a "let people speak their mind - don't control information" the Trump side quickly goes to universities must teach only what 'WE' want, Wikipedia must mention only what 'WE' like. Hilarious if not pathetic and dangerous (very-very 1984-ish...)
Side-note: it has since amused me but apparently it's not often told/at all.. the absolute propaganda tool for Russia/Soviet was "Pravda" (the "Truth"). Imagine my amusement when Trump created "Truth Social". You can't make that shit up....
Now, as I've said before, I live in the EU and don't vote in the US, so you folks decide, and then we all get to 'share' the experience (since I do have some/plenty of SP500 and similar instruments).
Is this the start of the shakedown by Trump to start allowing misinformation?
I fear the answer is yes. Did you hear about the "gala dinner" for the top 220 holders of his meme coin? I wish I was joking.
Power corrupts...
But the Democrats tried to control misinformation during a public health crisis so it goes both ways.
It does, but both side's followers are blind to it when their side does it. Or they think it's ok for their side to do it. I'm not sure which is scarier
You’re painting with an awfully broad brush, omitting both the magnitude of the difference and far overstating the homogeneity of one of those sides.
Agreed, the pandemic authoritarianism was far more invasive, with non-compliance being life ruining for many, so I don't think it's really comparable to the current administrations clownish floundering.
Acting like they are the same shamefully diminishes the previous administrations actions, which is particularly dangerous since their documented suppression of the now widely accepted lab leak theory has resulted in little action to prevent further illegal gain of function research. Its inevitable we will face yet another worldwide pandemic in the next decade or so while this careless research continues without proper safety controls or scrutiny.
> pandemic authoritarianism
Sacrificing people on the altar of your freedom is better? There was a reason for lock-downs and masks. They were implemented worldwide. It wasn't some fluke of US policy.
You’re not arguing in good faith if you’re not recognizing that the “pandemic authoritarianism” started under Trump, or asserting that the lab leak theory was ever suppressed (it was continuously discussed throughout - just check the comments here for the last 5 years!) or that the most criticized theories making wild claims about bioweapons or gain of function research are now widely accepted. Many assessments have included the possibility of a lab leak of a natural specimen from the beginning, but in the absence of evidence nobody credible is saying more than, say, the CIA’s “low confidence” back in January.
> Its inevitable we will face yet another worldwide pandemic in the next decade or so
If we do, the absurdities about masks and vaccines that were spread by some will make it last just as long as the covid one
A lot of what you refer to as "pandemic authoritarianism" took place under Trump as well. Vaccine mandates have been part of many jobs for years and years. It's not a Republican or Democrat thing.
Wikipedia is not owned by “The Democrats.” Its editors are a pretty diverse and esoteric bunch.
I'm demonstrably not, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to make the above commentary. But even if I was it would be irrelevant. It wouldn't cause both sides of this to be comparable, and neither does virtue signaling being above partisanship.
Serious question, after the past few months, how can anyone deny that America is heading in a totalitarian direction? Those of you who believe that all of the many actions that have happened in the past few weeks are "okay", please explain your perspective without resorting to "whataboutism" or cherry picking only one or two of the things that have occurred lately. Because from what I'm sitting, this is not behavior of a government based on democratic ideals.
When you take a step back and look at what is happening as a whole, it's definitely not looking good.
I was going to start listing examples but that's not the point now. And even if something specific is undone weeks after because of outcry it's still a steady two steps forward, one step back, progression in a nasty direction.
I've read some books, seen some documentaries, learned some history. What's happening is very obvious and anyone who doesn't also see it is either ignorant or in denial.
I'm not an American so I'm kind of looking at this from the side but I'll try to engage here...
What does "heading in a totalitarian direction" mean in this context exactly?
I'm not trying to use this as a "cherry pick" but this was news from today: "Trump administration reverses abrupt terminations of foreign students’ US visa registrations
DOJ announced the reversal in federal court after weeks of intense scrutiny by courts and dozens of restraining orders issued by judges."
How is this consistent with your theory/hypothesis?
I think what's important is not to look solely at evidence supporting your idea. The important thing is to find things that disprove your idea. That's the scientific method. I.e. finding something that weakens your hypothesis is what you need to look for. If you're not able to find anything at all disproving your theory then we should be really worried but I think there are actually many things going on that are consistent with a functioning democracy. Keep in democracy doesn't necessarily mean acting in ways that you consider to be good. You might think it's crazy to make deep cross cuts in the government but if this is what people voted for then maybe that can play out. Yes, it seems arbitrary and maybe important things are being cut, which is no different than what you'll see when companies do layoffs. But there's also a lot of resilience. At least I don't think it's anti-democratic to run on a platform of reducing government costs and then act on it. If anything the opposite. It might be really bad, but democratic, or it might end up being a good idea. Another example is you probably think it's crazy for the US to abandon Ukraine. I don't like that either but the US government can set foreign policy and it was reasonably clear that's the way they were going to go before the elections. Is this good for the world? I don't think so. Is it anti-democratic. I don't think so either. How will it play out? Who knows.
I would say that Trump is pushing the limits of presidential powers more than others before him. Some of the actions his administration is taking are borderline anti-democratic and borderline legal. But many of them are actually legal and some others will work their way through the courts. Even the Supreme Court which is generally right leaning has rebuked Trump and will likely not blindly side with him.
I'm not a fan of this administration but at least so far it doesn't look like it's the end of democracy in America. That seems like fear mongering. I think the "opposition" would be better off trusting democracy more, highlighting how its policies contrast with the current government policies, the problems it would solve better for Americans compared with the current government etc. This is probably going to end up being better for America's democracy in the long run. The erosion of democracy is partly due to the incessant attacking and divisiveness/polarization. Focus on common ground which I think is actually larger than what most think and trying to let better ideas win vs. being critical of everything is better. Not that you shouldn't speak out against obviously bad actions but it seems we are just 100% focused on attacks.
The US states also have a lot of power. The citizenry have a lot of power. Senate/congress. Courts. I think you guys will be fine but let's see how it goes. To me the bigger risk is the loss of common ground and polarization. If you have half the country basically feeling the other half is the enemy rather than debate policies that's something that can lead to trouble.
Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
It sounds weird. Why does it look like a conspiracy theory?
Yo dawg, I heard you like to appeal to conspiracy theory types...
Why would someone introduce lots of seemingly indiscernible edits into important articles, fully knowing that the edit history is available to anyone who wants to look?
It would make more sense to spread propaganda in a place that doesn't fully track it.
Unless the exposition of such tracking edits as an obvious smoking gun exists to be staged to look like someone else did it.
Of course, it could all be to trigger a recursive conspiracytheorypocallipse that further erodes any belief in community generated content.
What should we do, Master Anakin? There's too many of them conspiracies.
Wikipedia/Wikimedia could move to a country that allows this type of manipulation on their platform or figure out how to comply with the existing US law.
Wikipedia could also stop operating as a 501c3 and incorporate.
But the typical out for these organizations are that they are not responsible for what people post. I don’t feel like that is very responsible. They already have moderation on the platform.
But Wikimedia/pedia can’t claim 501c3 status. It could spin off the political content/controversial into 501c4 which has more leeway. It can tighten editorial controls, emphasize first amendment, look at Section 230. Publish reports showing how misinformation is identified and corrected, partner with fact checking organizations.
But also if they cannot police their own content without an unpaid army of volunteers then herein lies the bigger issue with their model.
or they could move to a country that respects the rule of law and continue operating as they do at present
may I suggest Switzerland
It’s not about that. It’s about tax avoidance. By saying they are 501c3, there are rules and laws they must follow or risk losing their 501c3 status. Now that they have been put on notice, it’s important for them to tighten up
Except they have a financial cancer. If the government investigations uncover more scandals, beyond what were found in the Israel-Palestine topic area, public support and goodwill for Wikipedia will evaporate overnight, and they'll have no choice but to liquidate or absorbed into a successor organization.
> “Wikipedia is one of the last places online that shows the promise of the internet, housing more than 65 million articles written to inform, not persuade,” the Wikimedia Foundation said Friday in a statement
Well that is apparently very false when it comes to american politics and jewish matters. On the positive side, for other countries and languages the biases are very different and quite wide ranging.
Maybe this threat by the US government is a good thing, it will force wikipedians to take their head out of the sand and go back to wide-ranging NPOV , and remove all those judgemental adjectives and epithets that are thrown around in so many articles.
I don't believe the idea of wikipedia can be threatened because it is a really resilient idea across political lines and there are billions who will want to recreate it.
Wikipedia is dead. One fun remains, and is to ask some AI, what is wrong with this and that Wikipedia article.
Me and Gemini actually found a major fault on one politician's wikipage, but decided there is no change correcting that, because there is no "trusted source".
And the reason for that with government controlled media monopoly it is easy remove any references, only hearsay remains.