A freely accessible collection of human knowledge? Of course authoritarians hate it. An informed populace is their enemy.
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
298 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22655 readers
3875 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
All under the guise of "free speech". Which, as we all know, means speech that align with Elon's currently held opinions.
Just made my donation to Wikipedia, never have before, this news is as good a prompt as I could have ever received
You inspired me. Let's keep it rolling.
Just donated
I donated last night. The Christmas spirit moved me
Fuck musk
Guess who's getting their first donation ever from me.
Wait, maybe that's what he wanted to have happen. Maybe?
I'm at the point now where I believe every possible thing he wants will be to the detriment of humanity.
He almost certainly does not want that
I think I'll do the same
Eh. He wants to be king of Mars. Making life as shit as possible on Earth would certainly help speed that process up.
King of Mars while living on earth. Do you really think he'd want to live there? He might visit once, but probably by VR.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We should speed that along and send him there soon.
Please do not assign reverse altruism to horrible actions being done by horrible people.
Same.
Do you want me to donate to Wikipedia? Because NOW I’m going to donate to Wikipedia
This news caused me to set up a recurring monthly donation, where I haven't actually donated to Wikipedia historically.
Actually thank you. Yep monthly I’ve have now set up
Thanks Elon.
Same. $5 a month is a small price to pay to ensure that Wikipedia remains free of this turd's influence.
I will join you
Could someone please take aim at Elon Musk?
Will no one rid me of this turbulent apartheidist?
Nice deep cut reference there. Well done
One can dream.
I have my issues with Wikipedia, and he’s not wrong about the concentration of power amongst editors. However, fuck Elon Musk. He’s just mad that he can’t control Wikipedia himself.
he’s not wrong about the concentration of power amongst editors
The classic problem of an open-edit document like Wikipedia is the manpower it takes to manage the project properly relative to the incentives to fuck with it by malicious actors. Elon's answer to this problem is to monetize the sinking ship to the hilt and then use the excess revenues to buy the next new thing. The Jimmy Wales approach is to build out a network of trusted administrators and semi-trusted volunteers to play wack-a-mole on this one single project forever.
Originally, the theory of Wikipedia was that you'd have far more good actors than bad. Therefore, the bulk of the encyclopedia would accumulate useful information that went largely unmolested and didn't need to be babysat by live humans. This... hasn't proven to be the case. So the costs of the website continue to expand as the content base does.
Automation of spammers, scammers, and malicious actors has made the problem even more difficult. And I have no doubt that Elon's own digital vandalism efforts have taken their toll as well. There's simply too much economic incentive to fuck with the public's understanding of the world for a project like Wikipedia to go ignored.
I'm afraid its days are ultimately numbered, precisely because too many people trust it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Reminds me to donate to Wikipedia ..... and download another updated copy of the entire Wikipedia database.
Got any links on how to do that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
Kiwix seems to be the most popular app to browse offline web pages like this.
I've only ever used Kiwix ... it's the easiest and most easily installable on different devices.
I've downloaded the entire database about six times now over the past few years. I keep a duplicated copy everywhere ... laptop, tablet, storage drive, portable drive, smartphone ... in multiple places at home / cottage / relatives place
My latest download will only be to have an updated copy as my last one is about a year old.
I don't like doomsday prepping and I don't really prepare for anything. I've been self sufficient all my life and if the world ends, I'll be able to make do on my own, I always have. But when it comes to knowledge and information, keeping a copy of Wikipedia is no-brainer for me.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'd like to see how much of an uptick in these they've gotten lately. I'm gonna do this myself
this guy is really good at making enemies
He's a vulture capitalist. Very good at finding ways to cannibalize a nice public thing for the benefit of a handful of private malicious actors.
That's always going to make enemies. But so what? You're a vulture. You can always pick up and leave today, then find another wounded animal to prey on tomorrow.
Well, I'd been putting it off so I figured this was the push I needed to donate again
Wikipedia is a good cause, but I feel like archive.org is in dire need of fundings.
Then English wikipedia is only about 100GB (excluding videos), archive.org is in the TERABYTES with some report of it being in PETABYTES. They need funding to keep up the maintenance of their storage and backups, and for the bandwith for people to access it. They've been attacked by hackers a few months ago so they'll need better security and that might cost money. They are under constant lawsuits over alleged copyright issues, lawsuits cost a lot of money. They're gonna need more funding than wikipedia to survive. I think Wikipedia already has enough funding to survive for quite a while.
Edit: What I means is, for every $5 wikipedia needs, archive.org might need like $50
So if you want to help both, the ratio of donations should be at least 10 to 1 (ratio between archive.org and Wikipedia)
Just sent them $50 as well. Thanks for reminding me, Musk!
Never donated to Wikipedia in my life, but now I do, and its monthly. It's not much, but it's honestly work.
Thank you Elon for reminding me to donate.
Leon Skum urges people not to donate? That's a good reason to donate.
He’s such a snowflake
Fuck you I'm gonna donate even harder
Leave it to wingnut trolls like Musk to politicize everything.
Musk is such a dumbass.
The claim about the budget is true.
A Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson told Newsweek in an email that the chart's equity section "refers to making it possible for more people to share reliable knowledge on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects."
The email continues: "Wikipedia is built on the premise that it becomes better when more people of different backgrounds—including political persuasions—source, edit, curate and research content. Our equity goal advances that. The 'Safety & Inclusion' goal (now titled 'Safety & Integrity' in our 2024-2025 plan) is focused on ensuring that people are able to freely access and safely contribute to knowledge on Wikipedia in a changing legal and policy environment globally."
The spokesperson continued: "The goal centers on legal efforts that protect free expression, prevent censorship and advocate for laws and regulations that keep Wikipedia accessible for all to use."
I don't think that's where a lot of donors (especially but not exclusively conservative donors) want their money going, and I don't think Wikipedia's donation requests would lead these donors to realize that that's where some of their money would be going.
Where your donation goes
Technology: Servers, bandwidth, maintenance, development. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites in the world, and it runs on a fraction of what other top websites spend.
People and Projects: The other top websites have thousands of employees. Wikimedia Foundation has about 700 staff and contractors to support a wide variety of projects, making your donation a great investment in a highly-efficient not-for-profit organization.
I suppose that "People and Projects" is vague enough that it isn't false, but I was certainly surprised when I saw the actual budget allocation.
Edit: I accidentally posted this with an image from an episode of the Simpsons instead of the chart I meant to post. Please disregard that.
I don’t think that’s where a lot of donors (especially but not exclusively conservative donors) want their money going, and I don’t think Wikipedia’s donation requests would lead people to understand that that’s where some of their money would be going.
Why are you trying to frame this as if wikipedia was lying on where their funding goes when your own source is their own transparency article?
They're not lying but they're being misleading. Everyone who donates sees the donation page, but it's reasonable to assume that almost all of those donors don't read the "Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Finance" page.
I don’t think that’s where a lot of donors (especially but not exclusively conservative donors) want their money going
You don't think people want to access Wikipedia safely and securely or guarantee an egalitarian sourcing of information?
I was certainly surprised when I saw the actual budget allocation.
"I didn't know how a public-facing non-profit catalogue of information spent its money. Now I do. And I hate it."
shrug
Why do people think their own personal ignorance is an indictment?
Your donation goes towards running Wikipedia. There's a blurb for pitching that, with a few details, but if you want everything, you gave to go to another page and read it? That all sounds exactly like what I'd expect from a banner ad seeking donations for a website
view more: next ›