"The Right Takes Aim at Wikipedia"

[ericbarbour]

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/wik ... _trump.php

As usual, Musk is waved around as the terrible threat. It mentions the Heritage Foundation's ludicrous attempt to have WP tagged as a "hotbed of antisemitism". And the CJR goes to Jimbo and Molly White for their completely predictable take on all the above. Wales STILL thinks he's "in charge" there.....

[ericbarbour]

Silly season keeps starting earlier and earlier...........

https://x.com/PoliticsLs/status/1887216562970521872

That guy is a classic greasy-haired Wall Street shill. Thinks he knows EVERYTHING about investing but doesn't. Likes to jabber about crypto, which he CLEARLY knows fuck-all about. And sucks up to Musk every chance he gets.

https://x.com/spencerhakimian

[Ram24]

Silly season keeps starting earlier and earlier...........

https://x.com/PoliticsLs/status/1887216562970521872

That guy is a classic greasy-haired Wall Street shill. Thinks he knows EVERYTHING about investing but doesn't. Likes to jabber about crypto, which he CLEARLY knows fuck-all about. And sucks up to Musk every chance he gets.

https://x.com/spencerhakimian

Wikipedia can lose its tax-exempt status if it is a public advocacy platform for the Democrats.

[Ognistysztorm]

4 Wikipedia editors booked over factual inaccuracies about Chhatrapati Sambhaji
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 00722.html

[ericbarbour]

Yet another clue-free report about the Heritage Foundation "doxxing" those poor little Wikipedians for antisemitism, real or imaginary.....

https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/26/her ... -position/

The methods outlined are potentially a serious threat to the freedom of speech of Wikipedia editors. Doxxing them would clearly open them up to the kind of online attacks that have become all-too common since Elon Musk bought Twitter. It would be quite understandable if doxxed editors stopped working on Wikipedia, for fear of real-world consequences for them and their families.

Not stated, because the people who run TechDirt just love the hell out of Wikipedia (founder Mike Masnick was caught editing his own articles): those anonymous Wikipedios often use their anonymity to abuse others. But we can't mention that, because WIKIPEDIA IZ MAGIC!

[ericbarbour]

Yet another Stephen Harrison mash note to the WMF and its wacko supporters:

https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wi ... itism.html

The free encyclopedia will become too toxic to sustain.

IT ALREADY WAS, YOU LITTLE SHIT. Abuse and dirty tricks are firmly baked into the culture. WP insiders have been doxing their enemies since the 2005-2006 "golden age", and they still do it today. Doxing will never be "completely banned" because the WMF and minions can't control the rest of the internet; but they LOVE being hypocrites about it.

And what about Musk? He's only briefly mentioned in this New Yorker article. But it does quote Tamzin, a paragon of "unreliable narrators", at some length.
https://archive.ph/cGHzr
Hey, no shit, what a "shocking revelation":

Bruckman finds Wikipedia “studiously nonpartisan” except in its “bias towards covering things people find fun. It has way too much content on science-fiction and fantasy novels compared to specific topics in science. They could maybe use more fish scientists and fewer fans of Terry Pratchett.” To its editors’ annoyance, they sometimes have to contend with an article that some entity—a P.R. or reputation-management firm, for instance—has been paid by a client to produce. (Editors can and do challenge, correct, or delete these, but there can be a lag with less prominent subjects.) Some articles on math and science, though they may be technically correct, can be almost impenetrable for the general reader. (Look up the statistical term “confidence interval,” which I had occasion to do recently, and see if you are as flummoxed as I was.) There has been a historic gender and racial imbalance among frequent contributors to the English-language Wikipedia—what data there is suggests that the majority are white and male. Ryan McGrady, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who both writes about and contributes to Wikipedia, told me that he sees plenty of articles on “sports, American politics, video games—they’re all well covered in English in particular. But there’s not as much high-quality information about places in Africa apart from big cities, for example, or the culture of places that are not largely English-speaking.”

Also, "There can be a lag" my ass. Sometimes the "lag" runs for YEARS. Hoax articles and intentional vandalism can last for obscene stretches of time. This very long list is also very far from being "complete". Note how long many of them lasted: 5+ years is not unusual. And occasionally articles about obscure subjects are NEVER detected or repaired. And are still sitting there today.

And I know what the Wikifucks will scream: SOFIXIT. They don't care about anything but their OWN personal fixations.

[Ognistysztorm]

Yet another Stephen Harrison mash note to the WMF and its wacko supporters:

https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wi ... itism.html

The free encyclopedia will become too toxic to sustain.

IT ALREADY WAS, YOU LITTLE SHIT. Abuse and dirty tricks are firmly baked into the culture. WP insiders have been doxing their enemies since the 2005-2006 "golden age", and they still do it today. Doxing will never be "completely banned" because the WMF and minions can't control the rest of the internet; but they LOVE being hypocrites about it.

And what about Musk? He's only briefly mentioned in this New Yorker article. But it does quote Tamzin, a paragon of "unreliable narrators", at some length.
https://archive.ph/cGHzr
Hey, no shit, what a "shocking revelation":

Bruckman finds Wikipedia “studiously nonpartisan” except in its “bias towards covering things people find fun. It has way too much content on science-fiction and fantasy novels compared to specific topics in science. They could maybe use more fish scientists and fewer fans of Terry Pratchett.” To its editors’ annoyance, they sometimes have to contend with an article that some entity—a P.R. or reputation-management firm, for instance—has been paid by a client to produce. (Editors can and do challenge, correct, or delete these, but there can be a lag with less prominent subjects.) Some articles on math and science, though they may be technically correct, can be almost impenetrable for the general reader. (Look up the statistical term “confidence interval,” which I had occasion to do recently, and see if you are as flummoxed as I was.) There has been a historic gender and racial imbalance among frequent contributors to the English-language Wikipedia—what data there is suggests that the majority are white and male. Ryan McGrady, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who both writes about and contributes to Wikipedia, told me that he sees plenty of articles on “sports, American politics, video games—they’re all well covered in English in particular. But there’s not as much high-quality information about places in Africa apart from big cities, for example, or the culture of places that are not largely English-speaking.”

Also, "There can be a lag" my ass. Sometimes the "lag" runs for YEARS. Hoax articles and intentional vandalism can last for obscene stretches of time. This very long list is also very far from being "complete". Note how long many of them lasted: 5+ years is not unusual. And occasionally articles about obscure subjects are NEVER detected or repaired. And are still sitting there today.

And I know what the Wikifucks will scream: SOFIXIT. They don't care about anything but their OWN personal fixations.

I think he's starting to concede that Wikipedia will likely fail as time goes.

Regardless of its effectiveness, Wikipedia’s latest decision aligns with its quasi-democratic principles. It reflects a commitment to online debate rather than the authoritarian tactics proposed by Heritage. But if the think tank succeeds in its effort to identify and target editors, the consequences could be profound. Faced with the risk of harassment or real-world retaliation, many volunteer editors—especially those covering politically sensitive topics—may simply stop contributing. Those who remain are likely to be the most ideologically driven voices, further eroding Wikipedia’s stated goal of neutrality.

The free encyclopedia will become too toxic to sustain.