I am a self proclaimed wiki-phile, I always donated when I could. It was kind of like going to the library without the fresh book smell.

  • ThePowerOfGeek
    link
    English
    2326 days ago

    Elon Musk and his cult followers are getting pissy with and declaring war on Wikipedia because they think it’s biased against them. So basically, Wikipedia is being dragged into this right wing culture war.

  • @foggy
    link
    1476 days ago

    If you’re seeing hate at wikipedia it is manufactured by Elon Musk.

    Someone Luigi this fuck already.

    • poo
      link
      English
      226 days ago

      Agreed, but watch out, Lemmy.World has some super shitty bootlicking mods going around deleting any comment that insinuate Musk should have anything less than a perfectly healthy long life. Thinking of switching instances because this one is failing lol.

    • @eclipse
      link
      35 days ago

      Didn’t realise we were using Luigi as a verb now.

      I’m on board with the vernacular.

  • @DarkFuture
    link
    English
    245 days ago

    Wikipedia is a massive source of free knowledge.

    Conservatives do not like knowledge and have declared a war on it.

    We live in an anti-intellectual society. That’s why a felon rapist who illegally attempted to overturn an election is running the show and destroying our federal government, along with an unelected billionaire.

  • @Dorkyd68
    link
    245 days ago

    The right has always hated Wikipedia because it’s gives free knowledge. They think every page is littered with lies

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    546 days ago

    People who are inconvenienced by facts and reality are trying to start a war against them

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    276 days ago

    Hate for Wikipedia comes from a few places.

    The first and most important is that most people who have tried to edit Wikipedia have their first edit reverted, usually with good reason, because they don’t understand the procedures and policies. Unfortunately these procedures and policies are what maintains high quality.

    Related is news articles and blogs about edit wars and less frequently that an article or group of articles is genuinely captured by one volunteer who will protect their own little fiefdoms and not allow anyone else to edit them. This happens but it’s pretty uncommon and the structure of Wikipedia means that it only really stands on fairly obscure articles.

    It’s also true that Wikipedia does have an inherent western liberal bias. It’s subtle but it is there and results from the fact that for the majority of Wikipedia editors western liberalism is the water they swim in. Any claim that is counter to this ideology needs to be cited up the wazoo whereas claims that are confidant with it will often slide without citation. Those with a strong attachment to an alternative ideology often find it infuriating.

    Finally there are individuals who would rather have the arbiter of truth be the powerful rather than a relatively democratic institution.

    All that said Wikipedia is a remarkable achievement and an invaluable part of the internet.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    35
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Which “bunch of people”? Question is way too vague to answer meaningfully, there are many people who have one reason or another to hate Wikipedia.

    • @serenissi
      link
      15 days ago

      Few article I saw, all are very basic and low quality. How’s that ‘escalating’?

      • @brucethemoose
        link
        15 days ago

        The point is that many conservatives have hated Wikipedia for a long time, and Conservapedia is a microcosm of why, not that the alternatives are necessarily good.

  • Tedesche
    link
    English
    44 days ago

    Okay, now I’m OoTL—where are you seeing a bunch of folks hating on Wikipedia?

  • @gimmelemmy
    link
    14 days ago

    It is an op by the people who have recently seized power. They do NOT want the free flow of information

  • @serenissi
    link
    45 days ago

    I ‘hate’ wikimedia foundation for one thing: they complied and gave away editors email to court and censored one page upon fraudulent lawsuit by a propaganda news channel in India. Sure if they didn’t, they might get threatened to be blocked in India but I really doubt it would’ve hold long enough given that whole wikipedia can be downloaded fairly easily (or it is trivial to set up a mirror). They probably won’t get donations though in that case :/ so probably the move is reasonable?

  • @sleepmode
    link
    English
    35 days ago

    Always pay extra attention when someone is hating on something. Typical sealioning or rotten fish social engineering tactics.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -66 days ago

    For a very long time now, they’ve been great about the more technical topics. But for a lot of the more political articles, they’ve been questionable. Bad sources, saying that sources say things that the sources don’t actually say, leaving out important information, framing things in odd ways. Bunch of dumb drama and edit wars. Heck, even one of the founders left over it.

    That, and they solicite donations without telling people where that money is going. I don’t mind keeping the servers running or paying volunteers, but why did they give 5 million to “anonymous”?

    https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/why-does-wikipedia-need-donations-despite-its-massive-popularity-123100400249_1.html

    • @somethingelse68
      link
      14 days ago

      They received a 5 million donation from an ‘anonymous’ source, not donated 5 million to ‘anonymous’.

    • El Barto
      link
      35 days ago

      Where in that article does it say that they gave 5 million to anonymous?