• @Ersatz86
    link
    English
    267
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Alternate headline:

    “Massive shitcunt threatens to destroy the actual best part of the internet to the surprise of absolutely no one”

    is what they meant to say

    Incidentally, do you guys remember when this fuckhead was a darling of the left?

    These are strange times.

    • @ChicoSuave
      link
      English
      1461 year ago

      He was a darling because he was a literally unknown person who introduced themselves with a controlled media profile who sold a way to approach the fossil fuel problem. The nice thing about the left is their views evolve rapidly to current events and Elon has been inescapable in media, so naturally he reveals his true neocon form.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        The nice thing about the left is that they have some critical thinking abilities.

        Made it more broad and concise for you.

    • @masquenox
      link
      English
      301 year ago

      Incidentally, do you guys remember when this fuckhead was a darling of the left?

      And when was this? I cannot remember a time when a celebrity capitalist parasite was a “darling of the left.”

      • @londos
        link
        English
        651 year ago

        I will admit there was a time when he was pushing electric cars while traditional auto manufacturers seemed to be dragging their feet. It felt like he was on the right side of a big issue and shaking things up. I think it’s important to admit when we get it wrong. And boy did I get it wrong.

        • @masquenox
          link
          English
          71 year ago

          It felt like he was on the right side of a big issue

          No. No, he never was. Any leftist will tell you that the only solution to the car problem is public transport… not silly attempts to make individual cars more “eco-friendly.” That’s not leftism - that’s what we call “green capitalism.” And leftists have understood that loooong before Phony Stark skipped South Africa to avoid being drafted into the SADF to uphold the white supremacist state he benefited so richly from.

          • @londos
            link
            English
            301 year ago

            100% agree with you now. I wasn’t at that level of analysis at the time yet.

            • @masquenox
              link
              English
              151 year ago

              I wasn’t at that level of analysis at the time yet.

              Me neither. They really did a number on us.

          • @Hackerman_uwu
            link
            English
            141 year ago

            Do you think you could be a little more careful in your angry smearing of conscientious objectors please?

            My brother dodged the draft. He’s a theologian who spent years in exile due to his refusal to serve the corrupt apartheid government.

            Give a fuck about Edolf Twitler or don’t but leave the rest of us out of this. Cunt is your problem now anyway.

            Just, mind the facts while you rant if you don’t mind. Please.

            • @masquenox
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              Do you think you could be a little more careful in your angry smearing of conscientious objectors please?

              Perhaps you need to stop smearing conscientious objectors by pretending Phony Stark was one - you might just as well pretend Donald Trump was a conscientious objector if you apply that label to Musk.

              It’s out in the open now - Musk is as much a white supremacist as any National Party goon. And, like a lot of rich white kids whose families got rich off the opportunities and impoverished black labor the Apartheid-regime provided them with, Musk felt himself too entitled to actually do the dirty work himself. It was common knowledge here in South Africa at the time - the rich white kids from rich families got to opt out of the war, despite the fact thet they benefited the most from the Apartheid-regime.

              It is true that some of those rich white kids actually were against the Apartheid-regime… but Musk wasn’t one of them. His blatant support for white supremacism and his enabling of right-wing ideology proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

              • Snot Flickerman
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Exactly. If the reason you are “conscientiously objecting” is because you’re a rich Nazi shitheel who is too much of a pussy to fight for anything yourself, no one cares because you obviously don’t have a real conscience to be conscientous with.

                He is clearly fine with sending others to fight his battles for him. Can he be any more the Gen X version of Trump?

            • @masquenox
              link
              English
              71 year ago

              Wait, is this a bad thing?

              No, it’s a Musk thing - he claims him skipping out on doing his bit for the Apartheid-regime (the true reason for his family’s riches) was based on his (alleged) “stance” against the Apartheid-regime - but his overt white supremacism and his enabling of far-right ideologies kind of disproves all of that, doesn’t it?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            You’re pushing a very niche view as if it’s universal, I get why you’re doing it but you’re wrong to. There is no single solution to transport requirements and while the vast majority of leftists of course agree public transport is vital it’s not a magic solution for everything and outside the car hate bubble is very rare for anyone, even a leftwing person, to be staunchly anticar.

            You might not like it but it’s reality.

            • @masquenox
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re pushing a very niche view as if it’s universal,

              Oh, it used to be far, far more universal than it is now. They spent a lot of propaganda money to make it less universal.

              Considering how the rivets seem to be popping off the western propaganda model recently, I’m willing to bet that it might one day be a lot more universal once more.

              You might not like that, but that’s reality.

              • @[email protected]B
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

                universla

                Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

                I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -11 year ago

                I don’t mean to be rude but you’re confused and delusional, there isn’t a transport authority in the world that thinks we can totally do without cars - I’m all for idealism but it should be at least grounded in some form of reality.

                • @masquenox
                  link
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  Riiiight… I’m confused and delusional because you want to live in a world where Big Auto’s profit margins are prioritized over the needs of the public.

                  Phony Stark might have a little blue check mark to sell you - he likes the way you think.

      • Mossy Feathers (She/They)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        231 year ago

        When he was spending money on electric cars, solar, renewable energy storage and (relatively) low-cost space travel.

        Yanno, before he got addicted to Twitter and became terminally online.

        It honestly baffles me how many people have forgotten that Musk was heralded as basically being irl Batman because electric cars prior to Tesla were actual trash, there was little to no research being done on how to make space cheaper, and renewables only worked as long as the sun was shining and the wind was blowing (iirc the power wall was originally developed for renewable energy storage; Tesla also developed solar roof tiles so you could turn your roof into one big solar panel). He was using his money to actually help develop cleaner transportation, cleaner energy development and space travel instead of filling Olympic swimming pools with cash like most rich fucks.

        Then he started posting on Twitter and everyone realized he was an idiot with too much money who got lucky with Tesla and SpaceX.

        (Yes, I know he wasn’t the founder of Tesla; however it was his money and idiocy-induced stubbornness that made the company successful)

        • @skyspydude1
          link
          English
          61 year ago

          Tesla “developed” those solar tiles as a fucking scam to sell investors on the Solarcity merger to bail his family out. It only ever came to fruition to keep him out of prison for outright fraud rather than just “fibbing”. He bet the wellbeing of every employee and shareholder on that absolute dumpster fire of a company, literally scamming investors, just to save his ass, and it was nothing short of dumb fucking luck that kept it all burning to the ground, as he himself stated in a deposition.

          Like everything else Musk does, those solar tiles are a way for wealthy people to greenwash their decadent lifestyle, while also allowing them to stay NIMBYs who don’t want to ruin the look of their gaudy McMansions. Normal arrays cost fractions of what those tiles do, work better, and don’t require replacing your entire roof for them.

          Powerwalls were just a way to get rid of out of spec cells to people at 10x what their value is in an automotive pack. A home ESS is much gentler on them comparatively, so even out of spec cells work fine.

          You want to talk about clean transportation? He came up with the literal pipe dream of the Hyperloop to keep cities from funding actual high-speed and light rail projects, so people would have to buy his shitboxes.

          Literally everything he does is to keep his game as a greasy car salesman/government welfare queen going (see, SpaceX), and nothing more. Any positive benefits conferred from this are basically just a coincidence.

        • @masquenox
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          When he was spending money on electric cars, solar, renewable energy storage and (relatively) low-cost space travel.

          You mean… all those things that came from public institutions (ie, universities) and not parasites like Phony Stark?

          It honestly baffles me how many people have forgotten that Musk was heralded as basically being irl Batman

          Yes… by a media completely given over to licking the boots of the wealthy. Soooo… no leftists involved at all.

          • Mossy Feathers (She/They)
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You mean… all those things that came from public institutions (ie, universities) and not parasites like Phony Stark?

            And how many of those people actually spent time implementing these improvements? Iirc, no one. Because the infrastructure wasn’t there for electric cars and developing the infrastructure was going to be expensive, making electric cars basically useless for anything except short drives.

            …which is where public transportation should be used.

            But public transportation doesn’t work in every situation, especially in a country where everything has been designed around cars, making public transportation retrofits obscenely expensive. Musk said, “I have a fuck ton of money, and that money is worthless if I’m not using it, so let’s build the infrastructure to make electric cars worth it”.

            And so he did.

            Yes… by a media completely given over to licking the boots of the wealthy. Soooo… no leftists involved at all.

            You know politics are a spectrum, right? There were a lot of people on the left who weren’t associated with the MSM who thought he was the hottest thing since sliced bread. I knew a lot of people ranging from moderate liberal to hardcore left who liked him. The reason why the hardcore lefties liked him was because they saw him as a necessary evil.

            The general opinion among the more hard leaning left was that the world is burning and something has to be done, if a rich person is taking steps in the right direction, then we’ll back him until he stops being useful. We don’t have the luxury to wait for the revolution or sit with our thumbs up our asses hoping oil and gas companies will just suddenly keel over and die. We need to do more to save our world and anything is better than nothing.

            The only people who couldn’t see that he was useful were idiots waiting for a perfect idol and were willing to sacrifice everyone for their personal, sky-high standards.

            Edit: fixed a bit where I had inserted a sentence and forgot to actually connect it to something.

            • @masquenox
              link
              English
              -41 year ago

              And how many of those people actually spent time implementing these improvements?

              Probably not much… and probably because people at universities are smart enough to understand that electric cars doesn’t fix any problems at all.

              in a country where everything has been designed around cars

              When you’re in a hole it’s best to stop digging. Continuing to rely on cars because fixing the mess that was caused for the benefit of capitalist parasites is “too expensive” is pure madness.

              There were a lot of people on the left who weren’t associated with the MSM

              Lol! Such as whom? I think you have a very weird idea of what “left” actually is.

              The reason why the hardcore lefties liked him was because they saw him as a necessary evil.

              Really? Leftists just up and forgot how capitalism worked because… why, again?

              then we’ll back him until he stops being useful.

              Leftists understand that capitalism will never fix the problems capitalism has caused. Period. None of this is new - this has been general knowledge amongst leftists for more than a hundred years now.

              • Mossy Feathers (She/They)
                link
                fedilink
                English
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Probably not much… and probably because people at universities are smart enough to understand that electric cars doesn’t fix any problems at all.

                No, people at universities typically understand that a better solution would be to use public transportation, however they also understand that doing so is a pipe dream and you have to fight against trillions of dollars to do so. Otherwise they wouldn’t spend the time and effort to try and develop the technology in the first place. Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn’t exist? In that situation you’re developing a technological dead-end.

                In the meantime, our world is still burning and cars are shitting out more greenhouses gases.

                When you’re in a hole it’s best to stop digging. Continuing to rely on cars because fixing the mess that was caused for the benefit of capitalist parasites is “too expensive” is pure madness.

                Yes, because tearing up millions of square miles of suburban housing while displacing millions of people to compress it into a smaller space so that public transportation becomes feasible is definitely a realitic solution. New developments should be higher density and should have public transportation systems, however existing areas are kinda fucked from that standpoint.

                Lol! Such as whom? I think you have a very weird idea of what “left” actually is. Really? Leftists just up and forgot how capitalism worked because… why, again? Leftists understand that capitalism will never fix the problems capitalism has caused. Period. None of this is new - this has been general knowledge amongst leftists for more than a hundred years now.

                The ones who were realistic did. You know people can believe something is bad, yet still engage in it or use it because the alternative isn’t feasible, right? How many people still use plastic containers? How many people still drive cars? How many people still use social media? How many people still consume food with high-fructose corn syrup? How many people still call the cops in an emergency? How many people still use Amazon and/or Google? There are so many things that are bad for us, yet we still do them anyway, either because there’s no alternative or because we lack the time, money and/or energy to cut them out of our lives.

                Ideals are great, but they aren’t grounded in reality and compromises have to be made. If you can’t understand this, then you’re dead weight for the people who are actually trying to make a difference.

                I know you’re trying to get a rise out of me, but c’mon, you can do better.

                • @masquenox
                  link
                  English
                  -21 year ago

                  Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn’t exist?

                  Well hallelujah, friends… the right-wingers have finally found a pretext that none of us can beat - they messed things up so badly that none of it can be fixed, and nobody should even try. I don’t know why they just don’t go public with that - they already have one believer right here.

                  Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn’t exist?

                  You do understand that there are more uses for batteries than cars, right?

                  How many people still use plastic containers? How many people still drive cars?

                  Plastic containers did’t fall out of the sky - neither did cars. The people who benefit from their production doesn’t live on Mount Olympus - we can strip them (and the political structures that enables them) of their power and fix these things. It’s not some pipe dream or an ideal - it’s literally the only way to guarantee humanity’s continued survival on this planet.

                  but they aren’t grounded in reality

                  The only thing you seem to have “grounded in reality” is that the destruction of literally everything should be “compromised” with. It seems the only thing you are willing to do is compromise - but I guess that’s where the money is, huh?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        it was before he was an actual celebrity and was only known for creating Tesla/SpaceX. He was also “only” a millionaire and well before Tesla stock went nuts, and he also wasn’t posting like crazy on Twitter so people only knew him via Tesla and SpaceX’s achievements, both of them legendary underdogs looking to overthrow the well-established big industry corporations.

        • @masquenox
          link
          English
          -151 year ago

          Soooo… just the kind of person the left has despised for more than a hundred years now?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            what? The “left” has always been the side of revolutionary upstarts and underdogs. The right is the conservative, old guard, established players.

            you’re literally trying to rewrite history just to try to hate Musk a little more

            • @masquenox
              link
              English
              -161 year ago

              The “left” has always been the side of revolutionary upstarts and underdogs.

              It’s okay… you can just admit you don’t have the foggiest clue what it is you are talking about.

              You can’t fix something if you don’t even admit to it, yes?

              • @jarfil
                link
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Of course they can; someone on the right has always been right and could never admit to not being right.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think it’s important to distinct what part of the left.

        Most of the left on Lemmy? Probably not.

        A lot of liberals who align themselves with the US democrats? There was a lot of support until the famous pedo incident.

        • @jose1324
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          Okay, so right wingers?

          • @Aceticon
            link
            English
            61 year ago

            The Overtoon Window is so far to the right in the US that their “Left” are nationalist pro-business neoliberals and their “Right” are ultra-nationalist anti-immigrant anti-abortion neoliberals, so basically in what is the Right to Far-Right range in continental Europe.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Along with pre-pandemic (roughly) Musk, Sam Bankman Freed was also buddies with the left and even had a second co-ceo to court the right wing politicians while he hung out with the left wing (those that were dumb enough to believe in crypto anyway).

        • @masquenox
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          No offence intended… but this post has shown me just what a completely warped idea people have in regards to what “left” and “right” even means - very few people here seem to even know that anti-capitalism is where the left starts…

      • @A_Very_Big_Fan
        link
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Tbh I liked him when the whole GME thing happened, because when Robinhood screwed over all the GME holders Elon blew the lid off of Dogecoin and I basically made all my profits back. I also thought him poking fun at the SEC while all that happened was pretty ballsy and I respected that.

        But now he’s made it known that he’s a conservative bootlicker, transphobe, antivaxx, corporate shill… 🤷‍♀️

        • @masquenox
          link
          English
          -31 year ago

          They mean libs.

          In other words… right-wingers.

  • @Mojojojo1993
    link
    English
    1951 year ago

    Stop posting Musk’s fucking face. This isn’t tech

    • @asteriskeverything
      link
      English
      491 year ago

      I’m so tired of seeing mean gross old white men scowling all over my damn feed any time anyone shares an article.

      • @Mojojojo1993
        link
        English
        161 year ago

        Pretty sick of them wrecking the world, some of us will get stuck with clean/ survival because of them.

        • @asteriskeverything
          link
          English
          81 year ago

          I couldn’t say because it never really happens enough to make me sick of seeing them being such shitty people it regularly makes headlines.

          • Vashtea
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            I’m assuming you aren’t familiar with Clarence Thomas?

            • @asteriskeverything
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              I am. I didn’t say it doesn’t happen just not enough to make me sick of seeing his face. Is this a test or something am I being tested for reverse racism or something because I mentioned white men??

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      THIS oh gawwwd, couldn’t agree more. Tired of reading news about this guy talking unintelligent crap. Dear people, for him even negative publicity is still publicity and for us it is a waste of our attention, 1 cent of which he doesn’t deserve.

      • TwoGems
        link
        English
        101 year ago

        Media’s fault for covering him and the cheeto every five seconds

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          You’re not wrong but it’s also the people’s fault as well for engaging so much with this bullshit. I swear 90% of the internet exists simply to circle jerk about things people hate while the remaining 10% actually talks about things they like. I’ll never understand why people choose to talk so much about the things they hate, just fucking downvote and move on to something you actually like.

          All publicity is good for these pieces of shit, stop feeding into the rage cycle and they wouldn’t be covered so much. Or they’d have to pay more for their coverage at the very least.

    • @Gamoc
      link
      English
      191 year ago

      Twitter saboteur wanting to move onto sabotaging Wikipedia, the biggest reference source in the world that’s only accessible via the internet, on his crusade against truth and facts? Of course it’s tech news.

    • @assassin_aragorn
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      I mean the post has convinced me to donate to Wikipedia. It’s newsworthy. I hate Musk as much as you, but I can’t just stick my head in the dirt.

      There’s nothing wrong with wanting to unplug from it, but don’t begrudge others for not wanting to.

    • kingthrillgore
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      He runs a social media platform of influence. It’s tech.

      Don’t like it? Hide the post and move on.

    • trainsaresexy
      link
      English
      -31 year ago

      I’ve been blocking these users.

      Goodbye Gork.

      • @Mojojojo1993
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Yeah I looked at their posts but didn’t see any muskness

  • @waitmarks
    link
    English
    1591 year ago

    Someone should tell Elon that an unprofitable website and a non-profit website are not the same thing.

  • @Gradually_Adjusting
    link
    English
    1541 year ago

    Deeply unwelcome. I hate that this is even a thought that he has had.

    • gregorum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      461 year ago

      Buying and destroying Twitter started with a joke like this.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        64
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unless Wikipedia is a public company with fiduciary responsibilities, can’t they just say, “fuck you. No.”?

        EDIT: They’re a non commercial 501©(3). They can say “fuck you. No.”

        • gregorum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well I’m sure glad someone looked into that. Still, I’m anxious he might try to do Bad Things™ to it. Ya know, like he does whenever he gets some idea in his head about something, and then Bad Things™ happen to it.

        • @Gradually_Adjusting
          link
          English
          61 year ago

          There’s that, and the fact that Jimmy Wales might have a reverse uno card, as he is quietly developing a free and non profit social media platform of his own called trust cafe.

    • @chiliedogg
      link
      English
      41 year ago

      Twitter was public. Wikimedia is a 501 non-profit.

      He can’t buy it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1431 year ago

    I completely hate how something that is a rare Bastian of maintaining free and reliable factual information for the world is just a silly game for him. It sickens me. This is the kind of cartoon character rich villain that throws money a people and shouts at them to dance for him.

    • @FReddit
      link
      English
      211 year ago

      Yeah and pollute it with fascist content.

    • 📛Maven
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -691 year ago

      reliable

      Wikipedia

      It’s literally a meme how you can’t trust anything you see on there except for the most objective, undeniable facts, because you never know what page has been camped by an editor with an agenda or just a possessive streak. On anything even slightly subjective. I know there’s good editors, I know it’s a majority of them, but the problem is that the bad ones exist and so you can’t trust any given page isn’t poisoned.

      Also, relatedly, the entire backend is an ever-growing morass of petty politics and tangled policies that serve mostly as a barrier to entry. They’ve been saying admin and power-editor retention is a huge problem for well over a decade, and yet they keep making it worse. At this point, the majority of their admins are from 2005, with only 10% from after 2010, because nobody bothers getting started when the prerequisites to making even a small edit can be learning the wikipedia legal system.

      • skulblaka
        link
        fedilink
        591 year ago

        It is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for subjective content. Just because you keep getting your opinion edits rolled back does not mean that that’s a bad thing. A Wikipedia page SHOULD be filled only with objective facts. Again, it is an encyclopedia.

        Also, you can trust that a given page is not poisoned by checking the sources yourself. They’re all right there at the bottom. Anything without a citation can be ignored but most things of substance are going to have a citation, because an encyclopedia is a place in which to collect objective facts with sources to back them up.

        • 📛Maven
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I didn’t say subjective content, I said content about something subjective. Wikipedia contains a wealth of “one proposed explanation for”, or “a common theory is” on any event or phenomenon, (of which many are covered). Objective reports of subjective statements. And the choice of which to use, which perspectives to include, is a form of bias. The reporting of which proposed theories for causes of historical events or meanings for literature are included, and which are left out, is a form of bias. One that cannot be seen through simply by “checking the sources”. An article written with a slant is going to include sources that agree with its viewpoint and not include sources that do not, and checking the sources is going to show you those viewpoints, and not the ones that were left out.

          Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources, just because it’s their page or it doesn’t line up with how they want it to be seen. Checking the sources won’t show you that, either.

          • @Hobo
            link
            English
            91 year ago

            Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources

            That might be the misunderstanding. Primary sources are not directly allowed on wikipedia without very careful consideration that no analysis was done. Wikipedia article are, and should be, mostly derived from secondary sources to avoid bias. The Wikipedia page does a pretty good job of describing the guideline:

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

          • skulblaka
            link
            fedilink
            71 year ago

            Alright, you do actually make fair points here that I hadn’t taken into consideration. I still stand by my statement but now I see that you aren’t really necessarily disagreeing with me. Guess I’m going to have to start checking the edit history as well as the sources now…

      • @Skullgrid
        link
        English
        61 year ago

        Just follow the sources then. Everything that should be credible is backed by sources, and if you can’t believe that source then ignore it , or admit your trust issues.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          What is, on a controversial issue, one side is presented with sources, and the other side is not mentioned at all or given just a brief overview?

          This often happens on Wikipedia, even when the editors aren’t trying to be biased. Suppose there was a dispute between the British Empire and a small tribe in South Africa. The British side of the story will have a lot of sources, most in English. The tribal side will most likely be known only to locals, with maybe some articles in Zulu and one in Dutch. How do you think the Wikipedia article will look?

          To be fair, Wikipedia is trying to enact policies to address such biases, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

  • @Veedem
    link
    English
    1361 year ago

    I donated to Wikipedia, today. A few bucks to a very valuable site.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
      link
      fedilink
      431 year ago

      Wikipedia should run a fund raiser: “Give us a billion dollars or we’ll change the name.”

    • bunnyfc
      link
      fedilink
      371 year ago

      Wikipedia is not the Achilles heel of free access to information. The Achilles heel are the sources: libraries, websites.

      Consider donating to the internet archive instead or as well. If the sources are poisoned, Wikipedia just repeats bullshit. It’s secondary literature.

      • @IdealShrew
        link
        English
        571 year ago

        I’m not sure you know what Achilles heel means

          • ram
            link
            fedilink
            English
            281 year ago

            Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

            Wikipedia actually much prefers secondary and even tertiary sources to primary sources. They have rules against original research, and follows the guideline that “secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic’s notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources”. It’s only with exception that primary sources are allowed, in which the primary sources “have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.”

            Not disagreeing with you, just a bit of nuance.

          • wagesj45
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

            Technically, I think they only allow primary sources to be referenced if supported by a secondary source. They have weird and complex rules around that,

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but I think that is not what user Star meant by primary. Just the sources that Wikipedia itself works with.

              • wagesj45
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                You’re right, but what would the internet be without a little pedantry and ignoring the point of the post? :D

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          141 year ago

          An Achilles’ heel[1] (or Achilles heel[2][3]) is a weakness in spite of overall strength, which can lead to downfall.

          Source: Wikipedia

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      A few years ago, I set up a monthly donation. Of all things I can use for free on the internet, Wikipedia deserves it the most.

  • IWantToFuckSpez
    link
    fedilink
    1061 year ago

    The entirety of the Musk sycophant Twitter sphere lost their mind about Wikipedia’s finances this week. Only because this dipshit tweeted a lie. Crazy how people can’t fathom that a non-profit that runs one of the most successful websites ever has high costs because they pay their engineers well. These people truly believe that everyone working at a non-profit should get starvation wages.

    • @Crackhappy
      link
      English
      211 year ago

      I work at a very large non profit and I am paid quite well. The work is extremely difficult and anxiety inducing but the payoff isn’t really the money but the good I know I am helping to do.

      • @asteriskeverything
        link
        English
        101 year ago

        But the good pay makes it so you have the mental energy to dedicate to the job and not need to worry as much about your finances and maybe have to leave, or do a worse job. I’m for genuine non profit work still being paid fair wages and more within reason. So much of the world relies on non profit programs for something!

      • Jeff
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        As a fairly high up Fed that used to work for a well paid 501c3 same as you I know what you mean.

    • FlumPHP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -281 year ago

      Wikipedia does funnel money into charity causes that aren’t related to their mission of bringing knowledge to the world. I personally have a hard time reconciling that with the constant begging for donations. I’d rather they set up an endowment or focus the money on items related to the mission.

      That being said, paying people well to get bright people working on their mission is a no brainer.

      • @makyo
        link
        English
        201 year ago

        First I’m hearing this also - what unrelated causes to they support?

      • @FrostyTheDoo
        link
        English
        81 year ago

        Wikipedia as an organization does this?? News to me so I’d love a source on that. I would not be surprised if people that work at Wikipedia donate to charitable causes or speak out about social issues, but that’s a very different thing called free speech

      • 📛Maven
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -71 year ago

        Even internally, there’s a lot of complaints about the tone of the donation drives. What’s scary is that these are the pleas that passed. Worse ones were vetoed by community vote.

  • @Furbag
    link
    English
    1021 year ago

    Tax billionaires out of existence.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    931 year ago

    Of course the community driven, anarchic nature of Wikipedia is a threat to the status quo of capitalists dominating society. Musk can’t stand this, because it shows how ultra wealthy, incompetent dicktators like him are unnecessary.

  • @t4k3
    link
    English
    861 year ago

    deleted by creator

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    851 year ago

    DON’T YOU THREATEN SOMETHING I ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT, FUCKER.

    But seriously, I can’t imagine the fine folks at Wikimedia seeing what happened to shitter and thinking there’s any value in having him in charge.

    You suck, Lonnie. Go away.

    • @puppy
      link
      English
      261 year ago

      Yeah I can’t wait to read all articles with facts replaced by Republican fantasy. Trump actually won the last election with 99% votes? Oh it must be true then.

      • @lemme_at_it
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No but when he Googles himself - which I am sure he does daily, then he’ll know to stay within the confines of his X domain. We’re claiming back the internets. :)
        Seriously though, some young person might still look up to him as a space role-model without ever knowing that the guy is a waste of space.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    731 year ago

    Ah. So this os the end goal - obtain very popular and influential things on the internet - in this case communication and knowledge/facts, and destroy them in such a way that only technofascists like himself can even find them remotely useful.

    It’s the ultimate way to fuck up any democratic society and plunge the world further into chaos. What a dumpster fire.