Guy who owns biased platform claims other platform that has negative views on him is biased. Someone tell Elon that if he donates enough he can have controlling shares of Wiki. He can't, but he doesn't have to know that.
Musk's actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation; affirming antisemitic and transphobic comments, and promoting conspiracy theories. His ownership of Twitter has been controversial because of the layoffs of a large number of employees, an increase in posts containing hate speech, misinformation and disinformation on the website, and changes to website features, including verification.
Ah, that’s probably why. People are allowed to expose him without being censored on wiki.
"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."
Magoo: RAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!! WHITE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS are the only REAL people!! WE'RE the only people that matter!!
Reliable sources means outlets that don't outright lie or over embellish. I think you'll find that most conservative media outlets tend to do exactly those two things. And I would 100% count both Reason and The Hill as conservative media outlets that walk the fine line.
I actually wasn't going to donate to Wikipedia this year because I'm pretty strapped but fuck it. I'm donating more than I did last year I can put more stuff on a credit card this season instead.
Fuck Elon Musk. And fuck anyone who buys his stupid fucking cars.
Right on. Consider also contributing to an article. Volunteers work tirelessly to filter the misinformation pushed by stakeholders like Elon Musk and the army he can afford to employ to fuck up articles full-time.
In January 2024, David Rozado, an associate professor in computational science at New Zealand's Otago Polytechnic, published a study that found: "Wikipedia was more likely to portray right-leaning figures negatively than their left-leaning counterparts."
The real question is not whether Wikipedia is biased, but whether it's fair. In politics not everybody is equally right. And there are some real shit heads on the right. In other words Elon Musk is not entitled to a positive Wikipedia page.
I think this is just a case of unclear UI. This is the default stance of the meter, before you've entered a vote. After you vote it shows the most common answer underneath the meter.
I voted just now, and the most common vote was "fair/center".
Note how the needle is also off the meter, instead of pointing at one of the segments.
It's hard, however, to deal with people acting as individuals who just happen to be paid by Apartheid Manchild to write or edit articles slanted to his fucked-up worldview.
I donated to Wikipedia once before, but never again. Their endowment has grown to a level where they should be completely self-sustained.
However, spending is out of control.
Edit: I'm glad Wikipedia exists, but to say they are hurting for more cash is completely false. Even according to their own financial disclosures, web hosting expenses have stabilized under $4-million a year (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation). As contributions continue to grow, it is spent on higher salaries for executives. The CEO made $789k in 2021, all while content is created by volunteers.
Edit, edit: a relevant chart straight from the Wikimedia Foundation Wiki page is below. Internet hosting is one of the smallest expense buckets and has been relatively flat year-over-year. Alternatively, salaries and wages are on an unsustainable upward trajectory. This chart is even a few years old and salaries have almost doubled in the last three years to over $101-million in 2023, all while hosting expenses have remained flat.
Did you not read the part where this is the seventh most visited site on the internet... in the world? Literally any other website would be paying their CEO millions upon millions. This guy is basically taking a gigantic pay cut working for Wikimedia.
And do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwidth and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia? It is quite literally one of the physically largest web sites on the internet. And it is continually and constantly being added to. The only other voluntary free information site that really beats it is the wayback machine. Which is another favorite target of conservative douchebags.
It's almost as if rich media moguls don't like people having free access to information they don't control.
And quite frankly I'm of the opinion that you are likely either working for one of them or one of Elon's army of sycophants (I had to retype that several times because it kept auto correcting to "sicko fans", and honestly I don't think that's all that inaccurate either) who are out to help him control the narrative.
Sure, I'm not against that and I never said otherwise. It also helps keep costs down. I definitely don't want to see an Elon-enshitified version of Wikipedia with ads and paid content creators. I mostly like Wikipedia just as it is.
The one exception would be that I don't like how they try guilt tripping everyone for donations.
With $400-million between Wikipedia and their endowment, they should easily be able to cover the $3-million in web hosting expenses, without ever touching the principal of their investments. Wikipedia should be already setup to run in perpetuity, if not merely decades.
My post has nothing to do with wokeness or whatever Musk is ranting about. The guy who wrote the essay I linked, originally posted it in 2016/2017? and has been keeping it updated. This abuse of spending is not a new topic. But sure, keep donating so the executives can take home more pay.
Tbf, if it is true, it is kinda ridiculous they spend 29℅ of their budget on DEI nonsense. They should use their donations for keeping up the infrastructure and maybe rewarding high-quality editors. Kinda tells me they are doing very well financially and I'm better off supporting other projects.