CIA moderating Wikipedia – former editor
CIA moderating Wikipedia – former editor
www.azerbaycan24.com
CIA moderating Wikipedia – former editor
We all knew this, but now there's an open admission.
40 comments
-
-
why did it have to be with Greenwald, that chud is such a liability I can't actually use this against libs now they'll dismiss him out of hand ughhh
-
yeah that's the worst part about that interview
-
-
Well, shit. The one nonprofit I trusted. :(
Where should my annual $3 charity budget go, now?!
But also, didn't Greenwald go for a too long of a walk into conspiracyland?
-
Where should my annual $3 charity budget go, now?!
Linux foundation, GNU/FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, Lemmy development fund, Lemmygrad server fund! Just to name a few!
-
But also, didn’t Greenwald go for a too long of a walk into conspiracyland?
Yes, but leftists have long suspected the feds have had presence there, I'm sure someone has some article that can show evidence
We do have prolewiki.org if you've never been to that before, you could consider giving them some of that if you like it
-
someone actually just posted this further up the thread lol https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia/cia-fbi-computers-used-for-wikipedia-edits-idUSN1642896020070816
-
Where should my annual $3 charity budget go, now?!
but more seriously regardless, wikipedia makes a ton of money from public grants and for their role helping the NSA and other federal agencies. I don't understand why they keep asking random people for money when they really, really don't need it. My theory is that because Jimmy Wales is a weird Ayn Rand libertarian, he wants to make it seem as if his model of an "encyclopedia the common man can edit" works.
-
Jimmy Wales is a weird Ayn Rand libertarian
Pretty sure Ayn Rand lived off of welfare while advocating against it, so it fits
-
-
-
-
good bot
-
It stopped in November 22 though. Do you know why?
-
Not sure unfortunately. Hoping it's just a server/internal issue and it comes back up.
-
-
-
Even if they didn't, Wikipedia is generally really bad at history or politics. A lot of the editors are very prolific maths/physics people who read a book and then decide to add some silly factoid to a page, and nobody ever checks the sources to validate. Or worse, they'll use "journalistic" websites like Live Science as sources or no citations at all. Meanwhile the maths sections are just fantastic.
For example, a while back the 1905 revolution had as leaders only "Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin" and there's hardly any mention of the general strike that led to it. Stalin single-handedly commandeered the Potemkin with his big spoon I guess.
-
Guys is it normal that Katherine Maher was CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, and subsequently joined The Atlantic Council, and currently serves on the US Department of State's Foreign Affairs Policy Board?
-
Virgil Griffith shows up in the strangest places
-
I figured it out when I saw the NAFO page.
-
-
So your justification is that it’s okay since other countries are probably™ doing it?
-
-
Read something on there about China and Russia and you'll change your mind.
-
40 comments
Makes sense. Wiki recently removed the article about the Alley of Angels memorial dedicated to children in Donetsk murdered by Ukrainian fascists. If anyone hadn't heard about that. The west is framing that memorial as a Russian plant to justify the war.
Ugh, just went to the Talk page of the Alley of Angels article (the actual page has been changed to a redirect). It's very depressing.
Here’s a link to the Alley of Angels page that won’t redirect you