Technology

59292 readers

3884 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Darkness reigns over Wikipedia as official dark mode comes to pass (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I thought this was gonna be about Wikipedia finally shutting down because nobody donates

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They are actually getting too many donations, many times more than they need to run wikipedia. There was and is a big conflict about the unsustainable growth of donations to the foundation and its questionable use of those funds.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Remember, if you donate to the WMF, they will use that money to enforce "WMF global bans" against users trying to make useful contributions but who once looked at the wrong people funny.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Who's trying to making useful contributions but got banned, and what were they banned for?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

One of the earliest global bans was against user "russavia" - research him and you'll know what I'm talking about. After that I stopped following Wikimedia internals because it was 100% clear that they were now just completely arbitrarily banning people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Banned user Russavia edited two of the oligarch articles. He was a very active administrator on Wikimedia Commons, who specialized in promoting the Russian aviation industry, and in disrupting the English-language Wikipedia.

After finally being banned on the English Wikipedia, he created dozens of sockpuppets. Russavia, by almost all accounts, is not a citizen or resident of Russia, but his edits raise some concern and show some patterns.

In 2010, he boasted, on his userpage at Commons, that he had obtained permission from the official Kremlin.ru site for all photos there to be uploaded to Commons under Creative Commons licenses. He also made 148 edits at Russo-Georgian War, and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

Idk, when you're using Wikipedia as a tool to push Russian propaganda, it seems fair that you'd be banned. That's not what Wikipedia is for. He's free to start russopedia.ru or whatever if he wants to do that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the ridiculously detailed

An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is... interesting.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Kinda burying the lede on that complaint......

and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

Wikipedia cares more about bias than* ridiculous details, especially when the ridiculous detail is there to put bias into the article

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I read it as adding a bunch of superfluous details that were biased.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What is the difference between including ridiculous amounts of detail to bias the article, and superfluous biased details that still end up with a biased article?

Seems like a distinction without a difference.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

I didn't imply those were different, I don't get your point.