• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    2 days ago

    Wikipedia, archive.org, and any similar essential services ought to be migrating their hosting and organizational headquarters to outside the US ASAP.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      That’s not something you can just do. All of there employees are Americans.

      It would be better if they were spread across many countries so that one place couldn’t cause a problem.

  • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 days ago

    They literally don’t generate any revenue. Wikipedia is quite literally the definition of a non-profit.

    Also, trump is barred from running non-profits due to fraud in NY, I feel like that should disqualify him from making these kinds of decisions.

    • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      They’re pretty flush with cash still. Trump can go after them, but for what? They’d need more corruption than they have in the judicial system today. They’ll get there eventually, but they don’t have it yet.

      • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        2 days ago
        1. It would allow multiple definitions for words (not eveyone agrees with what certain words mean)
        2. It would allow some instances to focus on being apolitical or more political.
        3. It would allow all wikis to be condenced into one platform (including possibly wikis like the Arch Wiki)
        4. It would help combat censorship
        • HenryBenry@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The reason Wikipedia is so good is because they are forced to use the most correct words.

        • goldenbug@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          For number one, there are articles that express different voices around a topic. Definitions often have multiple sections to express different voicws. Do they not?

          I think a political project is a different beast from wikipedia. There will be some biases but not as its grounding purpose.

          The consensus is somehow already constructed by the current set up. Most people just don’t (and my feeling is that will and should not, like in the case of vaccine scienxe) participate.

          Censorship of which kind, though?

        • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I liked the idea in your first comment but all your reasonings for it are backward.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    To be fair it is a little left leaning and the editors sometime massive jerks.

    However, it really isn’t bad at all. They do a pretty decent job of publishing factual information and Wikipedia is useful to a lot of people. Even if it was publishing propaganda they would still be protected under free speech. There are way more sketchy non profits than Wikipedia. It is kind of scaring that it is now a target

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It really doesn’t

        Bias is a truly human thing. It comes from applying emotions to facts. In reality there are no right answers and thus everything will always be biased.