• Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      If only someone would make them not exist.

      Elon’s a pretty public guy, right?

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    3 days ago

    Mmm,

    Mmhmm

    Oh

    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.

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • Aslanta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

    • Aslanta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      You can if you change the definition of libel (or terrorism) to be ‘anything that negatively affects an ultra rich person’. Which is what is happening before our very eyes.

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      You can. You can sue for any reason that you can dream up. True, a lot of those suits would get thrown out on a motion for summary judgement, but a libel suit would likely pass the test of a prima facie valid case, and the case would proceed. Now, if the facts don’t support it, then you’d lose, but if you have a lot more money than the defendant, you can use procedure to bury them financially.

      It’s one of the major flaws in the U.S. legal system, and anti-SLAPP laws are far too weak, since they usually rely on the defendant to try to enforce them.

      Look at what happened with ABC News, recently.

    • Aslanta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Thanks for donating! I give annually too. But we’re going to have to step up our contributions, both financially and in terms of information, if we want to keep Wikipedia a resource for free information and not free propaganda. Megacorps like EM’s and their lobbyists are always fucking up articles, trying to outpace the volunteers who vet the information.

      Just look at the Consumer Brands Association or the National Restaurant Association (the lobbying groups who are responsible for suppressing ultra-processed food regulation and fair wage legislation). Among their claims on the Wikipedia pages are that Michelle Obama “asked for their help” for her healthy eating campaign and that they exist to encourage responsible food selection by consumers— referring to sources that are actually about MO issuing a warning to them to improve food labels or else.

      Another example is the Scientology page which has been locked due to the relentless efforts of Scientologists constantly trying to edit it with misinformation. Maintaining the integrity of the platform is really a tireless service that volunteers of Wikipedia Foundation provide.

      For those who may not be able to donate or want to take additional steps to protect the freedom of shared information, consider contributing to an article you’re passionate about. Platforms like Udemy and Coursera offer free courses on how to research and verify information effectively. While I’ve always been a strong advocate for public libraries, it’s clear that Wikipedia is the essential resource when it comes to current and accessible knowledge.

      • Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. There was a Wikipedia Lemmy server that popped up for a little while anyway? Does it still exist? What are they up to over there?

        I’ve chatted with some editors before, and listen to editors chatting before, and they basically speak a different language.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’m not, only because I’ve never once been in awe of any damn thing that piece of shit has ever done stolen credit for, and don’t intend to start now.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      This too is greed. Wikipedia is too accurate, and he doesn’t want the truth to be remembered.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Now they’re openly admiting that they’re against everything that makes the live better for everyone? Has the brainwashing succeeded?

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    i don’t get what problem you would have about “bias” over wikipedia if you care about the truth and facts.

    just kind of exposes what it’s really about for musk.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    4 days ago

    “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!!

        • rhacer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 days ago

          And liberal sources don’t?

          • The laptop is Russian disinformation.

          • The vaccine will prevent you from getting Covid.

          • The Steele dossier proves that Trump is in bed with the Russians.

          That’s just off the top of my head.

          Mr. Musk believes that Wikipedia has become a mouthpiece for the left. Based on their list of Reliable Sources, how do you counter his argument?

          • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            The laptop is Russian disinformation.

            Which laptop?

            The vaccine will prevent you from getting Covid.

            Please read up on evolution, and herd immunity. A reputable source making this claim was probably using it as shorthand because stating that “The COVID vaccine and boosters are effective at reducing the infection and propagation of specific common strains of covid 19 to the point where you may not feel the effects or shed enough virus to infect other people” isn’t really as catching of a headline.

            The Steele dossier proves that Trump is in bed with Russians.

            I have yet to see counter evidence to the claims made in the Steele Dossier, and Steele himself still stands behind the report, which can not be said for certain trump agents who falsified Ukrainian corruption claims about Hunter and Joe Biden.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        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.