Comment on Why Conservatives Are Attacking ‘Wokepedia’
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
“What I can tell you is that over the years, conservatives, libertarians, were just pushed out,” Sanger said. “There is a whole…army of administrators, hundreds of them, who are constantly blocking people…that they have ideological disagreements with.”
“Oh noes, people in Wokepedia aren’t willing to accept my opinion that gravity doesn’t work on Fridays!”
“Wikipedia is losing its objectivity @jimmy_wales,” Musk posted in 2022.
If you’re really, really invested on 2+2 being five, then 2+2=4 becomes “subjective”.
In my opinion Wikipedia being hosted in USA is a liability. Or even being hosted in a single place, whichever it is.
I agree about the liability part. My interest was piqued during the so called Twitter files, when reporting was something like the bosses of twitter, Facebook and Wikipedia sat in a weekly (or was it monthly?) meeting, where they were told what controversial topics to “tamp down” on. I found it very weird, especially since I cannot imagine how one “tamps down” on a wikipedia article?
I think the much harder part is how would you go about democratising a website?
Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
I find it reassuring that Wikipedia is doing it’s best to try and maintain truth and accountability. I agree they should be hosted in a different place.
Side thought/my own ramblings here: Has there ever been hosting where the information is scattered across the world rather than one localized spot? That seems like it might be helpful, but I honestly don’t know enough about site hosting
lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
In a certain sense we are using a system like this, due to federation. I don’t think the exact same model would work well for Wikipedia, but it could try something similar.