Elon Musk takes aim at Wikipedia

If only someone would make them not exist.

Elon’s a pretty public guy, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Same

It's hard, however, to deal with people acting as individuals who just happen to be paid by Apartheid Manchild to write or edit articles slanted to his fucked-up worldview.

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

always have been

A better life is a "woke" idea.

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.

It's a super power. No ordinary person could do it this much.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

I just read that list. How many conservative sources are listed as "Reliable Sources" I see Reason, but I'm not sure I'd consider them conservative.

Won't somebody rid us of this meddlesome billionaire?

Nah, too basic and low-tech. He deserves nothing less than a drone strike

Gonna need Mario for that

You know, I do usually, but now I'm going to go monthly.

I donated once this month already but I'll fucking do it again.

(and control what it says)

He's being filed by a constant stream of validation from musk simps, yes men, now the next POTUS, so he thinks he's unstoppable.

Thank you for donating!

Btw.

In January 2024, David Rozado, an associate professor in computational science at New Zealand's Otago Polytechnic, published a study that found: "Wikipedia was more likely to portray right-leaning figures negatively than their left-leaning counterparts."

The real question is not whether Wikipedia is biased, but whether it's fair. In politics not everybody is equally right. And there are some real shit heads on the right. In other words Elon Musk is not entitled to a positive Wikipedia page.

I think this is just a case of unclear UI. This is the default stance of the meter, before you've entered a vote. After you vote it shows the most common answer underneath the meter.

I voted just now, and the most common vote was "fair/center".

Note how the needle is also off the meter, instead of pointing at one of the segments.

Did you not read the part where this is the seventh most visited site on the internet... in the world? Literally any other website would be paying their CEO millions upon millions. This guy is basically taking a gigantic pay cut working for Wikimedia.

And do you have any idea how much it costs to have the bandwidth and server space to host the enormity of Wikipedia? It is quite literally one of the physically largest web sites on the internet. And it is continually and constantly being added to. The only other voluntary free information site that really beats it is the wayback machine. Which is another favorite target of conservative douchebags.

It's almost as if rich media moguls don't like people having free access to information they don't control.

And quite frankly I'm of the opinion that you are likely either working for one of them or one of Elon's army of sycophants (I had to retype that several times because it kept auto correcting to "sicko fans", and honestly I don't think that's all that inaccurate either) who are out to help him control the narrative.

I’m pretty sure we want content created, vetted, and edited by volunteers. It prevents bias, in theory.

Is that you musk?