Is it really that important that everyone and their mother kiss the ass of billionaires on this planet?
https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-takes-aim-wikipedia-fund-raising-editing-political-woke-2005742
The Musk Wikipedia entry is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Public_perception
Is the sugar coated treatment he gets in his Wikipedia entry an example of the "wokeness" that is opposes?
Elon Musk urged his supporters not to donate to the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia after the organization budgeted more than $50 million to spend on controversial diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
“Stop donating to Wokepedia until they restore balance to their editing authority,” Musk wrote Tuesday on X, where he has nearly 210 million followers.
The Tesla mogul, and key adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, was responding to a post by the right-leaning commentator “Libs of TikTok,” who shared a pie chart that showed 29% of Wikipedia’s $177 million budget for 2023-24 was targeted for “equity” and “safety & inclusion.“
The Wikimedia Foundation site said that it set a goal of spending $51.7 million in its budget: 17.6% ($31.2 million) on equity, and 11.6% ($20.5 million) on safety and inclusion. Infrastructure got the bulk of the $177 million with 48.7% ($86.1 million), followed by 22.2% ($39.2 million) on effectiveness.
“Supporting equity represents the second largest part of our programmatic work, with grants and Movement support representing the majority of the budget within the equity goal,” according to the nonprofit.
DEI, a set of business practices aimed at diversifying the workforce, has been criticized by conservatives as a means to implement reverse discrimination that disadvantages whites and de-emphasizes merit.
Some of the biggest players in corporate America enthusiastically embraced DEI following the May 2020 police-involved death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
But public pressure campaigns by right-leaning influencers such as Robby Starbuck have spurred firms to roll back DEI policies.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-urges-supporters-not-174409581.html
I always feel kind of weird when I found out the entity behind of wikipedia is actually a corporate entity.
The "Inc." in the "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." I think is an abbreviation for “incorporated” and is used to indicate that is a corporation.
It has commercial products like "Wikimedia Enterprise".
And it asks for donations like it is non-profit organisation. I am guessing it was initially for profit but it could not make enough money, so turned itself into a non-profit.
It actually received US federal grants and made donations to "Tides Foundation", which is "a left-leaning donor advised fund based in the United States that manages over $1.4 billion in assets".
Tides distributes money from anonymous donors to other organizations, which are often politically progressive. An affiliated group, Tides Advocacy, is a "massive progressive incubator." Tides has received substantial funding from George Soros.
Your post is a heat seeking missile here. I didn’t know any of this so I appreciate your research on the subject.
What concerned me most about a progressive bias at Wikipedia was the company’s long time CEO, Katherine Maher (who has since moved to NPR). She is a deeply entrenched Democratic party operative and progressive / cancel-culture / censorial nut. Here’s a critique of her terrible ideology if you’re interested:
https://www.racket.news/p/new-npr-chief-katherine-mahers-guide
She should absolutely not be an executive position over these important institutions of information
Wikimedia is way over funded (yet they kept asking for donations), and still receives federal grants, and donate to other democrat entities. That is actually deeply corrupt, and I thought at least conservatives would have been outraged, but no, you seemed to be the only one noticed.
She should absolutely not be an executive position over these important institutions of information
In May 2024, Maher approved and announced a new editing group for NPR, called "the Backstop", which caused internal anxiety. Numerous employees worried that the additional layer of review, comprising six editors and funded by an unknown donor, was insufficiently transparent.
😴💤
shareIt's no longer a neutral information site.
Examples? You know you're allowed to edit Wikipedia and make it more neutral. Right?
shareWokepedia is a far left source. Owned by the far left. Controlled by the far left. Edited by the far left.
Wokepedia is biased against Conservatives.
That's 100 percent true.
share@tvfan13269 is a moron.
All media is owned by the right or left. Everyone has a political bias. It's called democracy, and that's the one thing Trump fanatics truly oppose.
Idiots like tvfan are mad one media conglomerate is held by a leftist , because they prefer all media was owned by conservatives.
No, that's not what Democracy means, not even close. And btw, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
share"Examples?" Do your own research.
I have made corrections of incorrect information on Wikipedia, and it was changed back.
So you're comfortable with me making any claim (including personal attacks against your moral character) and you would be stuck with proving me wrong? I think you would not like it to be this way.
The way polite debate works, is that if you make a claim, then you prove it.
Show me your edits? They are part of the view history of each topic. Should be a simple matter for you to show your edits and that they were changed.
Not true. Many pages are locked/protected.
Just off the top of my head, the pages for Putin and Fauci are "semi-protected".
Joe Public ain't editing those pages.
The pages for Putin and Fauci are frequently edited. They are locked to some people though
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Fauci&action=history
What pages have you been blocked from editing? Which "facts" on the Putin and Fauci pages would you edit?
Both Wikipedia and musk are trash!
shareWikipedia is a very handy reference for those looking for information. What articles on the site do you object to?
What do you think of these wikis?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page (At first I thought this was a parody site)
https://www.metapedia.org/ (I call this one Stupidpedia)
https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia (MAGApedia)
https://www.britannica.com/
I love Wikipedia as technology. I object more to wiki mods who are clearly biased
shareWhich wiki mods are clearly biased?
shareAll of them?
shareIn other words, you have no idea? Why are you not a mod there?
shareI can't believe I'm defending that fuckwit but no one at all owes you any citations or justifications for their opinions at all you mentally ill cockknocker. +1 to your inane post content.
shareNo one can deny me the chance to ask a person to prove their claim. Why make a claim if you cannot or will not prove it is true?
You just making yourself irrelevant when you make personal attacks.
Why make a claim if you cannot or will not prove it is true?
You just making yourself irrelevant when you make personal attacks.
[–] Ranb (10079) 6 days ago
"I never claimed Wikipedia was not biased. What else you got?"
[–] Ranb (10079) 7 hours ago
"Which wiki mods are clearly biased? In other words, you have no idea?"
Are you arguing for or against Wikipedia being biased?
Wikipedia is somewhat biased, like any other source of info. But some people here are making claims without support. So I ask questions. And then they get upset.
shareNo they don't get upset, they mock you because you're transparent and fake. Your gaslighting routine is old and played out so don't get mad when everyone rejects it out of sheer boredom.
shareHe does know that Conservapedia is a thing, right?
shareHe might. But Conservapedia is trash. It is merely a vanity project for Andrew Schlafly. It has about 54,000 articles devoted to propping up his twisted view of the world.
share
He might know about conservapedia, but I suspect he's probably not interested in bias from either side. Plus, Musk is hardly solidly right - he's a centrist who has watched the left slip so far left he looks far right from their perspective.
Wikipedia is just another echo chamber like Twitter or any other social media, so it’s ironic Musk is complaining about that. Most of the wiki pages on politicians and celebrities read more like thirsty hagiographies. It also has a very Western-based cultural viewpoint, obviously.
The only thing Wikipedia is useful for is browsing bibliographies, filmographies or discographies. Need help finding the name of an obscure 1572 text by a break-away Franciscan monastery sect? Wikipedia can find it.