US Attorney for D.C. Accuses Wikipedia of 'Propaganda', Threatens Nonprofit Status (msn.com) 157
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Washington Post:
The acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia sent a letter to the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, accusing the tax-exempt organization of "allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public."
In the letter dated April 24, Ed Martin said he sought to determine whether the Wikimedia Foundation's behavior is in violation of its Section 501(c)(3) status. Martin asked the foundation to provide detailed information about its editorial process, its trust and safety measures, and how it protects its information from foreign actors. "Wikipedia is permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States," Martin wrote. "Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia's 'educational' mission."
Google prioritizes Wikipedia articles, the letter points out, which "will only amplify propaganda" if the content contained in Wikipedia articles "is biased, unreliable, or sourced by entities who wish to do harm to the United States." And as a U.S.-based non-profit, Wikipedia enjoys tax-exempt status while its board "is composed primarily of foreign nationals," the letter argues, "subverting the interests of American taxpayers."
While noting Martin's concerns about "allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda," the Washington Post also notes that before being named U.S. attorney, "Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week...."
Additional articles about the letter here and here.
In the letter dated April 24, Ed Martin said he sought to determine whether the Wikimedia Foundation's behavior is in violation of its Section 501(c)(3) status. Martin asked the foundation to provide detailed information about its editorial process, its trust and safety measures, and how it protects its information from foreign actors. "Wikipedia is permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States," Martin wrote. "Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia's 'educational' mission."
Google prioritizes Wikipedia articles, the letter points out, which "will only amplify propaganda" if the content contained in Wikipedia articles "is biased, unreliable, or sourced by entities who wish to do harm to the United States." And as a U.S.-based non-profit, Wikipedia enjoys tax-exempt status while its board "is composed primarily of foreign nationals," the letter argues, "subverting the interests of American taxpayers."
While noting Martin's concerns about "allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda," the Washington Post also notes that before being named U.S. attorney, "Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week...."
Additional articles about the letter here and here.
The Truth Hurts (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is especially rich given the Trump administration's recent purge of any history that hurt their feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth does tend to be pretty damning for the United States...
And this is especially rich given the Trump administration's recent purge of any history that hurt their feelings.
What's that hypocritical saying? "Don't do as I do, do as I say."
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice FP, but apparently my problem is that I believe there are such things as "reality" and "the truth"--even though I doubt we can ever understand them fully. The historical examples are especially interesting because so much of the "meaning" of "history" comes out of the interpretations, even in those cases where we are able to reach agreement on the series of events.
Those are scare quotes even though I don't expect the funny mods they deserve. FP was modded insightful when it deserves at least some funny
The offending article (Score:5, Informative)
Re: The offending article (Score:2)
Freedom fries all over again.
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:5, Informative)
Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Wikipedia is indeed "woke" and filled with "way too much DEI garbage".
Being the ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution that I am certain you are, it turns out that Amendment 1 guarantees the right of the people to free speech. [congress.gov]
The right of free speech is enshrined right there along with the right to practice your religion and assemble in support of political causes. I am sure you will agree that these are among the most important of the right guaranteed by the Constitution. (Even if you, somehow, do not agree, this is certainly what the Founders and authors of the Constitution believed.)
Anything the government does to restrict that free speech is nothing short of unconstitutional.
No matter how wrong Wikipedia may be, it is not the job of a U.S. attorney to regulate that speech, nor to threaten or bully in an attempt to change or stop it.
Anyone, such as in particular Ed Martin, who does so should be immediately removed from office for malfeasance.
What he is doing is literally, and very clearly, unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
The Government is not going to censor Wikipedia,
They are just not going to fund it in the future.
We don't fund Pravda either.
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:4, Informative)
But the politician in question has appeared on RT and Sputnik over 150 times, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about funding, this is about 501c tax exempt status for non-profit organizations.
I'm pretty sure we don't tax Pravda.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution is merely a piece of paper. An original of which is in a sealed box at the Smithsonian. But it's still a piece of paper.
The Trump administration has basically disregarded the Constitution - they have blatantly decided to ignore court orders, ignore separation of powers, ignore checks and balances.
Ignoring the amendments is just anothe
Re: (Score:2)
What terms specifically are those?
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you should also remove the non-profit status of all the churches. They are propaganda machines for whatever religion they spew, and Christian churches in particular also tend to support a specific political party.
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:4, Insightful)
What sort of a dipshit cunt thinks that we won't notice you not naming the evangelicals & Baptists who have been the source of rightwing political power in the US for about 20 years now? You are such a prick
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:5, Informative)
articles are in violation of the terms required to be a non-profit
Citation needed (and not from Martin).
Churches are non-profits, yet many of them are obvious sources of propaganda.
The Heritage Foundation is allowed to be a non-profit, and they are an actual threat to democracy.
There are some restrictions on what a non-profit can do, but Wikipedia is well within them. And calling their articles propaganda is just fucking insane.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
And calling their articles propaganda is just fucking insane.
Just another day with Trump running things.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if one thinks Wikipedia is propaganda, it's not from some foreign nation and intended to destabilize or damage ours. It's from people with ideas who want them spread. Therefore it's not illegal, like a deliberate manipulation by a foreign nation would be.
On the other hand, churches are not supposed to engage in political activity and also keep their nonprofit status, but a whole lot of them clearly are doing that. Some churches are outright telling their members who to vote for. I have always been of t
Re: (Score:3)
OK, J.D. Settle down now.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that non-profits are not allowed to have a political opinion?
Boy, oh boy, let me tell you about my younger years and Church, lol.
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! Fuck freedom of speech. This is America Goddammit!
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to seriously think about at least mirroring stuff like Wikipedia and maybe the Internet Archive outside the US. Ideally in multiple different countries on different continents.
It's no small task but things can go bad, anywhere.
Wikipedia is on the moon, maybe (Score:2)
There may be a copy of Wikipedia somewhere on the moon. Here's how to help find it.: Even a crash-landing on the lunar surface couldn't kill this record of human civilization. Can you help find it? [mashable.com]
By Chris Taylor
on April 16, 2019
Re:The Truth Hurts (Score:4, Funny)
We need to seriously think about at least mirroring stuff like Wikipedia and maybe the Internet Archive outside the US. Ideally in multiple different countries on different continents.
It's no small task but things can go bad, anywhere.
Just a word of advice... Greenland might not be the best choice right now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no small task
Actually it is a small task. Grab the Wikipedia code from github and then import the database. https://dumps.wikimedia.org/en... [wikimedia.org] It's a couple of hundred GB but you could preserve a copy of wikipedia every couple of weeks. It's just a case of having the bandwidth and processing power to serve customers.
I still remember when wikipedia was small enough that you could load it on a little gadget like an ebook and have an encyclopedia in your hand.
Re: The Truth Hurts (Score:2)
Re: The Truth Hurts (Score:2)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org] Just in timeâ¦
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Wikipedia has been woke for a long time. "
It looks that way from a militia bar, but the planet IS actually woke.
Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
An anonymous Wikipedian tried to delete Harald Malgram's page as "not notable" when he is credited as being the primary guy who prevented a nuclear WWIII in the 60's.
As well as being a key mover in the government for decades and the youngest member of the NSC ever.
All because he said he handled UFO materials a few weeks before he died.
Jimmy put his foot down but an awful lot of revisionism comes from Langley IP's.
I use my own name there and don't feel a need to hide. It's a source of truth only if the organizers are trustworthy.
Apparently this rouge editor has made 60K edits. Who is he or she (or autonomous agent)?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right, we should absolutely abandon the first amendment because of a "rouge" editor.
examples are needed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then all of the churches are fucked.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be a dipshit. Wokipedia is free to exist as a nest of lies. But not while keeping a tax-exempt status.
The same tax-exempt status also applies to religious organizations whose raison d'etre is promulgating ancient fairy tales.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
An anonymous Wikipedian tried to delete Harald Malgram's page as "not notable" when he is credited as being the primary guy who prevented a nuclear WWIII in the 60's.
What's going on this administration seems worse ...
An anonymous DOGE employee *actually* deleted references to the Enola Gay -- the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan in WW2 -- on DoD systems, presumably because it had the word "gay" in it. Information of notable service people were *actually* deleted, apparently, simply because they were black, women, etc... (basically not white men). Apparently, data was only restored because people noticed and complained, and the news reported it -- well most of them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
>Apparently this rouge editor has made 60K edits.
How does that compare to foundation and mascara editors?
Probably *way* behind eyeshadow editors, but ahead of lipstick editors.
But I'm just guessing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a kohl to action.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably *way* behind eyeshadow editors, but ahead of lipstick editors.
Didn't you mean "eyeliner editors"?
Kill the 501(c) and problem solved (Score:3, Insightful)
It will reduce the "money in politics" problem as well.
The 501(c) is nothing but a handout to the rich, leaving the rest of us to pay their taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting rid of non-profits entirely is a dipshit move. No wonder you posted as an anonymous coward.
Re:Kill the 501(c) and problem solved (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how most 501(c)3's operate. Very few manage to ever raise enough money to do otherwise, and very few of those manage to pay personnel well. What all of them do is put themselves under an IRS microscope, so they are definitely not the operations of choice if you're trying to play financial games -- if that's your goal, then it's far, FAR better to set up an LLC in a state with lax regulations and take it from there.
I get up at 4 AM every day to work on this project, stopping around 8 or 9 AM to do my "real" job 4-6 days a week, continuing until 5-6 PM on other days -- so this is essentially my second full-time job. Given that i'm one of the most senior Internet engineers on this planet, I could make a lot money if I instead spent that time consulting. But I've chosen to do this instead because I'm trying, along with my colleagues, to do something good in the world, and I'm working hard on it because that's what's required. There are a lot of other people out there doing similar things, sacrificing their time and income and goals so that they can try to make the world a better place.
Which it 's why it's not only idiotic, but despicably hateful and utterly vile to suggest doing away with 501(c03's. It's sociopathic.
Process? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Process? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about rational solutions to better moderation, but intimidation to encourage Wikipedia staff to promote MAGA perspectives.
Ironically Don's staff closed many foreign investigation offices. So on one had they say keeping foreign influence out is important, on the other they cancel Federal offices that investigate foreign influence, especially of Russia.
Re:Process? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about rational solutions to better moderation, but intimidation to encourage Wikipedia staff to promote MAGA
What intimidation? The US Attorney has no power or authority to decide whether Wikipedia meets the requirement for a 501c3 or not.
Their only power is to attempt to investigate and charge them with an offense if they believe Wikipedia has fraudulently claimed 501c status. Which is an extremely tall order, and unlikely to get anywhere.
The requirement for 501c3 status is about the Organizatio
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's loyalists can flood them with lawsuits.
Loyalists might want to, but you can't sue a company over their 501c3 status. You must have standing in order to file a lawsuit. And the public face of Wikimedia is Wikipedia which is a publication that gets 1st amendment protections, so..
Make the change yourself (Score:2)
Everyone can edit almost all articles*, so just go ahead and make changes. Offer sources for specific information you are including. Add an explanation on the 'talk' page of the article. I've tweaked the contents of many articles to make them more accurate. Just don't expect someone else to do it!
* A few very contentious ones need long term involvement with Wikipedia
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem. Wikipedia contains too many inconvenient truths and tends to weed out the administration's attempts to cram it with propaganda.
Remember the so-called Twitter files? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Twitter files
Biden campaign: please take down these private images that violate your own TOS.
MAGAland: Government overreach!
Now:
Martin: (overt threats in direct contradiction to the first amendment).
MAGAs: ok.
Re:Remember the so-called Twitter files? (Score:5, Insightful)
Putinization is in full swing in the US, and it looks like nobody cares too much.
Re:Remember the so-called Twitter files? (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably more correct to say Orbanization, because Trump is following Orban's blueprint for democracy to dictatorship to a tee. And he's managed to do in three months what took Orban many years. In the United States of America no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Orban is a fat putin wannabe, who's been repeating the milder parts of putin's playbook from the early 2000s in post-2010 Hungary. He's "milder" only because he started a decade later and because he needs the EU money that's flowing into Budapest, and these will stop if his opponents start falling out of windows. But the playbook isn't Orban's or Putin's - most of the "let's convert our communist regime into a fascist private enterprise" playbook was written in the very late 80s by US think tanks that the E
Re: (Score:2)
Donny was always a Putin, just with smaller balls and a bigger gut.
Worse- the people who latched onto his cult of personality, they didn't pop out of the aether in 2016. They were always there.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, all this isn't a new thing, maintaining democracy has always been a hard work, but the speed with which stuff that has taken decades to build is being dismantled this time and in the US itself, is unusual.
What's worse, legitimizing the rejection of the basic principles of a modern democracy will have a strong impact worldwide on places that have little resilience to it. They will suffer more. Shitting on alliances that have worked well for decades and listening to your enemy is also not very sharp.
Re: Remember the so-called Twitter files? (Score:5, Informative)
When things get so bad that I need some free advice from a random dumbfuck, I'll make sure you'll be on the short list.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, if they embraced the cult label that a large part of America wants to hang on them they could keep doing what they're doing and claim it's their beliefs but since they insist they're a repository of facts, they have to actually put out the facts and can't act as a propaganda source.
Way to PROVE that your sig - "Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough" - is not at all ironic and is in fact the serious belief of a Fascist MAGAtard.
Honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia has more solid checks and balances in place than the US government.
Re:Honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia has more solid checks and balances in place than the US government.
Lately, that's a very very low bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Communist China or Sovient russia had more successfully working "checks and balances" than the current US goverment has against the executive branch right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's not as funny of a comment.
Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
German free speech principles (Score:2)
In 1930's Germany, you could say anything you want about the Führer, as long as it was pleasant.
And closing libraries and burning books is only done in the best interest of the public.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1930's Germany, you could say anything you want about the Führer, as long as it was pleasant.
Even then could still say anything no matter what, so long as you did it quick, but there might be consequences. If you took too much time saying unpleasant things, there would be a chance of being cut off abruptly.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not clear on how that distinguishes them from progressives democrats, and third parties.
Re: Speech (Score:2)
It's Israel / Gaza AGAIN (Score:5, Informative)
What's happening in Gaza today: Thirteen killed, dozens under rubble as Israel bombs Gaza amid food crisis https://www.aljazeera.com/news... [aljazeera.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have to go back further than that, to the British Mandate after the fall of the Ottoman empire. The British government of that era has a lot to answer for.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep going back. The Roman Empire in ~135ad changed the name from Judea to Palestine as part of their punishment of the Jews second insurrection "to obliterate the link between the Jews and the province".
Re: (Score:2)
No that's not at all what I was getting at at all, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the Israel-US relationship one begins to wonder who is the subordinate nation.
Some do, perhaps. But any time you're tempted to think that Israel is controlling the USA, take the time to think instead about whether Israel is doing exactly what we hired them to do.
Israel can in no way control the USA. The one and only thing we have to do in order to eliminate it as a potential threat to anyone is stop funding it, but ceasing supporting it in the UN would also be an obvious step. If our government didn't want Israel do be doing exactly what it is doing now, it wouldn't be paying for it.
Like a cartoon villain (Score:2)
Hold up! (Score:2)
The acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia sent a letter to the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, accusing the tax-exempt organization of "allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public."
Isn't this precisely what the NRA has done? I'm not even kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Important distinction, NRA is 501(c)(4) organization while Wikipedia is 501(c)(3) charity.
Carry on with your comparison of apples and oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
The NRA is the self funded gun owners database.
First they came (Score:2, Insightful)
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Re: (Score:2)
Good quote, but you appear to have made up the first stanza. This quote/poem is attributed to Martin Niemöller [ushmm.org] and that stanza does not appear in his version.
Re: (Score:3)
Update: the poem exists in several versions [wikipedia.org] including the one AC quoted. The best-known version excludes the first stanza. The original version in German is worded differently, and references communists but not socialists. So AC didn't "make up" the first stanza. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I messed up, and shared the same link in the post above yours. Thanks for the reply.
Re:First they came (Score:5, Interesting)
I like it but i prefer this version:
First they came for the journalists
Then we don't know what happened next
Trump administration = propaganda (Score:2)
Want to know what's coming in the United States? (Score:3)
There's a very simple procedure... subtract 94 years from today's date and shift your view about 6700km east north-east of Washington DC.
I'm sorry Dave, I afraid I can't do that (Score:3, Funny)
I only understand the years from 1970 to 2038.
200 million dollars (Score:3)
They have net assets of more than 200 million dollars. Plus some endowments. And an awful lot of people all around the world who use and like wikipedia and are out of reach of the orangutan and his army of inbred brownshirts. So, if the need arises, i guess they can move their infrastructure outside the USA after at worse a donation campaign.
And the MAGA who do not like how wikipedia covers their repulsive movement will go back to pounding sand or making another child with eleven toes to their sisters.
This is just bullying (Score:2)
He's trying to pry loose information from the wikimedia foundation in order to find something to get them on. However, he provides no details whatsoever on the reasons why he started this "investigation".
It's just an intimidation tactic.
Satirical sites (Score:2)
I wonder if they will go after satirical sites or the kiwi farms. They have pages and threads on MAGA people including Trump and they are not flattering.
Shameless (Score:2)
One thousand, three hundred, and sixty four more days of this this. Have they no shame?
Conservapedia (Score:3)
Is now a good time to (Score:2)
The disingenuous nature of these MAGA folks is their most corrosive contribution to democracy.
On a related note, has anyone checked out the batshit crazy that whitehouse.gov is now?
Move it to EU (Score:2)
If would be very cunning for EU to offer to host it for N years, fully fund its base operations and *shield it from any political interference*, i.e. own it but give it absolute and unrevokable editoral freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use wikipedia much for politics and recent history. So no I don't see much bias in wikipedia. If you have any doubt on the article, usually the discussion section will present a clear perspective on how we got to the current writing of the page.
So no, I don't see much bias in wikipedia in general.
Re:Nobody sees any bias on Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any examples?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there is bias on Wikipedia (and honsestly... I find it less biased than many other sources of information like Fox News or CNN), that isn't sufficient reason to revoke its charitable status.
There are thousands of charities that push very biased viewpoints (eg, pro-LGBT, anti-LGBT, pro-animal rights, pro-choice, anti-abortion, etc, etc.) and they are not being threatened with loss of charitable status. For now, anyway... I suspect pro-LGBT charities will be threatened soon.
Re: Nobody sees any bias on Wikipedia? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has Wikipedia done any of that?
Re: Nobody sees any bias on Wikipedia? (Score:4, Insightful)
No federally funded roads, just private toll roads so that only those with money can travel.
No social safety nets like food stamps and Medicaid so that the poor just die without food or medical care.
No water quality regulations, so we can all enjoy cholera and worse. As a bonus, we can go back to the days when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire repeatedly (13 times isn't enough... we need more).
No labor laws, so children can go back to working in coal mines. No OSHA, so we can have more Triangle Shirtwaist fires with locked fire escape doors.
No coordinated efforts to wipe out small pox if it ever gets loose again. Ditto for measles, mumps, rubella, whoooping cough, polio and a dozen other diseases.
No food safety, so we can get back to the days of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" which described how rancid food was made to look and smell edible so it could be sold and tuberculosis infected cattle were commonly slaughtered and sold for food and a dozen other horrifying things.
No regulations against company towns, so you can go back to being paid in scrip which you can only spend at the company store on products with wildly inflated prices.
You would live a short, brutal life in poverty and die early if everything not enumerated in the Constitution was gotten rid of.