this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
288 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19274 readers
1916 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

he’s not wrong about the concentration of power amongst editors

The classic problem of an open-edit document like Wikipedia is the manpower it takes to manage the project properly relative to the incentives to fuck with it by malicious actors. Elon's answer to this problem is to monetize the sinking ship to the hilt and then use the excess revenues to buy the next new thing. The Jimmy Wales approach is to build out a network of trusted administrators and semi-trusted volunteers to play wack-a-mole on this one single project forever.

Originally, the theory of Wikipedia was that you'd have far more good actors than bad. Therefore, the bulk of the encyclopedia would accumulate useful information that went largely unmolested and didn't need to be babysat by live humans. This... hasn't proven to be the case. So the costs of the website continue to expand as the content base does.

Automation of spammers, scammers, and malicious actors has made the problem even more difficult. And I have no doubt that Elon's own digital vandalism efforts have taken their toll as well. There's simply too much economic incentive to fuck with the public's understanding of the world for a project like Wikipedia to go ignored.

I'm afraid its days are ultimately numbered, precisely because too many people trust it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Makes me wonder if you won't see and Andrew Carnegie of this era step up and endow it against his fellow capitalist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm proud to downvote this screed of baseless doomsaying but I'm dismayed at the fact that I'm the only one doing so.

Just goes to show that you come to Lemmy because of the potential of a federated platform, not for the reality of its current community (which is absolute garbage.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this screed of baseless doomsaying

If you think enshittification can't come for you, its only a matter of time before you're proven wrong.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

If you think that enshittification of all platforms everywhere is completely inevitable and we should just throw up our hands and give up at the slightest threat then you're unfortunately in good company here.