7 ms·

Honestly Wikipedia+Archive.org remaining online have national security implications (not just USA, but any democracy). Though I'd wager the current administrat

Honestly Wikipedia+Archive.org remaining online have national security implications (not just USA, but any democracy). Though I'd wager the current administration would take a different view.

em-bee 1y ago
what are the implications?
- hungmung 1y ago
  We've always been at war with Eurasia. Not all threats are external.
IAmBroom 1y ago
I can see the national security implications for countries like Russia and China, that are widely known for pushing false histories backed up with state punishment, but in high-functioning democracies the state does not control public speech.
jacobgkau 1y ago
> national security implications (not just USA, but any democracy) That's not really "national," is it?
- hungmung 1y ago
  National security doesn't just refer to USA...? France has national security considerations, just like the UK, Uruguay and Uganda. They'd all benefit from having open access to verifiable information.
  - jacobgkau 1y ago
    That's fine, it just seems more like a "societal security consideration," "democratic consideration," or just a general "consideration" than specifically "national security," which has the scope of a nation.
GartzenDeHaes 1y ago
Getting ready for doomsday? You need a solar powered, wifi-enabled, offline wikipedia server. https://piwithvic.com/offline-wikipedia-with-kiwix/ https://piwithvic.com/offline-wikipedia-with-kiwix/
cormorant 1y ago
There are mirrors and backups of Wikipedia. Archive.org has no substitute.
- zahlman 1y ago
  archive.today at least allows people to preserve snapshots of selected websites, which is often important for being able to demonstrate that mainstream sources have edited or deleted content without proper acknowledgment. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia once (I haven't checked if it's still in effect) blacklisted links to there, with compelling evidence (if you read any of the discussion behind the scenes) that it was actually about certain admins and power users trying to maintain control over the bias in main-space article content.

Honestly Wikipedia+Archive.org remaining online have national security implications (not just USA, but any democracy). Though I'd wager the current administration would take a different view.

em-bee 1y ago

what are the implications?

hungmung 1y ago
We've always been at war with Eurasia. Not all threats are external.

IAmBroom 1y ago

I can see the national security implications for countries like Russia and China, that are widely known for pushing false histories backed up with state punishment, but in high-functioning democracies the state does not control public speech.

jacobgkau 1y ago

> national security implications (not just USA, but any democracy) That's not really "national," is it?

hungmung 1y ago
National security doesn't just refer to USA...? France has national security considerations, just like the UK, Uruguay and Uganda. They'd all benefit from having open access to verifiable information.
- jacobgkau 1y ago
  That's fine, it just seems more like a "societal security consideration," "democratic consideration," or just a general "consideration" than specifically "national security," which has the scope of a nation.

GartzenDeHaes 1y ago

Getting ready for doomsday? You need a solar powered, wifi-enabled, offline wikipedia server. https://piwithvic.com/offline-wikipedia-with-kiwix/ https://piwithvic.com/offline-wikipedia-with-kiwix/

cormorant 1y ago

There are mirrors and backups of Wikipedia. Archive.org has no substitute.

zahlman 1y ago
archive.today at least allows people to preserve snapshots of selected websites, which is often important for being able to demonstrate that mainstream sources have edited or deleted content without proper acknowledgment. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia once (I haven't checked if it's still in effect) blacklisted links to there, with compelling evidence (if you read any of the discussion behind the scenes) that it was actually about certain admins and power users trying to maintain control over the bias in main-space article content.