6 ms·

Well there is a lot more, e.g.: After that, Larry Sanger remarked: "What people don't realize, actually, is the number of people who are actually at work on Wi

by Sweepi 3mo ago

Well there is a lot more, e.g.: After that, Larry Sanger remarked: "What people don't realize, actually, is the number of people who are actually at work on Wikipedia on any given day is not really that enormous. It's more in the hundreds or low thousands, not in the millions. Well, there's a lot of people in India. There's a lot of educated people in India, right? There's a lot more educated people in India than there are in, say, England. Just due to sheer numbers, you can field a lot of good writers on Wikipedia, and if you quite simply learn how to play the game..." (33:54). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger&oldid=1360671935#CNN-News18_podcast_interview https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...

wongarsu 3mo ago
Ok, saying things like "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back" is pretty bad. To be clear: it would be equally bad if you swapped left and right in that sentence. I don't know if his assessment of the issues with Wikipedia is correct, but his solutions aren't what you propose if you want to make Wikipedia more neutral
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaypath 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - vrganj 3mo ago
    > Why is that bad? Because it's a far-right conspiracy theory implying Wikipedia editors are Red Guards purging universities, and calls for a counter-purge. In other words, it is a thinly veiled call for violence based on a conspiracy theory. The same conspiracy theory Anders Breivik explicitly cited after murdering 77 people.
    - throwawaypath 3mo ago
      [flagged]
    - throwawaypath 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - vrganj 3mo ago
        It's a rephrasing of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, which was at the core of Breivik's Manifesto. A conspiracy theory that originated as "Cultural Bolshevism", the justification the actual Nazis used to justify their mass murder.
        bit-anarchist 3mo ago
        Cultural Bolshevism wasn't the justification to the mass murder the Nazis committed. The genocide was motivated due to Nazis' own racial theories. The rest were killed due to strict authoritarianism of the ideology. At best, it was an excuse.
        vrganj 3mo ago
        > Cultural Bolshevism wasn't the justification to the mass murder the Nazis committed. The genocide was motivated due to Nazis' own racial theories. Those two are one and the same. Cultural Bolshevism was a Jewish plot in the Nazi world view.
        bit-anarchist 3mo ago
        No they aren't the same. Jews, as a race, were seen as subhuman and antisocial, sufficient justifications in Nazi world view to exterminate. Cultural Bolshevism was, at best, an attempt to link anything seen as degenerate to jews to further strengthen persecution of such. Even if Jews weren't a thing, Nazis would still mass murder, hence it was an excuse.
- Aurornis 3mo ago
  > Ok, saying things like "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back" is pretty bad. He’s not saying they need to “march through this institution”. He’s saying they need to learn how to navigate the increasingly Byzantine rules set up by the small number of editors so they can contribute to the site. Why would it be bad to counter bias by bringing in people from the under-represented group? What would be permissible to you, if not bringing in people from that group to participate?
rozab 3mo ago
I'm trying to find the charitable read on this and I'm unable to. He's saying that it would be great to allow Hindu ethnonationalist sources, because that would open up a talent pool of Hindo ethnonationalist editors? What kind of an argument is that?
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- NordStreamYacht 3mo ago
  He said that in response to a leading question by the interviewer: he's saying if you think X viewpoint is being suppressed, then people with that viewpoint need to participate to counter the suppression.
Aurornis 3mo ago
You cut out the context, making it look like he was trying to bias the website. The part you left out was that he was asked by the interviewer how Indians who felt the site was biased against them could fight the bias: > When asked about how "Indians and Hindus who feel there is this bias" could "fight it actively", Larry Sanger responded: So he’s saying that a group can combat bias on the site by participating in the site. India has a lot of educated people and therefore it wouldn’t be hard to find people to contribute. Why is this so controversial?
- ImPostingOnHN 3mo ago
  He's inviting people to participate in brigading Wikipedia according to a list of targets he publishes

by Sweepi 3mo ago

wongarsu 3mo ago

Ok, saying things like "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back" is pretty bad. To be clear: it would be equally bad if you swapped left and right in that sentence. I don't know if his assessment of the issues with Wikipedia is correct, but his solutions aren't what you propose if you want to make Wikipedia more neutral

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
throwawaypath 3mo ago
[flagged]
- vrganj 3mo ago
  > Why is that bad? Because it's a far-right conspiracy theory implying Wikipedia editors are Red Guards purging universities, and calls for a counter-purge. In other words, it is a thinly veiled call for violence based on a conspiracy theory. The same conspiracy theory Anders Breivik explicitly cited after murdering 77 people.
  - throwawaypath 3mo ago
    [flagged]
  - throwawaypath 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - vrganj 3mo ago
      It's a rephrasing of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, which was at the core of Breivik's Manifesto. A conspiracy theory that originated as "Cultural Bolshevism", the justification the actual Nazis used to justify their mass murder.
      - bit-anarchist 3mo ago
        Cultural Bolshevism wasn't the justification to the mass murder the Nazis committed. The genocide was motivated due to Nazis' own racial theories. The rest were killed due to strict authoritarianism of the ideology. At best, it was an excuse.
        vrganj 3mo ago
        > Cultural Bolshevism wasn't the justification to the mass murder the Nazis committed. The genocide was motivated due to Nazis' own racial theories. Those two are one and the same. Cultural Bolshevism was a Jewish plot in the Nazi world view.
        bit-anarchist 3mo ago
        No they aren't the same. Jews, as a race, were seen as subhuman and antisocial, sufficient justifications in Nazi world view to exterminate. Cultural Bolshevism was, at best, an attempt to link anything seen as degenerate to jews to further strengthen persecution of such. Even if Jews weren't a thing, Nazis would still mass murder, hence it was an excuse.
Aurornis 3mo ago
> Ok, saying things like "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back" is pretty bad. He’s not saying they need to “march through this institution”. He’s saying they need to learn how to navigate the increasingly Byzantine rules set up by the small number of editors so they can contribute to the site. Why would it be bad to counter bias by bringing in people from the under-represented group? What would be permissible to you, if not bringing in people from that group to participate?

rozab 3mo ago

I'm trying to find the charitable read on this and I'm unable to. He's saying that it would be great to allow Hindu ethnonationalist sources, because that would open up a talent pool of Hindo ethnonationalist editors? What kind of an argument is that?

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
NordStreamYacht 3mo ago
He said that in response to a leading question by the interviewer: he's saying if you think X viewpoint is being suppressed, then people with that viewpoint need to participate to counter the suppression.

Aurornis 3mo ago

You cut out the context, making it look like he was trying to bias the website. The part you left out was that he was asked by the interviewer how Indians who felt the site was biased against them could fight the bias: > When asked about how "Indians and Hindus who feel there is this bias" could "fight it actively", Larry Sanger responded: So he’s saying that a group can combat bias on the site by participating in the site. India has a lot of educated people and therefore it wouldn’t be hard to find people to contribute. Why is this so controversial?

ImPostingOnHN 3mo ago
He's inviting people to participate in brigading Wikipedia according to a list of targets he publishes