194
MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs
(gizmodo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
194 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
870 readers
367 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body. More info
The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up
Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)
Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You miss my point, and I suspect most people did given the torrent of downvotes on my comment.
Wikipedia is not just the big blob of data, it's the editors who are constantly updating and curating it. It's the site where those editors do their work. If Trump manages to "shut down" Wikipedia, then it doesn't matter if that blob of data is safely stashed away on some peoples' hard drives - it's no longer a living document. The editors can't edit, the readers can't read. It becomes a clay tablet buried in a pit somewhere.
That's why "protecting Wikipedia" can't simply involve downloading a database dump. That's like "protecting" someone by embalming them and sealing their corpse in a vault.
FaceDeer, you keep having these takes that people hate because it is a truth. Maybe it's the percieved pessimism, idk. Wikipedia absolutely would not be the same if it wasn't organic and changing.
Yeah.
They they don’t need to kill Wikipedia, they just need to make it inaccessible enough to not matter. This is the Fascism 2.0 playbook.
Archiving it is good, but it also won’t matter if the site can’t stay up, and it is backed up thousands of times over, probably.