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
480 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
Sure, Wikipedia could be rebuilt from one of those backups. But it won't be. If it needs to be rebuilt it'll be built from the latest database image, not some random months-old dump that someone downloaded and stashed on their home computer.
The point I'm trying to make here is that downloading a backup copy is not "doing something." One shouldn't breathe a sigh of relief and rest easy in the knowledge that Wikipedia is "protected" because you've done that. That action is an irrelevant microscopic speck compared to what is actually needed to be done to protect Wikipedia.
unless you 100% know the future of humanity you dont get to say what will be valuable.
ive downloaded copies of dr who that only exist because some random guy in some random australian back woods made a backup of the video. it wasnt the studio that had that backup, it was a rando.
'dont do that because it might not be useful' is kind of callous considering the whole point of wikipedia is as a storage for humanities knowledge base specifically not knowing what the future holds. why the fuck do you think they made it so portable?
i feel kind of bad for you, and i have to assume youre young as you lack context into the big picture
I happen to 100% know that there are better backups of Wikipedia than the one that a random person out on the Internet has downloaded onto their hard drive. Internet Archive, for example, maintains an up-to-date archive. So even if Wikipedia just abruptly evaporated one day that will be a better source to go to.
But even if Trump really really hates Wikipedia, he's not in a position to just make it evaporate abruptly. The Wikimedia Foundation would see any such shutdown coming and would secure its own backups. There are a lot of international chapters of the Wikimedia Foundation, they could take updates right to the moment that the jack-booted thugs pull the power cords from the servers.
You assume wrong. I expect my Wikipedia account is older than many of the commenters here.
Thanks for feeling bad for me though, I guess.
you can never have too many backups of humanities knowledge. i guess youre just overflowing with optimism and prescience. we all know thats never bit anyone in the asshole.
Sure, one can have too many backups. When those backups are taking up space that other more at-risk or more useful data could be taking, then that's a bad thing. When those backups are not actually useful, then the making of them was a waste of time and effort. When making those backups makes people think "ah, there, I've solved it" and then they do nothing more, that's bad.
It's like all those people switching over to paper straws instead of plastic and thinking that made a lick of difference to ocean microplastics, or whatever. I'm all for taking action to try to help with problems, I'm just saying that it's best to take actions that actually help with stuff.
Maybe instead of buying a portable hard drive to stick that backup onto, donate the money to one of those international chapters I mentioned.
ahh the next hilarious stretch.
yes storage is soo expensive nowadays all those people sacrificing their precious storage! most peoples laptops have hundreds of GBs of storage they will never actually utilize... and thats just on crappy retail boxes.
youre clearly struggling to find some reason why people shouldnt be doing this, but i have yet to hear a single reason thats actually detrimental to anyone but those whose egos are tied the to contributor metadata that might get lost.
again, not a single reason this data shouldnt be replicated.
So you're not even doing a full backup?
Complete waste of time.
right, because you lack context. your world is very tiny. your parochial views limit any cogent arguments.
you have this notion that humanity will always exist in its present form. theres only one constant; everything changes.
your assumptions to the contrary are telling, as well as the nod to the fact you care as much about the editors as the content.
Yeah, they're after the Internet Archive too.
They were one example. As I said,
In my next paragraph I mentioned the international chapters of Wikimedia Foundation, they're another example.
Trump can't erase Wikipedia. He can disrupt the smooth functioning of Wikipedia, though, which is the thing I was pointing out is a bigger concern. That's not something that can be solved by randomly scattering yet more out-of-date database dumps in peoples' closets. That's something that the Wikimedia Foundation itself is best positioned to work on, they're best positioned to ensure there are fail-over options to keep en.wikipedia.org running in the event that the American government goes full authoritarian on them.