189
MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs
(gizmodo.com)
Disinformation is important to fascists
We must protect Wikipedia.
To be clear, these are not the entirety of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a living document. Reducing it to a static download sqirreled away in an archive somewhere is just a subtler way of killing it.
Nah, these database dumps happen relatively often (almost once a month). I'm seeding many different snapshots. You've reminded me to check for the latest one, which was taken august 1st. Thanks
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.
right, exactly what all data backup engineers say. why bother, its out of date!
/s
A backup is useless if it can't be made "live" again. If you talk to an actual backup engineer they'll tell you that ensuring a backup is kept is only half the battle, you can't be confident of that backup until you try restoring it to ensure it can actually come back online.
If I made a backup of the Fediverse's data and stored that safely away, but the Fediverse itself was no longer capable of being posted to, would I have "protected" the Fediverse? Not really.
A backup isn't until it's been proven it can be restored.
Schrödingers backup
depends on your context. and your context sucks.
could wikipedia be rebuilt with one of those backups? yes, it fucking can. it would be a bitch, but the data is there.. the important bits are there.
the fediverse is a series of servers, so your attempt at some kind of analog falls pretty fucking flat.
my instance has a backup of almost all the kbin.social data for example... could it be restored if i happen to get the domain? yes, i absolutely could take my data and rebuild it. would it be perfect? no. but its far better than tossing my hands up in there air like yourself and saying "nope, youre fucked"... or as you put it 'useless'
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.
i feel kind of bad for you, and i have to assume youre young
You assume wrong. I expect my Wikipedia account is older than many of the commenters here.
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.
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.
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,
Internet Archive, for example
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.
Hi! Something something I might be able answer people's questions something something.
they asked for internal documents that might show evidence of bad actors who had commandeered Wikipedia for their own ends
Any such evidence is going to point squarely at republicans... and will be completely ignored.
Sounds like a good time for Wikipedia to leave the US altogether. They can't touch them if they're outside US jurisdiction. The worst that can happen, is they'll try and ban the site inside the US...but the core operations will still be available, and out of reach.
I just doubled my monthly Wikipedia donation amount because of this
It was only a matter of time before they tried to tackle Wikipedia. Fascism relies on misinformation—that's why knowledge is its enemy.
Elon tried that months ago questionimg wikimedia's spending on equity, safety and inclusion initiatives to try and dissuade people from donating.
Yea, that guy in particular seems exactly like the kind of unscrupulous moron who would do just that.
The real issue is page edits and coordinated attacks and false Wikipedias. You can and should download your own copy before this keeps too crazy. For the important pages maybe try to grab digital copies of the cited materials too.
For the important pages maybe try to grab digital copies of the cited materials too.
This does not seem feasible.
Witch hunt. They will never release the results of this investigation because it will not support their narrative.
Fascists always attack education.
Pretty obvious.
How dare Wikipedia give their content away for free and function on donations rather than advertising
Anyone can help preserve wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
Needs decentralisation
Control the information.
We have a Committee on Oversight and Government Reform?!?!
I think the majority is in charge, so, ya know...
Interesting, I think I know whom and I didn't need a committee! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
189 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
870 readers
486 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