this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
1087 points (93.4% liked)

You Should Know

33438 readers
1440 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

He generally shows most of the signs of the misinformation accounts:

  • Wants to repeatedly tell basically the same narrative and nothing else
  • Narrative is fundamentally false
  • Not interested in any kind of conversation or in learning that what he’s posting is backwards from the values he claims to profess

I also suspect that it’s not a coincidence that this is happening just as the Elon Musks of the world are ramping up attacks on Wikipedia, specially because it is a force for truth in the world that’s less corruptible than a lot of the others, and tends to fight back legally if someone tries to interfere with the free speech or safety of its editors.

Anyway, YSK. I reported him as misinformation, but who knows if that will lead to any result.

Edit: Number of people real salty that I’m talking about this: Lots

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 62 points 1 day ago (14 children)

Misinformation… you mean lies?

[–] Worthess@discuss.online 15 points 1 day ago

Misinformation and lies are only separated by intent.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

The misinfo crowd has been twiddling their collective thumbs since the election and trump winning. Can’t make up bs about egg and gas prices anymore. They’re half-ass trying to incite intergenerational conflict between X, Z, millenials, etc. Guess they found a new target. Exact same MO. Repeat the claim ad nauseam, refuse to acknowledge any contrary argument, their argument is objectively false.

[–] wowwoweowza@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Those tactics won’t really work here but if there’s a small army of them on super low IQ platforms their lies can spread.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 82 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There are major issues with wikipedia, I say this as someone with thousands of edits. But I know exactly who you are talking about and they spread pure BS.

The last time I saw them their account was called “ihatewikipedia” or “fuckwikipedia” or something like that lol and they were just spreading conspiracies. Or useless drama. Like they were going on about how wikipedia “invades your privacy”, it IP blocks people and tracks IP’s linked to editing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 45 points 1 day ago (10 children)

On lemmy, this is far more likely to be some weird tankie shit about western propaganda. Though it is definitely noteworthy that the far right and far left seem to push a lot of the same misinformation on here.

Also, in general lemmy trolls are super easy to spot because they don't do anything else. All they do is whine about democrats or post Russian propaganda and never engage on any other topics.

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thinking of the most recent so-called "far left" thing I saw about Wikipedia, it was a video by BadEmpanada talking about the different portrayals of the Uyghur situation in China. A pretty balanced take btw, looking pretty impartially at all evidence and questioning the mindset of people with different perspectives on it. The discussion of WIkipedia there was that it does naturally take on some bias due to a reliance on Western media as authoritative or reliable sources. I think that is a fact. There's a process to determine something as fact which I think is too quick, the second there's something of a perceived consensus of experts or authoritative sources, something is stated as fact. In hard sciences, that's typically fine, but in politics or recent history, IMHO you need a much more meticulous approach, because you're in dangerous territory the second you start treating any propaganda narrative as fact.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] schwim@lemm.ee 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Lemmy is too small to be a worthwhile target for musk-like campaigns. It's usually just people escaping their echo chambers to get their rage fix. If you're able to think for yourself, there's really no negative impact and scrolling past is a great solution.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DesertDwellingWeirdo@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (8 children)

There's an option to donate on their website here: https://donate.wikipedia.org/ I'm starting monthly at $5 and possibly bumping up to $10 later on.

[–] satans_methpipe@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The wikimedia foundation has hundreds of millions of dollars in assets.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There was a big "information" campaign against donating to wikipedia say 6 months - 2 years ago, anyone know what happened/why?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lukewarm_ozone@lemmy.today 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (12 children)

Last time I heard about wikipedia's donation campaign (maybe ~~2~~ 4 years ago or so), it was notorious for advertising in such a way as to imply your funds would be used to keep wikipedia alive, whereas the reality was that only a small part of Wikimedia Foundation's income was needed for Wikipedia, and the rest was spent on rather questionable things like funding very weird research with little oversight. Did this change? If it didn't, I wouldn't particularly advise anyone to donate to them.

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago (12 children)

I actually took a look at Wikipedia's accounts last week as I remembered that campaign when I saw the latest campaign and did some due diligence before donating. I didn't donate, but I'm still glad Wikipedia exists.

What I remembered: That hosting costs were tiny and Wikimedia foundation had enough already saved up to operate for over a hundred years without raising any more.

What I saw: That if that was true, it isn't any longer. It's managed growth.

I don't think they are at any risk of financial collapse, but they are cutting their cloth to suit their income. That's normal in business, including charities. If you stop raising money, you stagnate. You find things to spend that money on that are within the charity's existing aims.

Some highlights from 2024: $106million in wages. 26m in awards and grants. 6m in "travel and conferences". Those last two look like optional spends to me, but may be rewards to the volunteer editors. The first seems high, but this is only a light skim

Net assets at EOY = $271 million. Hosting costs per year are $3million. It's doing okay.

If you're curious; https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This perspective is very common in online communities about any sort of charity or non-profit.

"Don't donate money to whatever charity, they just waste the money on whatever thing"

Truthfully, it's just an excuse to assuage the guilt arising from refusing to support these organisations.

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

Truthfully, it’s just an excuse to assuage the guilt arising from refusing to support these organisations.

Sometimes.

Sometimes it's a pretty accurate statement.

I used to run a medium-large charity. I have a fair bit of experience in fundraising and management. Most donators would be shocked at how little their donation actually achieves in isolation. Also at the waste that often goes on, and certainly the salaries at the upper tiers.

And I could also say that guilt is exactly why people donate. It's to feel good about themselves, they're buying karma. Central heating for the soul. I won't say that's a bad thing, but it is a thing. It's also exactly how charities fundraise, because it works. That's why your post and tv adverts are full of pictures of sad children crying. Every successful charity today is that way because it knows how to manipulate potential supporters. Is that always wrong? Of course not, charities couldn't do good things without money. But sometimes the ethics in fundraising are extremely flexible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 75 points 1 day ago (10 children)

It's likely this is a bot if it's wide spread. And Lemmy is INCREDIBLY ill suited to handle even the dumbest of bots from 10+ years ago. Nevermind social media bots today.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 224 points 2 days ago (10 children)

You just described the average Tankie around here lmao

[–] socsa@piefed.social 21 points 1 day ago (13 children)

I am pretty convinced that .ml is legitimately used as a Russian troll training ground before they get promoted to Facebook and reddit.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 89 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Interesting all this WP news I'm hearing today. Last week I downloaded the entirety of Wikipedia. Anyone can do it, the base archive (no pictures) is only about 25G, although the torrent is slow AF, took me... almost 2 weeks to download it.

I did this because I feel like this might be the last chance to get a version of it that has any vestige of the old order in it, the old order being "trying to stick to ideals and express truth rather than rewriting history to the fascists' specifications."

I'd love to be wrong, but if I'm not, I feel like it will potentially be a good reference in the future if needed.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 133 points 1 day ago (5 children)

This is in the news because Wikipedia is refusing to rewrite history to the fascists' specifications.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdrdydkypv7o

It's possible that India will succeed at eroding by a little bit Wikipedia's resistance to having things rewritten because of various powerful people demanding it. But, if you're looking for an organization that's resistant against those demands, I don't think you will be able to find one that is anywhere near the equal of Wikipedia in terms of the scale at which it operates combined with the resistance it puts up when people do this.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›