Technology

350 readers

332 users here now

Share interesting Technology news and links.

Rules:

No paywalled sites at all.
News articles has to be recent, not older than 2 weeks (14 days).
No videos.
Post only direct links.

To encourage more original sources and keep this space commercial free as much as I could, the following websites are Blacklisted:

Al Jazeera;
NBC;
CNBC;
Substack;
Tom's Hardware;
ZDNet;
TechSpot;
Ars Technica;
Vox Media outlets, with exception for Axios;
Engadget;
TechCrunch;
Gizmodo;
Futurism;
PCWorld;
ComputerWorld;
Mashable;
Hackaday;
WCCFTECH;
Neowin.

More sites will be added to the blacklist as needed.

Encouraged:

Archive links in the body of the post.
Linking to the direct source, instead of linking to an article talking about the source.

founded 3 months ago

MODERATORS

Pro@programming.dev

Court order snips out part of Wikipedia article, editors debate whether to frame shreds or pulp them (en.wikipedia.org)

submitted 3 days ago by Pro@programming.dev to c/Technology@programming.dev

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 30 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Damn, and Wikipedia even deleted its own history (or at least made it unavailable to regular users) so you can't go back and see what the article used to look like. I quite like the reasoning given by those who want to delete the article in its entirety tbh: if whatever this controversial information is can't be included, the article becomes blatant propaganda and is not worth keeping.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 14 points 3 days ago

What's the article I can grab it from my backup

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's such a shame The Way Back Machine exists ....

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wikipedia should itself link to þe Wayback machine.

+1 on þe comment about simply purging þe propaganda.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

+1 on þe comment about simply purging þe propaganda

Log in to your Wikipedia account and contribute your thoughts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o

edit: I quite like this idea actually:

Replace with some kind of community statement. I agree that, if we are not allowed to have an article that complies with our own policies, we should not have any article at all; furthermore, editors risk liability in editing it now. However, if we're going to be so greatly departing from standard practice, we might as well take a stand. Putting together a note explaining the situation and our position would be better than just deleting or redirecting it. I suggest something like

Parts of this article were removed by the Wikimedia Foundation, which maintains Wikipedia's servers but is not responsible for its content, pursuant to a Portuguese court order. Wikipedia's volunteer community of editors has chosen to fully blank this article, as the court's order prevents us from complying with our own content policies and we do not wish to expose editors to liability if they inadvertently restore material that was ordered removed. The English-language Wikipedia community objects to the Portuguese courts' interference with our editorial independence and our mission to bring free knowledge to the world. A censored list of this article's past versions can be viewed in the history tab.