this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025

210 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

876 readers

266 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

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.

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

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

210

MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs (gizmodo.com)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This week, two prominent Republicans, Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky) and Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina), both of whom play influential roles in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, announced plans to probe into everybody’s favorite digital encyclopedia. In a letter that Comer and Mace sent to the Wikimedia Foundation (which helps run the site), they asked for internal documents that might show evidence of bad actors who had commandeered Wikipedia for their own ends. The letter, dated Aug. 27th, states that the committee is

investigating the efforts of foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinion. We seek your assistance in obtaining documents and communications regarding individuals (or specific accounts) serving as Wikipedia volunteer editors who violated Wikipedia platform policies as well as your own efforts to thwart intentional, organized efforts to inject bias into important and sensitive topics.

top 45 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DrSleepless@lemmy.world 64 points 4 days ago

Disinformation is important to fascists

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 58 points 4 days ago (2 children)

We must protect Wikipedia.

[–] Networkcathode@piefed.social 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download

[+] FaceDeer@fedia.io -10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

right, exactly what all data backup engineers say. why bother, its out of date!

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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'

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

Thanks for feeling bad for me though, I guess.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, they're after the Internet Archive too.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A backup isn't until it's been proven it can be restored.

[–] cazzmaniandevil@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago

Schrödingers backup

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Hi! Something something I might be able answer people's questions something something.

[–] WiseScorpio@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Comer is my rep and is eagerly trying to replace Moscow Mitch as one of the worst people to ever be elected to Congress.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 42 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 37 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It was only a matter of time before they tried to tackle Wikipedia. Fascism relies on misinformation—that's why knowledge is its enemy.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Elon tried that months ago questionimg wikimedia's spending on equity, safety and inclusion initiatives to try and dissuade people from donating.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Yea, that guy in particular seems exactly like the kind of unscrupulous moron who would do just that.

[–] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago

I just doubled my monthly Wikipedia donation amount because of this

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

Witch hunt. They will never release the results of this investigation because it will not support their narrative.

[–] Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 4 days ago

How dare Wikipedia give their content away for free and function on donations rather than advertising

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

Okay. So they can kill the power on a few nodes and still be okay until they light a few new ones.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

Fascists always attack education.

Pretty obvious.

[–] Networkcathode@piefed.social 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Anyone can help preserve wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download

Needs decentralisation

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

6 geo-diverse locations.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Control the information.

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

For the important pages maybe try to grab digital copies of the cited materials too.

This does not seem feasible.

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Anna's archive. Wikipedia has vast citation and it can tell you where some more valuable sources are

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's the easier part of the process. The hard part is deciding what to deem "important"

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We have a Committee on Oversight and Government Reform?!?!

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

I think the majority is in charge, so, ya know...

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Interesting, I think I know whom and I didn't need a committee! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY