442
US attorney for DC accuses Wikipedia of ‘propaganda’, threatens non-profit status
(www.nzherald.co.nz)
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
442 points (98.9% liked)
News
36000 readers
2766 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And you’re missing the larger point:
Paranoia is bad. If you jump at every “they could do…” you’re going to be unable to jump at the “they fucking are doing”.
You want something to freak out about? They’re arresting judges for managing their courtroom.
Yeah, threatening to yeet wiki’s nonprofit status is bad. But its a very far cry from offing the board or whoever is leading Wikipedia and installing their own.
This rampant paranoia is not helping the 2yo that got deported.
They can move the website out of the government’s reach, in response to any action they might take. Worrying about any other possibility is just jumping at shadows.
Where do I say anything about "offing" the board? That's rather a leap. I'm talking about the US government attacking the corporate structure of Wikipedia, which isn't paranoia because this article is literally about exactly that.
The only way to do that without us knowing is to disappear them. Any other scenario, they would be free to tell us “hey, they stole the entire organization!”, right?
I doubt very much that Wikipedia’s lawyers are t prepping a response even as we speak,
No. The article is talking about threats to remove its 501c non profit status.
Such an action would not remove the board or really alter the operational structure
They would be subject to taxes, and some implications with any grants they might receive, while donations to wiki will no longer be tax deductible, and such.
It would be a burden, yes. But there’s exactly zero reason to believe that suddenly Wikipedia would not be Wikipedia.
Neither would there be anything to stop them from moving.