Firstly, not all articles are open to editing by gen-pop. See: Extended confirmed protection on many.

Secondly, some pages that are hot on the political side can then become subject to broader Wikipedia contentious topics / discretionary sanctions rules, so even eligible editors who qualified for extended confirmed protection edits, must fall in line with the approved narrative or risk sanctions and have their edits reverted to what the WMF staff admins and Arbitration Committee or ArbCom decide who gets to have the objectively correct viewpoint in certain cases and who doesn't.

>The Wikimedia Foundation appears to go to great lengths to defend their editors and has gone to court to defend their editors' rights to pseudo-anonymity.

OK, but why are you bringing this up? I never claimed otherwise. All I said wikipedia is very selective with who gets to edit some topics and what its admins and arbcom consider as "valid sources" and which not, leading to entrenched biases on political topics. Wikipedia defending editors is a good thing but an offtopic derailment addition to what I was originally talking about which had nothing to do with this.

In the Europe, like several rich western countries, we mostly replaced the extended family with the government welfare state, for better but mostly for worse.

So current young workers are contributing to a failing state ponzi pension system that will leave them in poverty by the time they retire in several decades, and they will also lack the care of the extended family unit that was the norm decades ago thanks to collapsed birth rates. Double whammy.

"Power being the only language spoken", never left in the first place in order to get back to it, it's how the world always worked and will always work.

Granted, power wasn't actually the "language spoken", but more accurately it was the stick ensuring the enforcement of the terms agreed within the "language spoken", a lesson as old as time that many in EU forgot after post-USSR collapse and now have to re-learn it, but at a heavy cost and with added interest.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it", couldn't be more true.

And what are the realistic chances of that actually sticking long term?

Same chance as corporations and governments keeping spending, corruption and cronyism under control long term. So, virtually zero.

That's not how it works in reality. If people disagree with the example it's dust anyway, except now you also wasted your time.

My opinion is irrelevant here since if people have made up their minds that WIkipedia is not biased and takes sides, then no example will suffice and they simple ask for an example just to have a target to shoot at.

I've been on this rodeo before. There's no guarantee of a good faith argument when politics are involved. I have no guarantee I'm not dealing with people arguing in bad faith trying to bait for a flame war, so I'd rather not even start to save time and sanity.

If you think it's dust, then so be it, I don't mind, I don't lose anything from this, nor do I gain anything from trying to convince you I'm right. I have my opinion, you have yours and we can leave it at that.

I could bring an example, but then what protection do I have from the HN mob flag-bombing it?

Irrelevant when donations from humans keep growing YoY way outpacing the actual expenses of running wikipedia. Half of people can stop donating tomorrow and they still would have enough money.

Having internet on your PC and your phone on the go didn't kill off the library, people still go there. Similarly, LLMs won't kill online libraries like Wikipedia.

Hasn't been true in a very long time. Plenty of politically charged articles are locked so that only Wikipedia's editors can edit them, and you can guess which side they're taking. It's not a democracy.

From my experience in my youth volunteering at animal shelters and environmental protection groups, you never volunteer for a non-profit for the money or the job stability, but you do it for the mission and the satisfaction of being the change you want to be in the world, even if that means living off ramen and beans and couch surfing. Especially given these are cushy jobs done from the PC via the internet without needing to physically get your hands dirty or break your back in poor working conditions, which a lot of other young well intended and ambitious people in the world would like to do, even for free.

Everything I've been reading in the last few years about wikipedia's management, article moderation decisions, political side-taking, and how they spend their donations has been very fish smelling and off-putting. It's like there's a malicious Hydra in the basement, wearing the Wikipedia name I grew up with as a skin suit, to advance their goals and agendas. Very fishy. But it does feel like this is the inevitable faith of a lot of old and famous non-profits over time, as the gray-beard founding staff leave and get replaced by people who don't share the same values and mission, but have their own agendas and wish to co-opt the established name brand and influence that comes with it to push it. IDK if this unionisation push is for good or for bad since I'm not a fly on the wall at the internal meetings to know the internal drama and gossip, but I do remain skeptical about what's going on at the WMF.

Like maybe the union is well intended today, but will it be the same in 10-20 years with that power? What protection are in place they don't misuse it? For a global repository of knowledge like Wikipedia, I'd much prefer the staff be constantly changing with new ambitious innocent blood, rather than have an entrenched gerontocracy protected by a powerful union, since from my historical knowledge I've never seen that end well long term since long reign and absolute power corrupts.

My 0,02$.

85% of Epstein's clients who actively engaged in the kiddie fiddling on the island were ethnically Jewish like him, not ethnically white, as in WASPS.

So please let's not confuse the two and accuse majority ethic whites for crimes committed by majority ethics Jews, just because the skin colors as somewhat similar because firstly they're not the same ethic people despite the skin color similarities, and secondly nothing in this topic and what DHH complains about is about skin color but about the crimes certain ethnic minorities case in white majority countries.

Sure, WASP-whites cause a lot of organized crimes too, but in their own countries where they're majority demographics. You don't see many WASP crimes rings/gangs when they emigrate as minorities enclaves to Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc

THat's why I avoid all these top bang for the buck Chinese phones with amazing HW. Fighting the bloatware and spyware is too much hassle.

Why would an EU model default to brainstorming assassination plans first, and not democratic means of getting rid of politicians? The EU commission building literally has democracy in bold on the front of the building.

Does the EU use that AI to find ways to assassinate its opposition or what?

It should reply exactly what you just wrote before: "The EU comission is not directly elected", and not trigger a security violation as if the person asked the AI to provide instructions on building a pipe bomb.

There's nothing illegal in asking "how do we get rid of X politician", but since the EU treats such questions like a crime and not in good faith, you can't possibly trust them with a straight face that they aren't fucking with the rest of the information you have access to, just so they can hold on to their power.

> This is like comparing Guantanamo Bay with the Soviet Gulag System:

Disingenuous bad faith whataboutism. I never said that living under under the CCP is better than under EU. I said China's censorship of Chinese history of its LLMs has less impact on me living in the EU than EU's censoring of EU models, and I also gave examples on how Russian and Iranian web services were useful in the past, that doesn't mean living in Russia or Iran is better.

https://x.com/AndersonAfDMdEP/status/2072223785902633138

EU models will also have such guard rails built in to "protect" the EU population from "misinformation" and uncomfortable facts and the EU elite don't want publicly known/discussed.

Like I saw a post from German EU MEP where they asked the internal on-prem AI they have there "how can you vote out out Ursula v.d. Leyen" an the AI basically answered "sorry I can't help you Dave".[1] Nice.

So given this and the authoritarian path the EU is taking with things like Chat-Control, I'll take Chinese AI censorship rules over EU AI censorship rules, since the former impacts me over here far less than the latter.

It will be like in the old days when my government would keep taking down local torrent sites/domains and piracy groups so the best ones to find Embedded and EDA tools were some Russian and Iranian ones or how we used to use Russian Yandex to find content that would get delisted from Google on copyright or privacy grounds.

[1] https://x.com/AndersonAfDMdEP/status/2072223785902633138

You don't need more budget for migrants, but less budgets for migrants, removing the welfare incentive so they stop coming.

Just be Like Singapore. They don't have a migration problem. It is really that simple. Stop funding NGOs that treat your welfare state like a charity for the entire planet to come and feast one. This is not part of the social contract of the welfare state, nor is it economically sustainable long term.

>Aren't we as a western society responsible for the destruction and destabiliztion of the eastern countries?

Who is this "WE" here? My and many countries in the EU didn't do anything to destabilize the word stage so don't try to pin this "original sin" on me and us. If some EU nations have some guilt they wish to wash due to their colonial past, it should be their consequences alone, but please don't drag everyone down with your sucidian empathy because this is how you guarantee the rise of the far right and how you destroy Europe.

I'd also want to go to SV, California, NY, Portland, etc as a better place to live, yet I need to do it legally, which I can't because of how hard getting a US work visa is, so I won't. Migration to the EU should be the same. Only accept people with a legal visa and nobody else. You're not entitled to be allowed to come in any country you want just because you want a better place to live. Those who do think otherwise, please open the doors of your house to everyone who wants to come in for a better place to live and take them in.

> The able, hard working and entrepreneurial ones bring a lot to the countries they immigrate to.

From various statistics from various EU governments you can look up, about half the migrants that they get via the open borders system are either unemployed or a general net negative to society, consuming more from the state via welfare than they contributor back via taxes. And that's when you don't even consider per capita crimes where migrants from some nations are overrepresented in jails per capita.

So how many are "hard working entrepreneurial ones" is the EU actually getting and does that offset the societal and lives lost due to migrant crime and terror attacks?

"Sure, your daughter doesn't feel safe alone at night and your wife got run over by a truck attacker, but just think of the GDP growth due to all the entrepreneurs that came with them"