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.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 day ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            17 hours 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            24 hours 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.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 day ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    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.