This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's practically impossible. Wikimedia Foundation (the org behind Wikipedia) does not do the editing and does not exercise any editorial control (excepting some rare cases where it is necessary to comply with the US laws). The editing cabals and Wiki admins are not controlled by Wikimedia and by any other official organizations, and a lot of them not even in the US. Those in the US would be protected by the First Amendment. Wikimedia sponsors a lot of stuff, including a lot of woke leftist stuff (don't think any Nazis though, SPLC is way ahead of the curve here), but there's no possible way to consider it fraudulent - they do it all in the open AFAIK. I am not very happy that the biggest and one of the most trusted (despite all) knowledge repositories on the planet is captured by the woke, but the US government can't do much about it, at least not without discarding the First Amendment, which would be a much bigger loss.
I think the argument is more Wikipedia begs for donations "to keep the servers running" but uses the vast majority for causes completely unrelated to running Wikipedia.
"Running Wikipedia" is a very nebulous term. You can take it in a very restrictive sense - paying for hardware, bandwidth and maintenance for the skeleton crew necessary so that the site remains on air. Then indeed, most of the donations do not pay for that. If, however, you allow development of new software and new modes - there are many more wikis beyond Wikipedia, though most are not as well known, but they exist and have their own audience, such as Wikidata, Commons, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, and many others - then the donations would cover a significant part of this already. If you add some grants that are aimed at improving wiki content - such as paying people for writing software or articles for the benefit of Wikipedia - then you cover the substantial bulk of the expenses. Sure, some of these grants would have very woke tint - e.g. specifically concentrating on some woke selection or aspect and serving specific woke audience - but you can not say these grants are fraudulent and a private foundation has the right to be woke and finance woke grants. While for a federal government distributing tax money the equanimity and absence of any discrimination must be a requirement, for a private entity it is not possible to ask for that, and if they do choose to prefer woke causes, it is not a crime.
Moreover, if I remember correctly, the fundraising banners don't even claim these donations are necessary to run Wikipedia (indeed, they are not for many years now, though once they used to be, Tides foundation's support ensures Wikipedia can survive financially without any additional donations, if necessary, even though at the cost of freezing a lot of projects) - see the example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/2025_banners#%22Current_best%22_banner_as_of_July It just says, roughly, "Wikipedia is cool, please give us a little money". It does not make any claim about necessity of the donation or where that donation would go.
I would call it somewhat deceptive:
Implicitly the last point relates to the first two, ie your donations allow Wikipedia to continue to exist.
If they had the first paragraph be an introduction to their grants program, that would be different, but I would call their current banner less than maximally honest. Obviously legally it’s safe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link