This headline isn’t a bad headline. The article seems to be pretty well balanced, and leaves plenty siding with Wikipedia. It even mentions another news article that DOES have a bad headline:

Sanger has spent more than a decade criticizing Wikipedia for what he claims is an ideological, left-wing bias on a variety of topics, and on X has framed this recent ban as further proof of everything that’s wrong with Wikipedia. The New York Post took that bait and last night published an article with the headline “Left-leaning Wikipedia blocked founder from editing site—after he campaigned to make it more balanced.”

If you base something on facts, it will be left leaning. Right leaning has a higher value in loyalty, authority, respect, and spirituality. They will deny facts if they have to in order to prioritize their other values. Right leaning people tend to be more likely to be on time, have cleaner desks, and speak more formally to someone they deem a “superior”. Left leaning often could give a rats ass about authority, and respect is only given once it’s earned.

All that to say, facts and reality are more left leaning by nature. Given many religious folks will deny nature’s history for their spiritual beliefs.

I don’t really agree with the original comment, but your response is worse than what you’re responding to. What does what you saw in the modlog have to do with this comment? He really wasn’t that mean, and raises a valid point at least. You could’ve just said “We should’ve checked but it’s still a fun topic” or something that acknowledges the mistake but moves on anyway.

Also, if it costs money for people reading it, why would you share it? I assume you shared it because the cost is worth the price of sharing something you enjoy, but if that’s true why bring up cost at all?

Btw, it’s a bit cliche to respond to criticism with the sentiment of “I’d like to see you do better” rather than accept it for what it is (assuming there is validity to it).

I am an American who cares about privacy largely because of Snowden. His book was very eye opening, and a great read. So that’s at least 1 person

What do you mean? All that information is available in the next data breach

None of that is because of middle managers. No matter what, someone will need to job of coordinating with various departments, prioritizing tasks, selling ideas, motivating, and overall being good at coordinating. Idk if I’ve personally met a manager good at those things, but I know I would be worse at it.

Idk how to tell you, but it’s AI that found the vulnerabilities created by humans in the first place… Of course they didn’t have to use AI to fix the discovered vulnerabilities, but it would’ve taken a lot longer and more than like still be riddled with bugs

Are you suggesting the patches are fixing issues the AI caused? If so, that isn’t what’s happening. AI is finding vulnerabilities from old human written code at a pace unlike anything before. Not because humans couldn’t technically find them, it’s just that they never did. That isn’t me marketing or shelling out for an AI company, there are many different models accomplishing the same thing, and more to come. It’s not just with Microsoft, though Microsoft has a lot of vulnerabilities to find. AI is causing chaos for just about every major tech company with all the vulnerabilities being found. And they have to find and patch them before someone else uses the AI to find and abuse the vulnerabilities first. The long standing match of cat and mouse is much faster than it once was

He also intentionally did it the day after patch Tuesday. July 14th is also Patch Tuesday. This is about retribution for him. How you view that is going to depend on your world view. I doubt any of us feel bad for Microsoft though XD