Les grands enjeux pour wikipédia sont tout autres que ces querelles « woke ou pas woke ». Les préoccupations portent plutôt sur les questions de fiabilité de l’information, avec les multiples campagnes de désinformation, ou encore l’utilisation de l’IA, qui ciblent Wikipédia, mais aussi et surtout les sources utilisées pour écrire des articles sur Wikipédia. En effet, la règle de base est que Wikipédia ne peut être qu’une synthèse du savoir existant, et n’est en aucun cas un lieu de production de savoir inédit. Donc si les sources utilisées sont « corrompues », cela se retrouvera nécessairement sur Wikipédia.

Note : Comme toujours lorsqu'il est question de "wokisme", il est important de se souvenir que ce terme n'a pas de définition précise et est essentiellement une invention des milieux réactionnaires pour attaquer les mouvements humanistes ou progressistes sans avoir besoin d'argumenter, en donnant l'impression de s'attaquer à un phénomène "inquiétant" ou "excessif", et sans jamais avoir besoin d'exprimer clairement les valeurs qu'ils poussent réellement. C'est un épouvantail et une arme de manipulation rhétorique, absolument pas un fait objectif.

Quand le Figaro accuse Wikipédia d'être "woke", la première réponse devrait être une déconstruction de cette affirmation et des valeurs qui la sous-tendent; mettre à jour la vision du monde et le projet politique qui se cachent derrière cette accusation, et réfuter sa légitimité même.

Le contenu de cette vidéo est tellement insensé qu’on croit d’abord à un fake. Mais c’est bien Mark Zuckerberg qui s’exprime ce mardi 7 janvier sur Facebook. Ses propos méritent d’abord un verbatim complet [...]

Facebook built up its Trust & Safety program after the 2016 election debacle. The company’s name was getting dragged through the mud. There was the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the misinformation factories and the political ads paid for in Rubles. Mark Zuckerberg announced he was taking responsibility. It wouldn’t happen again.

He didn’t like it, though. And he didn’t mean it. Zuckerberg’s commitment to Trust & Safety was as deep as Exxon’s commitment to combating the climate crisis. He’ll only commit resources when it seems like he has to.

Despite these ugly attitudes from Trump and his supporters, in the past few months, there's been a deluge of pundits expressing confusion and outrage at straight women who conclude that it's better to be single than waste your one precious life dating — much less marrying — conservative men. Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, famously and repeatedly insisted that such women are "miserable cat ladies," even though it's self-evident that cats make better company than MAGA men. Even the Washington Post editorial board got involved, calling on women to "compromise" by marrying Trump voters. 

In 2024, women increasingly responded to these pressures with a "no thank you," though often phrased less politely. After Trump won the election, there was even a spike in interest in the South Korean "4b" movement, where women quit dating, marrying, or having children with men. In truth, this idea was more aspirational than realistic, but the discourse mattered nonetheless. It created space for women to ask the question: Why should they sacrifice their happiness to save the institution of heterosexuality?

This is not to downplay the extent to which Trump is grifting his devotees and those crypto traders looking to make a buck on memecoin speculation. But it is important that we accurately report on his cons and do not contribute to misleading crypto hype for the sake of large numbers.

You don’t have to be a cynic to see a flywheel effect: Crypto has become a meaningful political constituency not because its technology has broad, undeniable utility, but because it has made certain people extremely wealthy, which has attracted a great deal of attention and interest. The industry courts politicians with its wealth, and politicians pander for donations by making promises. Ultimately, the pro-crypto candidate wins, and the price of bitcoin surges, making many of these same people richer and thus able to exert more influence.

[...]

Crypto’s future is uncertain, but its legacy, at least in the short term, seems clearer than it did before November 5. It turns out that cryptocurrencies do have a very concrete use case. They are a technology that has latched on to, and then helped build, a culture that celebrates greed and speculation as virtues just as it embraces volatility. The only predictable thing about crypto seems to be its penchant for attracting and enriching a patchwork of individuals with qualities including, but not limited to, an appetite for risk, an overwhelming optimism about the benefits of technology, or a healthy distrust of institutions. In these ways, crypto is a perfect fit for the turbulence and distrust of the 2020s, as well as the nihilism and corruption of the Trump era.

Soupçonné d'avoir tué Brian Thompson, patron d'une assurance privée aux États-Unis, et aujourd'hui devant la justice de New-York, Luigi Mangione a été présenté comme un "bad boy". Pourtant, en ligne, il a été adulé. Une fascination que les journaux n'ont pas cherché à analyser. Entre tentatives ratées de profilage numérique du mis en cause, refus de politiser son acte et de nommer la violence du système de santé privée, mais aussi, les cris d'orfraie moralistes sur la sacralité de la vie humaine, la presse étasunienne a fait l'étalage de sa déconnexion sociale.

AI can turn some impressive party tricks, but it's unsuited for solving serious problems in the real world. This is true of predictive AI, whose correlations are data-driven conspiracy theories, and of large language models like ChatGPT, whose plausible waffle is always trying to pull free of the facts. The real issue is not only that AI doesn't work as advertised, but the impact it will have before this becomes painfully obvious to everyone. AI is being used as form of 'shock doctrine', where the sense of urgency generated by an allegedly world-transforming technology is used as an opportunity to transform social systems without democratic debate.

[...]

Real AI isn't sci-fi but the precaritisation of jobs, the continued privatisation of everything and the erasure of actual social relations. AI is Thatcherism in computational form. Like Thatcher herself, real world AI boosts bureaucratic cruelty towards the most vulnerable. Case after case, from Australia to the Netherlands, has proven that unleashing machine learning in welfare systems amplifies injustice and the punishment of the poor. AI doesn't provide insights as it's just a giant statistical guessing game. What it does do is amplify thoughtlessness, a lack of care, and a distancing from actual consequences. The logics of ranking and superiority are buried deep in the make up of artificial intelligence; married to populist politics, it becomes another vector for deciding who is disposable.

Here’s a sad statistic for you: In the United States, we have a whopping 1.4 million people employed with the job of DENYING HEALTH CARE, vs only 1 million doctors in the entire country! That’s all you need to know about America. We pay more people to deny care than to give it. 1 million doctors to give care, 1.4 million brutes in cubicles doing their best to stop doctors from giving that care. If the purpose of “health care” is to keep people alive, then what is the purpose of DENYING PEOPLE HEALTH CARE? Other than to kill them? I definitely condemn that kind of murder. And in fact, I already did. In 2007, I made a film – SICKO – about America’s bloodthirsty, profit-driven and murderous health insurance system. It was nominated for an Oscar. It’s the second-largest grossing film of my career (after Fahrenheit 9/11). And over the past 15 years, millions upon millions of people have watched it including, apparently, Luigi Mangione.

Depuis son arrestation, les médias peinent à décrire Luigi Mangione autrement que comme un garçon sans histoire. Le fait que quelqu’un comme lui puisse se transformer en tueur de PDG de sang froid a de quoi effrayer bien des puissants, puisque son geste semblait impossible à prévenir. Et c’est donc cette banalité du coupable présumé qui l’a transformé d’ores et déjà en icône de la culture populaire. Cet engouement n’est pas neutre politiquement puisque ce  meurtre a mis les assurances privées et leurs pratiques au cœur du débat public aux Etats-Unis.