US Attorney Investigates Wikipedia’s Tax Exemption
I told you last week that the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is engaged in an absurd campaign against a respected medical journal, accusing it of being a partisan in scientific research and thereby jeopardizing its tax exempt status. Ed Martin, Jr. is working hard to prove his lips are always perfectly puckered to kiss Trump’s big fat butt.
Or maybe not. It’s easy to dismiss such ridiculousness as nothing more than shameless grandstanding. And to think that media reporting only plays into it. But if the last 100 days proves nothing else, it is that unchallenged absurd grandstanding can sometimes turn into common populist rhetoric, and that into official unconstitutional policy. And, quite frankly, our body politic can be so easily manipulated that maybe we ought to be quicker to call out absurdities when they occur, especially from those who are supposed to act in the role of High Sheriff.
So this time, I am reporting that the government’s top legal representative in DC is threatening Wikipedia’s tax exempt status, essentially for words on virtual pages:
As you know, Section 501(c)(3) requires that organizations receiving tax-exempt status operate exclusively for “religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes. . . [.]” It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation, through its wholly owned subsidiary Wikipedia, is allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public. Wikipedia is permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States. Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia’s “educational” mission.
In addition, Wikipedia’s operations are directed by its board that is composed primarily of foreign nationals, subverting the interests of American taxpayers. Again, educational content is directionally neutral; but information received by my Office demonstrates that Wikipedia’s informational management policies benefit foreign powers.
Moreover, we are aware that search engines such as Google have agreed to prioritize Wikipedia results due to the relationship that Wikipedia has established with these tech platforms. If the content contained in Wikipedia articles is biased, unreliable, or sourced by entities who wish to do harm to the United States, search engine prioritization of Wikipedia will only amplify propaganda to a larger American audience.
Lastly, it has come to our attention that generative AI platforms receive Wikipedia data to train large-language models. This data is now consumed by masses of Americans and American teachers on a daily basis. If the data provided is manipulated, particularly by foreign actors and entities, Wikipedia’s relationship with generative AI platforms have the potential to launder information on behalf of foreign actors.
The DC US Attorney’s letter of malpractice continues with twelve paragraph-length questions too absurd to quote. I am really hoping Wikipedia spends very little time and ink replying. The author’s status requires that the letter be taken seriously and that the Wiki Board get a legal opinion. I would be happy to give them one, pro bono. But the Board should not write a lot in response, as that is the obvious hope. Here is the letter I would recommend: “Dear General Martin: Kiss my ass. Sincerely — ”