Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s questionable whether this bully continues to have as much influence as it thinks it does.
I don't see any signs of succesful resistance yet.
China is doing just fine resisting the bullying. EU can do the same.
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
831–840 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#832Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the "deletionist" tendency is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. At least it's the main thing that prevents me from making significant contributions. I say tendency, but maybe it really is more of a crusade. Deletion and rejection definitely seem to be the default "predisposition." I've seen a lot of examples of apparently well meaning contributors being pushed away by the need to establish "notabili…
That's a feature. Each article requires future attention and adds load. Most of the important articles were in the first 100,000.
If that's the intention, fine. But don't be surprised when no one but the most committed politicians want to bother trying to contribute to the project.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#833[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#834Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It just feels like it's too big and there are too many interests that want to distort things. I was surprised to see some article recently removed effectively rewriting history and directing to some alternative version. I just checked again and it's been restored but it just seems like the wild west. In fairness, this does mean the system is working.
Yeah- Maybe it's "eventually working". It's hard to trust when it seems so fluid. Maybe there needs to be some mechanics to make it harder to change. Something like being able to suggest changes/corrections but having those come out on some schedule after a review? (thinking software release process here). Quarterly Wikipedia releases? Creating some "core" of Wikipedia that is subject to tougher editorial standards?…
Basically every other complaint in this thread is that editing is impossible because everything is reverted. Your issue seems like an impossible one to cleanly solve
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#835Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority that did vote, voted for this. The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Given the standards of media literacy and civics education, there's no evidence that a higher participation rate would have changed the outcome.
Plurality, not majority. It may be pedantic but it's an important difference.
I don’t think it’s important in the slightest. Fact is that they were exactly two competitive candidates, and of all the people that cared to vote, more voted for one than the other. It may not be technical majority, but this is the common understanding in this country of “majority rule.”
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#836Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#837Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many people don't seem to care about any evidence or sources. They blindly follow whatever lies that their leaders say. I’m one of those people you complain about. When I did deep research about DEI, I presented evidence and sources to people like you, including judges that I knew in my private life. It seems you didn’t care, to a point that I had in my hand a document printed from a department of justice’s own web…
Yeah I think you might be doing a little over-generalization there.
Depends on the extend of the subjects I’ve studied and the number of good faith - bad faith people I’ve met.
I literally wrote a book on one of those subjects and made it to a national news channel in two countries about it.
The cause is lost for science, people don’t respond to logic.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#838Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not easy to do at all. They have extensive blacklists to reputable conservative papers, and I’ve been cussed out for trying to link things. There are a lot of topics that can’t even be discussed because the pro-left bias is too strong that any reputable source is banned, and many non-political pages which are monitored so tightly by a single individual it’s impossible to edit.
Have you tried using sources that aren't explicitly "conservative papers"? And if so, have you considered the lack of evidence found outside of overtly biased sources might indicate the position you are defending is not defensible outside of a strictly partisan perspective and worldview, and is buoyed only by other strictly partisan sources?
On many occasions, right-wing Internet acquaintances have given me a link to a story in a conservative news source; I would try to look up other coverage with a search engine, and I would find exclusively conservative sources discussing what happened, even though it was clearly verifiable fact that the the thing in question had in fact happened.
During the Rittenhouse trial, I watched trial coverage live, then evaluated what various news outlets were saying about what happened. Unironically, Fox News was objectively far more truthful and accurate than every left-wing source. I caught left-wing sources trying to push disproven and dubious narratives - in particular, the "taking an illegal firearm across state lines" bit - long after anyone had an excuse, even after the basic issues with that story had already been debunked by other left-wing sources. Shortly after the verdict dropped, Al Jazeera Plus put out an absurd, naked propaganda piece trying to paint the DA as a hero unjustly thwarted, with imagery showing complete ignorance to and/or resistance of the proven facts of the case.
(As a reminder: this is a DA who didn't check a firearm personally before pointing it at the jury, in order to try to make a ridiculous point about how Rittenhouse might possibly have been holding the weapon, while clearly having no actual idea how to hold and aim it properly. Who then made a closing statement baldly asserting falsehoods about the basics of how firearms work that had been disproved immediately prior. Who had previously made repeated, blatant attempts to violate Rittenhouse's Fifth Amendment rights and introduce evidence that had been very clearly excluded from consideration in pre-trial hearings.)
I have witnessed supposedly respected, mainstream sources (with a rarely acknowledged left-wing bias and an axe to grind) smear people I've personally met, and movements and groups that include people I personally know and care about (especially movements that have nothing to do with the traditional left-right axis but which certain leftists have decided to label as "right-wing" for their own reasons).
The bias built in to Wikipedia's "reliable sources" policy is self-reinforcing. You can't get conservative sources added even if what they're saying is provably true, or "liberal" (an absurd abuse of the term, but that's the American jargon now) sources excluded even if what they're saying is provably false, because a) the latter agree with each other; b) a new source needs vetting, which generally involves agreeing with existing sources; c) there is no objective standard for accuracy or reliability.
You present your comment as though you imagine that "sources that aren't explicitly conservative" are, thereby, not also "overtly biased". A lot of people seem to believe this, but it's not at all true. The fact that you frame this in terms of "defending positions" is also telling, for me.
See also: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#839Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come) will reverse the thousand year trend of increased education and decreased violence. The US recently put the world on notice that everyone needs a larger military and should develop their own nukes if they can. I fail to see how that will continue to decrease violence.
There have been no large scale wars since the development of nuclear weapons. The data available thus far suggests that mutually assured destruction prevents total war. I live in a county in which most people are armed. There are very few attempts at carjacking.
I’m not sure talking about guns in the US is proving what you want. The US has a much higher gun murder rate per capita than most other high income countries. It’s in fact near the top with active war zones.
When everyone has weapons, more people get shot. That’s a fact. When countries arm up there is a much higher chance of a conflict happening that can’t be rolled back.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#840I've edited a page about my grandfather's accounting firm that was bought out by some iteration of Peat Marwick (I have the deets somewhere, just don't recall now). Referred to documentation and the edit was reverted.
Done some other edits, some stick, some are reverted. I don't have time to deal with this so as much as I'd like to contribute, I am doing stuff where I can actually contribute.