201–210 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not particularly relevant, but I'm noticing you using "xe" pronouns for Sanger. Why is that? Just wondering if I am missing more context.
Larry Sanger is very clearly a man and has never expressed any desire to be treated differently than that. JdeBP is misgendering him on purpose, which is a very serious offense and even illegal in many parts of the world. We'll see if this is allowed to stay here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ll give that poster ten thousand dollars if they post they made a typo? Do yuo give money for all typos
Sounds like a great opportunity to get the original commenter in on the scam. "Psst. Say you indeed made a typo, and I'll split the spoils with ya!" It wouldn't truly be The Internet without a little bit of Tough Guy Posturing, I suppose. :)
I'm sure you'd do that and much more for $10k, lol!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there is a lot more, e.g.: After that, Larry Sanger remarked: "What people don't realize, actually, is the number of people who are actually at work on Wikipedia on any given day is not really that enormous. It's more in the hundreds or low thousands, not in the millions. Well, there's a lot of people in India. There's a lot of educated people in India, right? There's a lot more educated people in India than the…
I'm trying to find the charitable read on this and I'm unable to. He's saying that it would be great to allow Hindu ethnonationalist sources, because that would open up a talent pool of Hindo ethnonationalist editors? What kind of an argument is that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, banned by the status quo for trying to disturb it. Wikipedia is nowadays highly politicized and more time and energy are spent on politics than on actually contributing with any useful knowledge. I've stopped contributing years ago after a decade of writing because of how bad things had gotten. It's a lost battle, all that remains is scorched earth filled with toxic editors trying to push their POV and banning e…
And despite all this, it's still probably the best website around. Just because everything else is even worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes agreed, for example, there was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion. Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting. It was the only source I could find easily for showing which country got starlink when.…
And the worst is the cycle: 1. There is incorrect information on wikipedia. 2. Legacy news publishes an article, using wikipedia as source (of course). 3. Now the incorrect information is essentially canonized
Wikipedia has an article titled “Yahweh.” Now, as I am a Christian,[8] "Yahweh" is the name of my God.[0]
This is one of Sanger's proposed changes and this is not an undisputed fact, more like a dispute among theologicans [1] and with the confidence he wants this change implemented, I am highly sceptical, that misinformation will decrease.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses#....
[1] https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/is-yahweh-the-christia...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>in the area I was trying to contribute (a math subdomain) to there is sooooo much technical misinformation. but if you don't have an intimate knowledge of all the details of the editing bylaws, and seemingly infinite time to be able to litigate your case, it's almost impossible to get any of these edits through when the original page author is sufficiently motivated to prevent them. As someone that has battled with…
I think one of the last straws for me before I quit trying to help is when I "lost" some disputed edit (and the page was subsequently locked) because the original author provided an external citation for their claim. The problem was, if you actually go read the content being cited, it did not at all conclude what the page author was asserting it did. In fact, it concluded the opposite. So the citation was "real" but…
It's not easy to make a contended edit, especially against a more experienced editor.
Here's a few tips:
1- Don't focus so much on the edit, but focus on the discussion page. As mentioned, edit warring is a no-no.
The core of edit warring is the 3RV rule, so if you must discuss through edits, space them out over time to avoid 3RV over 24 hours. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_thr...)
The rule is biased towards change, so whoever makes the first edit, will hold the advantage in terms of punitive action. However, you may invoke a request for someone else to revert to the last stable version.
2- In general there is a lot of policy to read, but that goes for any tool worth using no? And it's what provides some sort of stability to the whole project.
Wikipedia is a computer system like any other, but some code may be enforced by humans (bureocrats). You just have to learn the code if you want to edit, the expectation that it would be easy to edit wikipedia was actually true in the begginning, but as it grows larger, it will prioritize stability over growth and make editing harder.
Also, you can see my unpublished essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TZubiri/sandbox#Wikipedia...
It's outdated, I'd have to clarify on the punitive offensive bias and the modern content defensive bias. At the time I didn't have a clear understanding of the RVV (or it may have been different).
But the idea of a slower, edit based discussion is there.
3- Tags are a powerful tool, as powerful as policies and guidelines. They are much more succint, and do not require so much effort on your part. Consider the WP:FV tag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Taggin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_verification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_fai...
If you just apply the tag (or ask someone else to apply the tag), you expend almost 0 effort, but are backed by a custom so big and common that it merited the creation of a tag. No need to link to policy, its presence is self evident and self explanatory.
It also doesn't delete the content, and doesn't count as a reversal, it progresses the state of the article, if it goes uncontested for a couple of days, you can then proceed with removal much more safely. Even if it doesn't, it's not a bad result if someone makes a claim and it has a {{failed verification}} tag, the existence of their position is clarified, but it is weakened, which is in line with the WP policy of Documenting the controversy and letting the facts speak for themselves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_facts_speak_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_%22teach_the...
Feel free to ask for help in my talk page when editing a page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TZubiri
Or better yet, publish an edit request, and tag me or notify me in my talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests 4 Finally, policy wise, it's common for sources to be used to advanced views not explicit in them, this constitutes original research, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jews were the evil geniuses behind Bolshevism in the deranged Nazi world view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism Cultural Bolshevism was seen as the Jewish plot to destroy the West. It is all the same. To spread "Cultural Marxism" theories is to spread antisemitism.
You might be confusing a couple of things. Nazis couldn't care less about the "west". In fact, in the Nazi world view, Jews already controlled most of western contries. They were, first and foremost, "aryan" supremacists (not white supremacists, as commonly understand today), and saw the world under a dialectic lens of Aryans vs. everyone else. There is no "west" there. The people who most talk about "Cultural Marxis…