all 53 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

Interessing >->

Well i guess i gotta make one when i have some free time, i wonder how fast it will get nuked

Edit: at least we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 month ago (20 children)
  • [–] [S] 27 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    I like how that page sources one of the most prominent Israeli genocide deniers as an authority

    All definitions of genocide involve ethnicity, race, or religion as a motivational factor.[5] Genocide scholar Israel Charny has proposed a definition of genocide in the course of colonization.[7]

    Gaza Fight is Humanly and Legally Just - Israel Charny

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Do you have an approved list of scholars that Wikipedia is allowed to reference on the subject?

    Seriously though the linked article seems pretty thoroughly referenced and it's not like he's the only source. He certainly has the academic background to be quoted and his Wikipedia page even calls out his views on Gaza.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago

    All references to his work should be scrubbed as he clearly holds no expertise on the matter. If anything the opposite.

    Him being quoted in articles like this shows how infested Wikipedia is with propaganda. Israelis raid Wikipedia to put their own propagandists in there as authorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Campists always do this. They find one source, reference, leader etc that is problematic, even if they have to stretch reality to do so, even if they are a minor participant, and use it to dismiss everything they disagree with

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Facts hurt their feelings and that's why needed to make Conservapedia but in Red flavor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    What facts hurt the feelings of socialists, and why is making an explicitly Marxist-Leninist wiki a bad thing if it's all sourced properly?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Facts, that's why Prolewiki isn't sourced properly. School essays are better sourced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Can you give an example of a poorly sourced article that is not flagged as insufficiently sourced?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I mean it straight up asserts Tianamin square was a CIA backed riot that was justly put down by the authorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago

    Tian'anmen square is a famous historic site, not an event. If you mean the June 4th incident, Operation Yellowbird is documented on Wikipedia itself and affirms CIA involvement. Looking at prolewiki, the page on the 1989 Tian'anmen Square riots has 33 sources listed, with sources ranging from western outlets like BBC and CBS, to scholarly sources, to wikileaks. The analysis that this was a counter-revolution, and therefore the socialists were correct in putting a stop to it rather than letting it overturn socialism, is based on the information that I believe to be well-rounded and well-sourced.

    Do you disagree with the sources, or with the Marxist analysis provided based on the sources? If it's the former, what sources should be added? If it's the latter, then that brings us to back to my claim that the bias is better to be open and honest, rather than hidden, and that the basic facts are still solid and real.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    "I mean it straight up asserts something that contradicts what the authority figures in my life told me as a child, so obviously that means it's wrong"

    -You talking about Prolewiki or any Mormon talking about a biology textbook

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago*

    Which it was. Do you not look into things before talking about them? You also say it "asserts" it, as if it doesn't source the claims made.
    You seem to be conflating "not reinforcing my worldview" with "being wrong and unfounded"

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    better definition than "systematic killing of a large number of people with some correlated traits" or other defintions that could include self defense

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    According to the "scholar" Israel, the settler colonial genocide enterprise, is not committing genocide. So his definition can be thrown into the trash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    still better than the numerous definitions thst water down the meaning to something as little as racialy inspired mass murder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago
    [–] 14 points 1 month ago
    [–] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's a bit crazy to see the kinds of things that are on wikipedia lately about political and social subjects. Especially when you compare the english pages to other languages, and you realize that a lot of far-right leaning wordings and hints are scattered all around the english pages but not in the other versions.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 1 month ago (7 children)
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    (Your post got removed but mine didn't. Somehow the hivemind missed that I was agreeing with you)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The dog can easily be interpreted as wikipedia, preventing edits.

    You scored an own goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The hivemind

    πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Noo Wikipedia definitely does not have any systemic issues. Its not like its full of Nazis or zionist or power users. Oh wait all three of those are common "human interest" stories about the site.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Wiki media is complicit and untrustworthy

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    This is possibly one of the best examples I've seen so far.

    elections in china (wikipedia)

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    So, why don't you write those pages OP?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 20 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Because a Zionist will come in and undo those changes. I tried.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    With no evidence, you may as well be lying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    He who controls the flow of information controls the "truth". This is an abusable lever of power. If someone is being silenced, they can effortlessly be branded as a liar, because the arbiters of truth leave no lies behind. Welcome to the game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Take screenshots. Use Internet Archive to prove it. There are so many options that would convince people that at least you tried, that it's crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Also, it's not like Wikipedia deletes absolutely everything of an account because it's blocked. If a page is deleted, the delete logs are there (iirc they can't be modified). If content from a page is there, attribution requires the page history to be always present.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    No worries you would not trust anything if it was not published by Reuters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I am asking for evidence that you tried to write an article (or insert anti-zionist content in one) and got it reverted. (I should have worded the original request better)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments