Founder of most unbiased, fair and censorship-free source of information sneeds at Rocket Daddy :!marseyelonpaypig:

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1657494022741426180

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16841355791539547.webp

HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35935714

He sounds like a redditor

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1684135579597948.webp :#!marseynoooticer:

85
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Wikipedia doesn't bend to government demands. It just uses a catalog of government-approved publications as its source of truth" :marseyclueless:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well yea a lot of studies and research are funded by governments. It's either that or take Epstein's money.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Studies and research are one thing.

But all it takes is for some misinformed journo (redundant adjective, I know) to claim something for it to reach the burden of proof for Wikipedia.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

True, but what's the alternative. Sourcing from random tards on twitter?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The problem is not just that, but it doesn't permit primary sources (usually), many right wing publications inc Fox News - for not being a "Reliable Source", actually that activists will push source bans via wikilawyering.

wikipedia permits breaking rules if it "makes wikipedia a better place", and do not permit (WP:POINTY) you to try to enforce the same rules equally on other pages. The rules are often arbitrary and political articles are hijacked by activists - typically an active, small minority (think power Jannies).

Example - recent rdrama post about "TheTranarchist" a main contributor to gender pages wrote about how she fights the Wikipedia bigots. She was tempbanned with pushback for those posts - the Vast Majority keeps quiet.

Next we have people like GorillaWarfare who see a hitpiece on people without WP pages - e.g. the CEO of cloudflare - and create a wikipage sourcing just the hitpiece.

WP:GOODBIAS - bias is a good thing, actually

WP:TRUTH - verifiability, not truth

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The main issue is the lack of skepticism exercised by the neurodivergent nerds when a source supports their world view.

So the article becomes "X happened[1]" and not, as it should be: "some random fricking journo claimed X, but offered no proof to support their deranged ranting"

And the only way to get something overturned is to supply a source that contradicts it, which is r-slurred because there was never any foundation to the claim to begin with.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

i knew this had a term https://xkcd.com/978/

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think xkcd might genuinely be the most annoying cute twink on the planet. Like someone took a rightoid caricature of 'coastal elite' shitlib and give him a pencil and a scratchbook.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's why it's fun to throw his comics in the face of shitlibs

This one's good for people going on about "genocides" and "extinctions" and so on:

https://xkcd.com/1860/

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Source this: :marseykys2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyblack: :You betta watch yo darn mouth 'fore I come over there and shut it fo' ya. Sourcing from random tards on twitter is a darn fools game and you betta know that.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So true bbbb

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyblack: :So true you what?You aint neva gonna be nothin but a triflin hoe, so stop tryna act like you better than me. You aint neva gonna amount to nothin.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#soycry:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseymalding:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>Sources say

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.