You had a chance to not be completely worthless, but it looks like you threw it away. At least you're consistent.

>fascist erosion of fact

also

Uuuuhhh just put the frickin fries in the bag bro

It's not "far-left". That's a fascist slander word. A more accurate term would be "correct".

is this a bit?

Please stop unironically using the word fascist

^BIPOC

So you'd be happy with some far right perspectives added too?

leftoid thinks its good that leftoids are in control of important institutions because they are the good guys™

Lol

The SFBA Rationalist system has not sufficiently mitigated its embrace of neoreactionary fascism: it absolutely should not be a well-respected set of people, and the system has many similar problems all in the same shape. Many controversial topics are controlled by far-right fascists, as a matter of simple fact, and until that changes it should be part of the SFBA Rationalist reputation because it is true.

One of the most used websites and encyclopedias used around the world and billed as being "neutral" is equal to a vague community of philosophy nerds and literal whos based in importance I guess

That Wikipedia incorporates far-left thought is a good thing in my view, because these are people who have a perspective and are not actively engaged in eroding public trust in the reliable sources which report on the fascism.

Holy shit, no it's not a good thing what they're doing r-slur.

They absolutely are eroding public trust on those sources you hold deep to your heart, both on and off of Wikipedia. There's a reason why commies were going ballistic when congressmen were arguing about banning TikTok or Xitter being bought by Musk, and it was not because they believe it was GOPtards disrupting civil society and politics.

I trust the system of Wikipedia editors more than I am interested in the fate of one specific editor you have a grudge with.

Trace focusing on one editor as an example rather than wordswordswordsing about a whole mass of faceless usernames and IP addresses makes it much easier for the audience to grasp the systemic problems there are on Wikipedia.

Gerard is far, far, far from being the only detrimental user on that site and blindly trusting the Wikipedia editorial process which has proven to be susceptible to ideological capture is a giga move

If you had half the resentment towards the "post-truth"-era Trumpists that you carry with one dude who doesn't like your CULT all that much, you might merit respect as an intellectual, but you're kinda just braindead flailing and that's sad

the average Trumpist is still less extreme than an unironic ML style commie. But irregardless, a person like Trace taking more issue with one relatively minor individual rather than a major political-public movement and cohort does not mean he condones the latter, or that he is being irresponsible by not using his voice against Donald Trump and his supporters and allies, which would be just pissing in the wind while him writing about (actually real) commie and giga-leftoid subversion on a massively used and consulted website is novel information to most people.

SHOW MORE

What's sfba rationalist

Wahhhhhh

I had a lot of fun at the Tel Aviv Slate Star Codex meetup a few days ago.

Trump will win btw.

Some pretty deep Christian or Muslim pages, stuff like doctrine, practices or schools of thought, seem to be written by closeted chuds but they're still patrolled by political nerds and giga-editors who lean left or neurodivergent nitpicks so they often don't fly too close to the sun.

Most historical Texas articles seem to have patriotic slant/undertones compared to most other US states and are unironically some of the older articles on the site because Texans created a Wikiproject page (basically an editorial community portal/hub created to help coordinate writing about a topic) pretty early on in Wikipedia's history. Some of them have been smoothed over but they're mostly the same as how they were first written.

Generally, history that's not about an English speaking country, especially before the modern times, is going to have some slant towards it, except ones regarding early colonial powers like Spain or Portugal or stuff like regarding the crusades, where in that case it often flip flops between oppressive colonizers to "Deus Vult" or "Viva Hispania" tier edits. Also, the articles in other languages tend to be even more slanted than the normal English ones and reading (via Google Translate) about the Spanish conquest of the Americas or the Dutch East India Company in their respective languages will often give you something completely different than what is on English Wikipedia.

I think certain hobby or science related topics might attract some chuds but since there's usually not politics to sperg about they probably go unnoticed.

Overall, there's not too many outright and open chud circles on Wikipedia, though occasionally you get weird interarticle cites to old historical race concepts like this or this or even Mongoloid, makes you feel like you're coming across the ancient remains of an older and chuddier Wikipedia

Croatian wikipedia is right-wing.

The military history guys tend to be a bit too sympathetic to the Nazis, but there was pushback on that after some public drama.

At least for military history, no. There is people like this jewish chad woman named Ksenia Coffman that spends all day rules lawyering so she can delete articles about German war heroes who were awarded medals in WW2. Apparently you aren't allowed to have an article about minor historical figures if they didn't fight for the good guys in the largest conflict in human history. This in combination with the fact that some of the most no name people have Wikipedia pages on them but Chris Chan doesn't is a perfect example of how r-slurred Wikipedia is. Obviously Chris chan is not important in a classical sense but he for sure is prominent enough to deserve a Wikipedia page at this point. The only honest Wikipedia articles now are about stuff that is purely objective like the Pythagorean theorem or shit like that.

if anything, I need to spend even more time online tbh

There are several actually yes, and a good portion are part of the problem, with some approaching crypto-fascist levels of hypocrisy.

There is one who is really cool though, smallchief, who focuses more on military stuff and has a picture of him meeting with non-Taliban Afghanis prior to the 2001 invasion on his profile page.