BrainInABox
@BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Wikipedia is resilient because it is boring 1 week ago:
I love completely baseless claims
- Comment on Wikipedia is resilient because it is boring 1 week ago:
No, there isn’t.
- Comment on What is a federated alternative to Wikipedia? 1 week ago:
You understand that you never actually had unmediated access to “the fabric of knowledge”, right? You just had sources that you agreed with
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
What’s the point of steps two and three when step four seems to suggest you’ve already decided what conclusion you want them to come to?
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
You also need to be an evil shit to stay at the top
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Why did you people even leave Reddit?
- Comment on MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs 2 weeks ago:
Well, silver lining is now liberals might actually check to see if Wikipedia is getting it’s claims from right wing pundits.
- Comment on MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs 2 weeks ago:
*leftist bias
- Comment on MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs 2 weeks ago:
“youghurs”
- Comment on MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs 2 weeks ago:
We’re already at that point
- Comment on MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs 2 weeks ago:
What are we, a bunch of Asians?
- Comment on project paperclip be like 3 weeks ago:
Wow, compelling argument. You can tell “tankie” is a meaningful term because being from the wrong Lemmy instance can make you one
- Comment on project paperclip be like 3 weeks ago:
You’re a BlueAnon conspiracy nut, you think everything is to do with Russia
- Comment on How would one exit a black hole? 3 weeks ago:
One wouldn’t
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
I’m talking about how unsurprising it is to me that a western pseudo-anarchist treats far right propaganda outlets as gospel truth, so long as they’re laundered though something like wikipedia.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
Lol. Reality isn’t what you wanted it to be, so you’re just going to deny it.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
You actually going to get back on topic at some point?
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
What are you even talking about?
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
It really is like a pavlova response to .worlders to just bark “.ml!, .ml!” Whenever they see it, like trained seals
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
Mate, you were the one who started in with the “ad-hominems” (actually you just mean insults, but are too much of a redditer to just say that).
You can keep whining that reading a few hundred words is too much for you, but writing just as many words removed about it isnt
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
How bad has literacy gotten that that seems like a lot of text to you? My count was about right, by the way. And if you actually read it, the point was that I actually do check sources, unlike the rest of you.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
Did that even make sense in your head?
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
To all of your points: i look at current behavior. I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it. Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.
So by your own admition, you just base it on how much it agrees with your preexisting beliefs. Though I notice you still seem willing to believe US sources despite them being an autocracy.
And i didn’t need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think “i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already” and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i’m not debating you, i’m laughing at your impotence lol
It was like, 6 sentences man, are you remotely capable of not acting like a pouting baby?
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
You can’t be a subject matter expert on everything though?
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
What a shock that someone who pretends to be an anarchist would go to bat to defend the reliablity of far right western propaganda outlets like Radio Free Asia, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Remember, if it doesn’t’ have the Western Neo-liberal seal of approval, it’s not credible and should be removed, that’s the anarchist way!
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
Man, you people really loath anyone who doesn’t just shut up and agree.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
Did you copy and paste the wrong quote? That doesn’t say anything about organ harvesting.
You’re really just going to play dumb on purpose? Why? What does that accomplish?
Calls it a conspiricy theory, not “accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations”
en.m.wikipedia.org/…/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory …wikipedia.org/…/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspir…
These both literally state that the claims are false in their openings
You have literally just shown my point because you couldn’t be bothered to read past the headline.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
Yessir, i do believe that the information on Wikipedia resembles the truth a lot more than anything that comes from lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml or hexbear.net.
Yes, I do: because it confirms the things you already believed
Because Wikipedia gives me sources i can read up and decide myself if that’s bullshit or not
And do you? Do you read all those books from Anne Applebaum and similar right wing pundits? Do you read all the reports from far right think tanks like Australian Strategic Policy Institute? Do you read claims of not just the publications, but the save individual people, who have consistently repeated every verified lie to come out of the US state department, from WMDS in Iraq to babies in ovens in Gaza? How exactly are you “deciding for yourself” if that’s bullshit?
And also because Wikipedia leaves politics aside as good as they can
They really don’t. Not that it’s even possible to “leave politics aside” when talking about things that are political. Thinking they do is basically admition that you consider your politics “the default”.
if your perception of reality has anything to with what the world at large has agreed on, but there i lost ya, didn’t i?
You really want to commit the argument “it’s true because it agrees with the average political position of westerners?” (because by “the world at large”, you, naturally, where only talking about westerners.)
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
Falun Gong is a Chinese qigong discipline involving meditation and a moral philosophy rooted in Buddhist tradition. The practice rose to popularity in the 1990s in China, and by 1998, Chinese government sources estimated that as many as 70 million people had taken up the practice.[42][43] Perceiving that Falun Gong was a potential threat to the Party’s authority and ideology, Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin initiated a nationwide campaign to eradicate the group in July 1999.[44]
The above paragraph is from the page, and it is claiming truth.
So you’re just lying, you never actually wanted evidence, you were just trying to waste peoples time by asking them to provide it even when you will just ignore it and lie when they provide it.
More to the point, they don’t have pages for other false claims that just “about the accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations, not a page claiming to the truth”. There’s nothing like this for Pizzagate or Birtherism.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 5 weeks ago:
Unless those claims are against China though, right? That’s you’re position.