President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I know this is sarcasm, obviously... However, if there are people who want to control the world, and they use completely transparent media like Wikipedia where anyone can check exactly how it has been used (either individually, or automating it to get an overview)... that is a lot better than them doing it through closed social media systems or undisclosed talks.
For all its faults that people can point to, Wikipedia represents the internet at its absolute best, a continuation of the ideals that made the idea brilliant: Free, non-throttled and non-ad based access to information and an exchange of expertise, all done in complete transparency.
And the irony is, that it is because of this we know of its faults to begin with. If it was a closed system, we'd know a lot less about the bad faith actors which try to exploit it.
In comparison, the discussion regarding Wikipedia that has been brought to this forum was born on a site that represents the Internet at its absolute dystopian worst: An ad-driven, closed eco-system where the exposure to information is controlled strictly for financial and political purposes, where all user activity is monitored and sold, about half the activity is just machines pretending to be human, where users are actively manipulated to make them addicted and it is all done with as little transparency as possible.
I agree re: Wikipedia. Whenever I make prop bets to charity on here I nominate Wiki as my chosen charity if I win.
I know this is sarcasm, obviously... However, if there are people who want to control the world, and they use completely transparent media like Wikipedia where anyone can check exactly how it has been used (either individually, or automating it to get an overview)... that is a lot better than them doing it through closed social media systems or undisclosed talks.For all its fau
it's infinitely better to have partisan information on for profit platform, as that gives you the proper approach to judge it: always be skeptical, always presume bad faith motive in the agent giving you information.
what's infinitely more dangerous is to have a source that is purportedly fair and unbiased, because of purported non-profit, tax exempt status and purported good intentions, that is instead (as all sources always are without exception ever) horribly biased anyway.
normies will believe the purportedly unbiased source more, use it to solve disputes and verify what "is actually true" and so on.
false , biased, manipulated info isn't dangerous at all per se. it only becomes dangerous if it gets a veneer of credibility from other elements.
that's why wiki is infinitely more dangerous than twitter can ever be. everyone can just dismiss any partisan source on Twitter as utterly biased, as they should do with all sources all the times in general until and unless they personally vet the source (or someone they trust vets the source).
Wikipedia purports to vet the sources for you, actually never does it, and politically hot topics become cornered by nefarious actors, and given the credibility of other articles elsewhere on the same "online encyclopedia" they manage to convince normies of the most absurd stuff.
btw no it's insane to claim the process is transparent when you don't know the actual name, profession and career of contributors.
you don't know what that pseudonym guy that edited that page does for a living, who pays him, what his agenda is, so you don't know anything about the process involved in determining how the page is written.
the same is true for pseudonyms on Twitter and elsewhere ofc. but there, people know very clearly they can and will be biased, nefarious actors.
that can still report true stuff though.
when I linked here the tweet about wiki being investigated I checked that it was actually happening, and that's it, after that the pseudonym "wikibias" credibility is irrelevant for that specific topic, and I didn't use that handle opinion or narrative from elsewhere to inform me.
so there was no incoherence at all, in the slightest, nor irony of any sort, in using twitter as a source to be informed that wiki was investigated for propaganda potentially incompatible with it's tax exempt status.
to check what genotypes of rosemary plants there are, yes.
also to check who first invented some stuff, or how many parsec away is a certain solar system from ours.
if you believe that Wikipedia is a good source for present day controversial politically hot topics I have several bridges to sell to you
Who is using Wikipedia to find information about politically hot topics? Not me, but I am curious - could you give me an example of an entry that has incorrect information?
it's infinitely better to have partisan information on for profit platform, as that gives you the proper approach to judge it: always be skeptical, always presume bad faith motive in the agent giving you information.what's infinitely more dangerous is to have a source that is purportedly fair and unbiased, because of purported non-profit, tax exempt status and purported good in
Except that no one seems to do this part. I don't think the average person using Twitter/X believes that most of the posts they read are from biased sources, or considers it much different from Wikipedia. If they want to believe what is being said, they consider the poster to be a brilliant source, and if they don't want to believe what is being said, they consider the source to be biased and inaccurate.
And again, nearly all non-profits engage in propaganda.
Who is using Wikipedia to find information about politically hot topics? Not me, but I am curious - could you give me an example of an entry that has incorrect information?
latest time i checked a wiki on a politically hot topic it was about project 2025 and it was obscenely written filled with false and misleading informations.
That was when the democratic party decided to attempt to push that to gain votes during the campaign.
Looking at it right now it seems much more "balanced" , with narrow claims about the content and the people behind the project, but that wasn't the case at all when it was politically hot at the beginning.
Before that i once or twice checked some stuff about israel/palestine just to see if victor claims were accepted at face value by wiki editors (you know the constant barrage of exagerations against the IDF and so on). I am talking controversial episodes where some people get killed and the victor side claims it's cold blood murder by the IDF of civilians and so on.
They routinely allowed pro-hamas sources to be used as "sources" and linked on wiki lol. Not sure if they still do as i said it's not like my life is about monitoring wiki in detail.
///
As for who uses it, where do you think a normie would go to check claims about, say, wheter it's true or not that Sweden has one of the highest rape statistics in the world?
[...]
As for who uses it, where do you think a normie would go to check claims about, say, wheter it's true or not that Sweden has one of the highest rape statistics in the world?
They could check... I don't know... Wikipedia?
"Sweden has had the highest number of registered rape offences in Europe by a considerable extent."
"A frequently cited source when comparing Swedish rape statistics internationally is the regularly published report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). In 2012, according to the report by UNODC, Sweden was quoted as having 66.5 cases of reported rapes per 100,000 population,[36] based on official statistics by Brå. This is the highest number of reported rape of any nation in the report. "
From:
--
Other than that, the countries with the most rape in the world are pretty much guaranteed to also be the countries with the lowest or no rape statistics.
Maybe one day you can be bothered to grasp why.
They could check... I don't know... Wikipedia? "Sweden has had the highest number of registered rape offences in Europe by a considerable extent.""A frequently cited source when comparing Swedish rape statistics internationally is the regularly published report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). In 2012, according to the report by UNODC, Sweden was quoted
Yes exactly, they will check wikipedia. Which means that when/if the topic becomes politically hot/controversial (as it was in the past when rightwing accounts pushed that to prove immigration was disastrous for european countries) the page will be filled with propaganda.
as for your subsequent non sequitur, I wrote "highest rape statistics" for a reason.
I'm sure he'll deal with the commies at Wikipedia after he's sorted out this (totally non-Facist) attack on the 'Lügenpresse'.
President Donald Trump has said pollsters that have shown his approval ratings sliding in recent weeks should be investigated for "election fraud."
Trump cited recent polls from The New York Times, ABC News/The Washington Post, and Fox News, which put his approval rating on 42 percent, 39 percent, and 44 percent respectively.
Responding to the polls, Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday: "They are negative criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I win elections big, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse."
I'm sure he'll deal with the commies at Wikipedia after he's sorted out this (totally non-Facist) attack on the 'Lügenpresse'.
Ok i see that he is still in the denial phase about the people not liking his tariffs.
I think that will change when more rightwing pollsters will publish worsening approval rates
Yes exactly, they will check wikipedia. Which means that when/if the topic becomes politically hot/controversial (as it was in the past when rightwing accounts pushed that to prove immigration was disastrous for european countries) the page will be filled with propaganda.
So when you say a person can't find something on Wikipedia, and I show that he can indeed find it on Wikipedia and provide both quotes and links, you still double down and conclude that this is exactly why Wikipedia is wrong.
This is less about the dangers of Wikipedia, and more about the dangers of making Twitter part of your personality.
latest time i checked a wiki on a politically hot topic it was about project 2025 and it was obscenely written filled with false and misleading informations.That was when the democratic party decided to attempt to push that to gain votes during the campaign.Looking at it right now it seems much more "balanced" , with narrow claims about the content and the people behind the pro
Giving something that has been changed as an example of something you don't like doesn't help your case - it shows the opposite, that biased things get fixed.
I would imagine most people wanting to check something like that would use Google to search, then open whatever article seems most appropriate.
I read things on Wikipedia every day, but I never search for anything there.
So when you say a person can't find something on Wikipedia, and I show that he can indeed find it on Wikipedia and provide both quotes and links, you still double down and conclude that this is exactly why Wikipedia is wrong.
This is less about the dangers of Wikipedia, and more about the dangers of making Twitter part of your personality.
He was answering my question, and not very well, but he didn't say (or imply) either of these things, and I'm having a very tough time figuring out how you could have misunderstood his posts so completely.
I've met a few people IRL who liked to say some variation of "lol wikipedia, it's so unreliable, anyone can edit it", and without exception, these people were all idiots (for unrelated reasons).
I've met a few people IRL who liked to say some variation of "lol wikipedia, it's so unreliable, anyone can edit it", and without exception, these people were all idiots (for unrelated reasons).
It's generally a good idea to check the sources on a point you're interested in, because quite often they don't say what the Wiki editor says they say, or they do but they're of dubious quality.
Imagine being such a massive prick you don't wear a black suit to a funeral.
Cockwomble couldn't even manage a black tie.
So when you say a person can't find something on Wikipedia, and I show that he can indeed find it on Wikipedia and provide both quotes and links, you still double down and conclude that this is exactly why Wikipedia is wrong.
This is less about the dangers of Wikipedia, and more about the dangers of making Twitter part of your personality.
uh? i didn't say they can't find sweden rape statistics on wikipedia. I was answering chillrob about who uses wikipedia for politically hot topics. He thought people wouldn't use it.
I mentioned a previous politically hot topic that i expect people to check on wikipedia. Keep in mind the politically hot part is that it's mostly immigrants (including second generation) raping in sweden.
This part, which looks balanced now (and horrifying for people who want to deny immigrants rape exceptionally more than actual swedish people with swedish ancestors)
/
Birthplace of perpetrators
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
2013–2018 birthplace of rapists convicted in Sweden. Total 843.[32]
In 1994, of the 314 men arrested for rape, 79% were born in Europe, 21% were born outside of Europe; 50% were foreigners.[33]
In 2018, Swedish Television investigative journalism show Uppdrag Granskning analysed the total of 843 district court cases from the five preceding years and found that 58% of all convicted of rape and attempted rape had a foreign background.[23][32] 40% were immigrants born in the Middle East and Africa, with young men from Afghanistan numbering 45 standing out as being the next most common country of birth after Sweden. When only analysing rape assault (Swedish: överfallsvåldtäkt) cases, that is cases where perpetrator and victim were not previously acquainted, 97 out of 129 (75%) were born outside Europe, with 40 percent of these having been in Sweden for a year or less.[32] The Mission Investigation programme, broadcast by SVT, said that the total number of offenders over five years was 843. Of those, 197 were from the Middle East and North Africa, with 45 coming from Afghanistan, and 134 from Southern Africa.[32] "We are very clear in the programme that it is a small percentage of the people coming from abroad who are convicted of rape," chief editor Ulf Johansson told the BBC News. Former policeman Mustafa Panshiri, who was born in Afghanistan, said that Afghan immigrants bring with them attitudes towards women and sexuality which collide with Swedish values concerning equality.[32][23] Swedish Television's investigating journalists found that in cases where the victims didn't know the attackers, the proportion of foreign-born sex offenders was more than 80%.[23]
In 2021, a study found that of 3039 offenders aged 15–60 convicted of raping over 18 years of age in the 2000–2015 period, 59.2% had an immigrant background and 47.7% were born outside Sweden.
/
wasn't like this at all when it was politically hot as a topic.
Today the topic is not politically hot (ie not discussed violently and rabidly daily on social media) so the wiki page isn't filled with propaganda (like the denial of the objective fact that immigrants rape exceptionally more than actual swedish people, in Sweden).
I am not sure you were following the conversation. And i don't understand what twitter has to do with this.
Imagine being such a massive prick you don't wear a black suit to a funeral.
Cockwomble couldn't even manage a black tie.
Terrible
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(698x279:700x281)/prince-william-pop-francis-funeral-042825-1-8e925213f82a4b8eab2b6c76ba7bbdd7.jpg)
He was answering my question, and not very well, but he didn't say (or imply) either of these things, and I'm having a very tough time figuring out how you could have misunderstood his posts so completely.
Start with complete bad faith posting by them every time they interact with me, with them having solely the intention to "catch me" in some mistake in their mind, and you will figure it out. It happens daily
Giving something that has been changed as an example of something you don't like doesn't help your case - it shows the opposite, that biased things get fixed.
I would imagine most people wanting to check something like that would use Google to search, then open whatever article seems most appropriate.
I read things on Wikipedia every day, but I never search for anything there.
Think more deeply about the bold, and think of how nefarious a source can be if it ends up "correcting the mistakes" but only when the topic is out of the headlines.
Imagine having a "trusted source" that regularly carries propaganda in the heat of the moment when normies actually care about the topic to understand what is being talked about, and then has a revision much later, when only nerds who care about the topic structurally will check the source, and the normies have been biased by the previous exposure and won't go back to re-check ever.
It's like having headlines with a lie, and page 20 "errata corrige" 2 weeks later as a newspaper, except for most relevant politically hot information as a feature and not a bug.
Imagine being such a massive prick you don't wear a black suit to a funeral.
Cockwomble couldn't even manage a black tie.
People really care about this?
Trump is a massive prick, but not because what he wore to a funeral. IMO, none of these politicians should have even been there at all,
Think more deeply about the bold, and think of how nefarious a source can be if it ends up "correcting the mistakes" but only when the topic is out of the headlines. Imagine having a "trusted source" that regularly carries propaganda in the heat of the moment when normies actually care about the topic to understand what is being talked about, and then has a revision much later,
OK, well I can't judge that kind of thing without seeing it at the time it's a hot topic.
But even if that is happening, I think it's silly to complain that Wiki is "allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.”
Wikipedia allows anyone to manipulate information there (in the very short run), and it's meant for use by anyone in the world, not just Americans, so no one is a "foreign actor". And you can't expect every piece of misinformation to be corrected immediately, that would be impossible with this model. Wikipedia is not a newspaper which is responsible for its content.
I completely disagree with you regarding Wikipedia when compared with Twitter / Facebook, etc. I think it's worse when a for profit company contains biased or completely wrong information about something. Those companies can make money by deliberately propagating misinformation, giving them an important reason they might want to spread lies. A site like Wikipedia certainly can include misinformation, and it's possible that the owners could be deliberately giving it. But I doubt this is true for Wikipedia, and even if it were true, at least a non-profit has one fewer motive for wanting to spread disinformation.
And it almost goes without saying that the Trump regime is not a fair judge of what should be considered to be "misinformation", as they spread more actual misinformation than any other entity in the world. If Wikipedia is punished for having misinformation on their site, I hope they keep the same model but just move their operations to a more civilized jurisdiction.
People really care about this?
Trump is a massive prick, but not because what he wore to a funeral. IMO, none of these politicians should have even been there at all,
Social media was abuzz with that yes.
Btw the pope is a head of state that's why head of states go to his funerals, there is nothing strange in that
Social media was abuzz with that yes.
Btw the pope is a head of state that's why head of states go to his funerals, there is nothing strange in that
I guess I should have asked about "intelligent" people. Though I don't need an answer to that question.
I don't think there is anything unusual about world leaders going to the pope's funeral, just that they shouldn't be there IMO.
Of course I think funerals are one of the most ridiculous rituals. I haven't been to one in about 35 years, and I don't plan to attend any in the future.
It really pisses me off when I am expected to slow down or stop to let a funeral party pass by me, and I've cut into the middle of one before. If there's one thing which there is no hurry to get done, it's a funeral. Anything being done for a the benefit of a living person is far more important.
I guess I should have asked about "intelligent" people. Though I don't need an answer to that question.I don't think there is anything unusual about world leaders going to the pope's funeral, just that they shouldn't be there IMO.Of course I think funerals are one of the most ridiculous rituals. I haven't been to one in about 35 years, and I don't plan to attend any in the fu
This is the chill robiest take I've seen in a bit.
