Wiki About To Be Thumped By The DOJ

[AlexBailey]

Especially when the checker is a leftist with instructions to fail them.

You have no idea how fact checking works.

 

[Rightguide]

If I want to know the atomic weight of selenium or something simply factual like that, I go to Wikipedia.

If the question is politically controversial, I go to RationalWiki.

Where the institutional bias among its editors is a matter of cultural inheritance.

 

[Politruk]

Especially when the checker is a leftist with instructions to fail them.

Instructions from whom? What leftists can you identify in the organization?

 

[Politruk]

Where the institutional bias among its editors is a matter of cultural inheritance.

In RationalWiki's case, the cultural inheritance is the Enlightenment.

Diderot's Encyclopedie was openly biased -- anti-clerical, etc. -- but (in terms of knowledge available at the time) never wrong.

 

[Rightguide]

You have no idea how fact checking works.

The left has its own facts, curated to fit the narrative. That’s why you’re always running on empty when you try to advance them to educated people.

 

[Politruk]

Politruk's worldview is shaped by rigid, often dogmatic ideology. The truth is irrelevant to him; what matters is whether the narrative fits his branded ideology. If the facts don't align with the party line, they get twisted, ignored, or conveniently omitted.

The only organization I belong to that might be said to have a party line is the DSA -- and I usually do not know what its party line is.

 

[Politruk]

The left has its own facts, curated to fit the narrative. That’s why you’re always running on empty when you try to advance them to educated people.

Not a group that includes you.

 

[AlexBailey]

The left has its own facts, curated to fit the narrative. That’s why you’re always running on empty when you try to advance them to educated people.

Lolz

I’ve fact checked you many times. Most of the time it’s easy. Here’s how it works:

You post your bullshit take on some right wing ‘news’ source that is usually just another right wing shill’s opinions and analysis of some actual study or factual reporting. I check the source information and find that the shill propagandist you have quoted has misrepresented the ‘facts’ in the original source they based their article on.

It’s not me having and pushing a contrary opinion, it’s about following your sources to discover that you are spinning facts (lying) to fit your political narrative.

Luckily for you most people who share your opinions don’t care about objective truth any more than you do.

 

[Rightguide]

In RationalWiki's case, the cultural inheritance is the Enlightenment.

Diderot's Encyclopedie was openly biased -- anti-clerical, etc. -- but (in terms of knowledge available at the time) never wrong.

Their cultural inheritance is a leftwing bias reinforced by the convenient excuse of "knowledge available at the time." There is a systemic inheritance of bias that is deeply embedded within the fabric of the institution. We could call it a Forge of Narratives. It’s a place where facts are no longer fixed, but fluid, where the truth bends to the will of those who shape it. It’s a place where the truth is made, remade, and sometimes, even forgotten entirely. It is an online doctrinal edifice of the Left.

 

[Politruk]

Their cultural inheritance is a leftwing bias

Not at RationalWiki, it isn't. See what they have to say about Communism.

 

[AlexBailey]

Their cultural inheritance is a leftwing bias reinforced by the convenient excuse of "knowledge available at the time." There is a systemic inheritance of bias that is deeply embedded within the fabric of the institution. We could call it a Forge of Narratives. It’s a place where facts are no longer fixed, but fluid, where the truth bends to the will of those who shape it. It’s a place where the truth is made, remade, and sometimes, even forgotten entirely. It is an online doctrinal edifice of the Left.

See my post above that lines out how this is your regular MO. And of course like the spin machine you’re part of, you accuse the left of something you are actively doing.

 

[Politruk]

It’s a place where facts are no longer fixed, but fluid, where the truth bends to the will of those who shape it.

You will never until the day you die find an error of fact on RationalWiki.

Nor on Wikipedia, either.

 

[Rightguide]

Lolz

I’ve fact checked you many times. Most of the time it’s easy.

You haven't fact-checked me with any real substance. Instead, you've offered up whimsical interpretations of reality, hoping we'll accept them as truth. But those of us who’ve actually been educated, who can read and comprehend, see through them.

 

[Rightguide]

You will never until the day you die find an error of fact on RationalWiki.

Nor on Wikipedia, either.

I've done that many times in the past.

 

[Politruk]

I've done that many times in the past.

Never yet. Not once.

 

[AlexBailey]

You haven't fact-checked me with any real substance. Instead, you've offered up whimsical interpretations of reality, hoping we'll accept them as truth. But those of us who’ve actually been educated, who can read and comprehend, see through them.

Again, you failed to comprehend. I have fact checked you where you are literally lying about your source material. I don’t even have to find the true facts. It’s just obvious that you aren’t basing what you’re saying on any facts… not even the facts in your own source material.

So yeah, I’m fact checking you based on your lack of real substance

 

[ll74]

I've done that many times in the past.

Show us

 

[Bn2f]

The left has its own facts…

Otherwise known as fact.
The left is factual.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's not that, but that conservative edits are rejected and the editors removed from Wikipedia

I'm friends with a conservative Sci-Fi author who has had his bio altered by left-wing Wikipedia editors and his corrections are instantly removed.

I'm presuming you're claiming spiritual kinship with John Scalzi, an above-average Sci-fi writer but pretty much a human scumbag. He was "anti-censorship" but got Amazon to remove parodies of his work (clear 1st Amendment violation) and then doubled down with writing a "humorous" letter purporting to be from a rapist to his congressman. (This was "disappeared" by the RWCJ, but teh internet archive is forever)

There is a single unique restriction in Wikipedia: a "person of interest" (i.e. famous enough to have their own wikipedia entry) is NOT permitted to edit his/her own biography.

This happened to Stephen King once, he got dinged for correcting an error of fact in his wikipedia profile and it was deleted (even though he had "first hand knowledge" of the issue). He then wrote a letter to a friendly publication, inserted the exact same verbiage into wikipedia that was previously banned, but attributed them to the friendly publication. THAT was accepted.

 

[RobDownSouth]

<snip>

Finally calling out their leftwing propaganda.

Ed Martin is a delusional twit who has delusions of grandeur.
He is the "acting" US attorney for DC.
He is still "acting" because the Trump regime knows he's a world class flake that probably can't pass confirmation in the Republican United States Senate.

His job is supposed to be prioritizing criminal investigations and assigning government attorneys to cases and investigations.

What he actually does, though, is send out threatening letters on a near daily basis to people and institutions who upset his delicate fee-fees.

• He went after AOC for sedition, who laughed in his face. He made even more threats against her. Nothing happened.
• He declared that since Georgetown Law School received federal funds, he'd cut them off unless he was given control over both curriculum and hiring. The Dean of Georgetown Law School told him to get fucked (in legalese) and mentioned he was adding Martin's threatening letter to freshman classes about legal intimidation as a case study.
• He went after the most prestigious medical journal in the world, the New England Journal of Medicine, last week, informing them they were now "officially" under investigation for "failing" to present "opposing arguments" in scientific research papers. Another non-starter.
• And now he's going after Wikipedia.

Heh.

And it's worth noting that you're quoting "JewsFightBack" twitter account, which seems to be yet another one of the propaganda accounts celebrating the Israeli genocidal campaign in Gaza

 

[Politruk]

Congress really ought to pass something to make it impossible for anyone to be an unconfirmed "acting" official for more than a month.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The left Right has its own facts, curated to fit the narrative.

Trump White House offered ‘alternative facts’ on crowd size​

In Kellyanne's own words...."alternate facts"

That’s why you’re always running on empty when you try to advance them to educated people.

30% of MAGA supporters have a continued education past grade 12.

https://sites.uw.edu/magastudy/demographics-group-affinities/

https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...profiles-of-republican-and-democratic-voters/

57% of Democratic supporters have a post secondary degree....

Who's uneducated again?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

They don't need wiki...

https://www.reddit.com/r/DailyShow/comments/1k9bf0k/gematria_what_the_hell_is_she_talking_about

 

[RoryN]

And the Deplorable war on inconvenient truth continues.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I'm presuming you're claiming spiritual kinship with John Scalzi, an above-average Sci-fi writer but pretty much a human scumbag. He was "anti-censorship" but got Amazon to remove parodies of his work (clear 1st Amendment violation) and then doubled down with writing a "humorous" letter purporting to be from a rapist to his congressman. (This was "disappeared" by the RWCJ, but teh internet archive is forever)

There is a single unique restriction in Wikipedia: a "person of interest" (i.e. famous enough to have their own wikipedia entry) is NOT permitted to edit his/her own biography.

This happened to Stephen King once, he got dinged for correcting an error of fact in his wikipedia profile and it was deleted (even though he had "first hand knowledge" of the issue). He then wrote a letter to a friendly publication, inserted the exact same verbiage into wikipedia that was previously banned, but attributed them to the friendly publication. THAT was accepted.

LOL. Not Scalzi. I hang out more with a couple of the writers from Baen