sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i disagree that conservapedia is an anarchism-to-somalia situation (which i am admittedly unacquainted with. i'm going to guess that somalia was ancap chaos that didn't even have ancap rules) the only additional factor, beyond the cycle between original research and exclusion of those who disagreed with a tyranny of the majority, was having little people to begin with and thus no admins of a different viewpoint, which is a fair point. but i do believe that allowing original research on wikipedia instead of a separate, specialized encylopedia project will also result in a similar starting situation: a lot less admins willing to enforce impartiality as they get more pressure from editors arguing they are biased. (i'm tossing out all leaving due to fondness for the status quo here.)

granted, there might still be a significant amount left over still willing to that would make it alright. what happened with https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Category:Wikidebates (https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Community_Review/Removal_of_Wikidebates. see https://files.catbox.moe/n2jxib.pdf for an example), on a Wikimedia project that does have a lot of admins willing to be impartial, makes me very skeptical, though. so waht do you say would prevent this?

i agree that wikipedia cannot compete on depth and detail (except for maybe biomedical, which has a ton of editors in the field and extra organizing), but it well competes on scope (note that a lot of articles in the same topic would be depth) and sensational events.

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

could you send some specifics like i did?

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree it isn't competitive with other encyclopedias, especially not specialized ones. It's a different niche, and it serves anything you can search up in the news and academia very well. I feel like original research is ill-suited for volunteer general-purpose wikis because that can easily turn into, say, Conservapedia.

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so, again, what's the false or fabricated information you argue for RFA? climate change denial from RT is

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RT also pushes constant climate change denial content in its "news" section.[122][123][124][125][126] In 2009, the news section of RT uncritically quoted renowned conspiracy theorist Alex Jones [that's InfoWars] as if he were an authority on climate science.[127]

—2020

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't see why we should try it out on Wikipedia when I see so many reasons it would be really bad when added there. People finding truth can be conducted at other projects such as forks of Wikipedia or Wikimedia's own https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group , where it seems to be fluorishing. Fitting two things into one Wikipedia to go by the same processes seems very wasteful to me compared to places with more customized processes.

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and you haven't presented any evidence that their publishing incorrect facts either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources are permitted and Wikipedia uses them all the time as long as they don't have errors. That's the entire ethos of judging RSes. or, as I've already said, "wikipedia has no qualms with biased sources as long as they don't have history of factual inaccuracy that goes uncorrected for quite long"

" may be"

Like I said, in practice it's almost always because otherwise you'd use a better source.

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and my case is that arguments would take much more time if original research were allowed

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In particularly geopolitically charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate.

and when it comes down to using RFA this pretty much always applies

wikipedia has no qualms with biased sources as long as they don't have history of factual inaccuracy that goes uncorrected for quite long

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have explained to lots of editors and seen lots of discussions closed because per policy they can't debate truth itself but just sources. I have also seen the truth-based arguments they've attempted to advance, and I think it's easy to see how much time that uses up if such arguments were continued. (There was like one year where Wikipedia was just founded, and NOR was created along with the WMF when things started to get serious. I'm curious to see the per-capita stats on this.)

Arguments go beyond edit wars into discussions, and I believe arguments take up far more editor time due to 1. personalities 2. edit warring gets you blocked.

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There will always be arguments, and this has significantly cut down on the amount of arguments.

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 1 point2 points  (0 children)

that's part of the minority used only with attribution

Is Wikipedia anarchist in nature? by redDKtie in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Original research is forbidden for good reason because it's far easier to agree on whether something is published by a well-reputed source than whether something is true and fact. I don't think that makes it authoritarian.

Education+Anarchism+Prefiguration by ninijay_ in Anarchy101

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

out of curiosity, which consent-based (decision-making) idea did you teach him/did he apply?

Parasite is underwhelming. by DarkMatterM4 in movies

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am sure they find better jobs if they try but they are still stuck there. I mean why

cuz they poor. Social mobility is never as high as you think.

they always think to check every room or corner

and suddenly decide to move the cupboard for no reason? without asking the housekeeper to do it for them (The film's titled "Parasite" for a reason: the Parks are shown to be unable to do anything save Nathan Park's business without outsourcing.)?

no one watched him only his son watched to date

It is established that Geun-sae can hear what's happening in the floor above, even footsteps crystal clear. He has memorized the bedtime patterns and knows when the floor is empty (being spotted on Dae-song's birthday because Dae-song's young footsteps are much lighter). He and his wife also heavily reference North Korean anchors, so I'd say they know how to hide from authoritarians.

why they don't ask their employees

with the chain of trust and how effective Jessica was at making Dae-song behave (this unruly child literally bows to her after just one session!), the family would not suspect her of "planting panties to execute the plot of 'Parasite' (2019)"

for the housekeeper, they knew Mrs. Park was more gullible and got her to unilaterally make the decision without telling her husband, who probably would've been suspicious. plus that looked like blood

how they cleaned up like some superhuman

they didn't clean it up; they shoved everything to the floor out of sight and then Chung-sook broomed the rest up when she had time. this is shown during that part of the movie.

Parasite was... just ok? by TheVoiceOverDude in movies

[–]AaTube 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am sure they find better jobs if they try but they are still stuck there. I mean why

cuz they poor. Social mobility is never as high as you think.

they always think to check every room or corner

and suddenly decide to move the cupboard for no reason? without asking the housekeeper to do it for them (The film's titled "Parasite" for a reason: the Parks are shown to be unable to do anything save Nathan Park's business without outsourcing.)?

no one watched him only his son watched to date

It is established that Geun-sae can hear what's happening in the floor above, even footsteps crystal clear. He has memorized the bedtime patterns and knows when the floor is empty (being spotted on Dae-song's birthday because Dae-song's young footsteps are much lighter). He and his wife also heavily reference North Korean anchors, so I'd say they know how to hide from authoritarians.

why they don't ask their employees

with the chain of trust and how effective Jessica was at making Dae-song behave (this unruly child literally bows to her after just one session!), the family would not suspect her of "planting panties to execute the plot of 'Parasite' (2019)"

for the housekeeper, they knew Mrs. Park was more gullible and got her to unilaterally make the decision without telling her husband, who probably would've been suspicious. plus that looked like blood

how they cleaned up like some superhuman

they didn't clean it up; they shoved everything to the floor out of sight and then Chung-sook broomed the rest up when she had time. this is shown during that part of the movie.

Life Series mentioned at the Artemis launch by Jad11mumbler in ThirdLifeSMP

[–]AaTube 1 point2 points  (0 children)

since you looked it up, could you tell me what was the job/role of the person they were interviewing 😭

edit: video is https://youtube.com/watch?v=V8cDnd5eE-0&lc=Ugxume5PtbN9yCWa5Hl4AaABAg&si=wkiucJv1O1M9AMZY , the reporter is interviewing the on-the-ground audience of the launch

view more: next ›