Message from @Senny
Discord ID: 469024506359578644
Or even stuff that you yourself have found
Like video evidence
The Gamer Gate people here tend to have lots of complaints about Wikipedia. Evidently they got hit hard.
yea
literally anything that's false but can be supported by 'reliable' media will get on wikipedia no problem
@Deleted User
I can sorta see it, but I'm not sure I see how it is that different in principle from wikipedia if it's just general news.
It's also going to get brigaded hard.
If it was limited to something specific like misleading media narratives and had controls or something to keep from bleeding, I could see it.
not finding any issues here
Something like that for a fact checking site might work
But not for articles i feel
It's usually subtle. Missing Scandals on some politicians. Who gets linked to whom. Inclusion of speculation without denoting it as speculation.
Then there's sometimes really blatant examples.
Still centrist baybee https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=45.7&d=42.6&g=57.3&s=60.1
https://archive.fo/YzkIS
versus
https://archive.fo/JJBgx
Around 2015 or so when people like Haidt and Peterson started pointing to certain marxist academics as the intellectual source of the recent social justice madness.
ah I see.. Shivangi is for half genocide
Yes
Lol centrist is either you have both left and right wing opinions or you don't know shit about politics
Though I don't like some of the questions
@ExceptionalFeather
See comment 5 above.
To elaborate a bit. The cultural Marxism as an intellectual source derives from some very specific names: Foucalt being a key figure (who is widely cited in the humanities). Separating speech that "liberates" from speech that "oppresses"
Why can't I find the page on wikipedia
Is it removed?
Mostly, it seems they moved it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
The basic structure follows the latter version.
Let me put it this way, how much of wikipedia would you say is reliable?
Most of the STEM stuff is pretty good
Historical events are pretty well documented
The politics section is a mess
The entertainment section is pretty good
Actually make that 85%
@ExceptionalFeather everything that is easily verified. Or where people wouldn't have clear agendas Like most of physics (the controversial stuff is mostly so high-level wikipedia isn't appropriate to start with)
Anything in Math is another good example.
Most of Geography up until you enter stuff like politics.
It's when you move into stuff like politics or some businesses that things get more sketchy.
On politics would an encyclopedia be better?
Yeah tbh
Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer.
Wiki killed most of the good encyclopedias I know of.
Or made them subscription.
Oooh imagine this
An encyclopedia website about political figures and ideologies