Still can’t get my damn my mind around the “fact” that this shit is disputed
Quick update: the discussion page is even worse, libs try to completely remove the Neo Nazi part of it and label this as “russian propaganda”, it already worked in the German version of the article and you can’t even change it back, to protect the page from “vandalism”
At this point I feel that the entire unit can line up and do the nazi salute on camera and some twitter checkmarks will start explaining how they’re actually just reclaiming the historical roman salute and it’s not in any way related to neo-nazism.
At the same time they’ll claim the use of swastikas and other symbols “aren’t fascist, those symbols were co-opted by the nazis!!11”
They are simply enthusiastic about historical symbols. The fact that all the symbols they are using just happen to have also used by the nazis is merely a crazy coincidence and does not mean that wholesome Azov are nazis.
will start explaining how they’re actually just reclaiming the historical roman salute
You’re giving me flashbacks to watching some “Russian nationalist” on TV explain how his org’s salute was totally not a sieg heil, you guys! Quote: “The palm goes from the chest and upwards - from the heart to God!”
One judge in Poland actually really said in the sentence that the sieg heiling of archetypical skinhead neonazi was “roman salute” and therefore ok.
Case in point. Thank you
Or they’ll say that these are actually Russians or paid actors (basically “ruSSian” propaganda)
Philosophically speaking, yes, one could dispute that anything exists
maybe Ukraine isn’t real
What if it was all a dream…
<span style=“font-size:6px”><small>🎵</small> I used to read… something something magazine <small>🎵</small><br>yeah, I know about The Rap. how do you do, fellow kids</span>
<span style=“font-size:400%”>CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?<br>I COULDN’T HEAR YOU</span>
<span style=“font-size:50%”>thank you for reminding me tags work here, I will abuse this everywhere now</span>
<center style=“background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 64px”>sorry, I forgot what I said!! my memory has been getting worse lately and it’s frankly rather irritating. for example, just the other day, I was going to the store and I forgot my</center>
We got nerfed
Yes, and I pray every day for CSS to return
@dessalines@lemmy.ml why have you forsaken us
Its been going back and forth like crazy since february
Wikipedia is compromised but not because everyone there believes it, the feds just have too many people pushing their side of the story.
Wow that must be a recent revision. I don’t remember that being there before.
Wikipedia is better than most people give it credit for. To end the opinionated hits on major articles, they opt for going the route of what the most reputable media outlets say.
I know I know, most reputable media outlets is an oxymoron, but it moves the burden of proof off any editor. Then you have the beautiful, thousand page forum threads where people discuss the reputability of an outlet - if an outlet posts BS and anyone points it out, they get knocked way down. You can see all that happening here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
(and I mean way down- if you ever see a “reputable” outlet on that list posting nonsense, you could singlehandedly hurt their reputation by calling it out in this section)
So to summarize - Wikipedia is surprisingly good at this. Don’t be too harsh on them, they have a system that works and gives the opportunity to really punish patently false information.
Don’t be too harsh on them, they have a system that works and gives the opportunity to really punish patently false information.
In principle, yes. In practice, not so much. Just read the article “Holodomor genocide question”, and you see an example of falsehood. The article is supposedly “neutral”, but they very clearly tend towards the idea that it is a genocide.
For instance, when they mention the “genocide” camp, they do not contest their arguments. However, when they mention, for instance, Davies and Wheatcroft, which are against the genocide thesis, it has a paragraph from another author arguing why they are wrong. The genocide camp also mentions Payaslian, which is an author whose work was focused on producing encyclopedias, and they have never studied the Soviet famine.
Usually political articles are biased towards imperialist and anti-communist propaganda
They’re hit and miss. Very much so, and in a way that pushes an overarching liberal bias in many parts of the site. It’s a tough job and the site deserves some credit, but there are many places it fails at atrociously and blatantly. One example is them accepting unreputable and heavily biased sources and denying more relevant ones as ‘untrusted’.
Consider the whole ‘mass killings under capitalism’ debacle, and how someone is abusing the ‘not to be confused with’ feature in the mass killings communism pages to push bias, instead of using the See Also feature like practically every other article on the entire site. If someone found fix that (proxy user by necessity), it would be great.
Wikipedia is a media tool by the bourgeois to push their propaganda.There have even been cases of governments paying editors to produce more favorable edits to their respective country or controversial topic of choice.
I saw someone on Reddit try to accuse leftists of being brainwashed by propaganda, and as their source, they cited Wikipedia, a site known to have CIA editors.
Some other absolutely stupid person just responded to me saying that fascists told them Wikipedia couldn’t be trusted because it had Jewish editors, and somehow decided it makes total sense to equate that to my distrust of the CIA.
How surprising, how could a Free™ media platform can be shaped entirely by the most economically powerful? I wonder… maybe abstract freedom is a bourgeois concept that was forged to justify their domination???
Disputed because people who know for a fact that they’re Neo-Nazis now have to contend with high level propaganda that says they’re not.
That wasn’t there when I looked a couple of weeks ago. Click on the discussion page, there’s a bit of sanity and a bit of insanity. No surprise to those who know about the site. There’s some people trying to push the article to say they’re ‘formerly’, and some trying to push it out entirely, and then people pointing out that there aren’t any sources being given about their alleged reforming as they became part of the national guard. Then there’s a massive list of sources about how they are unambiguously neo-nazi / with neo-nazi elements.
In a meta-post-modern world, we all choose our own facts.
/s
