• DrElementary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wiki is a circlejerk of people who have gotten their digital power and want to play pretend that they’re doing something important, something that has gravitas. So they’ll have a “discussion” for a week on whether the first president convicted of 34 felonies is a “significant” fact. This is what brain dead “neutrality” looks like.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not like they’re arguing over something emergent like pulling a drowning man to shore or something though. And it’s a better system than the closed encyclopedias where the facts are whatever the company determines. So while it sucks that we have to have a discussion to tell the trump supporters they can’t censor Wikipedia (again) it’s better than the alternatives.

      • Iamdanno@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s right about arguing whether it is significant fact or not. It is absolutely a significant fact.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Of course it is. The point here is the process itself protects that neutrality. You can’t skip it just because it’s obvious to 2/3rds of us.