Daft_ish@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world · 1 year agoThey use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust.message-squaremessage-square331fedilinkarrow-up11.2Karrow-down1122
arrow-up11.08Karrow-down1message-squareThey use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust.Daft_ish@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world · 1 year agomessage-square331fedilink
minus-squareNuXCOM_90Percentlinkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down2·1 year agoGood point. I forgot to mention that Wikipedia editors, for all their flaws, are really good at shutting down hateful right wing bullshit.
minus-squareintensely_human@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down4·1 year agoSo you’d categorize it as hateful right wing bullshit if someone mentions that there as violence or criminal activity at BLM protests? Why would that be hateful? Or right wing? Or anything other than just a description of what happened?
minus-squareHonytawklinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·1 year agoYou can have violence at a largely peaceful protest, as long as it is … largely peaceful. Which they were, the majority ended peacefully and only a handful were violent. So what Wikipedia did was state the facts. You can disagree with those facts, but you would be wrong.
Good point. I forgot to mention that Wikipedia editors, for all their flaws, are really good at shutting down hateful right wing bullshit.
So you’d categorize it as hateful right wing bullshit if someone mentions that there as violence or criminal activity at BLM protests?
Why would that be hateful? Or right wing? Or anything other than just a description of what happened?
Exactly
You can have violence at a largely peaceful protest, as long as it is … largely peaceful.
Which they were, the majority ended peacefully and only a handful were violent.
So what Wikipedia did was state the facts. You can disagree with those facts, but you would be wrong.