3 ms·

I can't see it on Wikipedia. Do you have a link?

• numlock86 6y ago
  While I think it's complete bogus, I will respect the author's demand of staying pseudonymous and not post a direct link. But check the history of a certain article if you really need to look it up.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • Dylan16807 6y ago
    Going through the history of an article counts as digging, and saying that's "on Wikipedia" is pretty misleading.
    • antientropic 6y ago
      Isn't "digging" exactly what a good journalist is supposed to do?
      • FeepingCreature 6y ago
        Journalism is not digging for the sake of digging, it's digging for the sake of a story. Revealing Scott's name is not for the sake of a story, it's for the sake of enabling harassment.
    • numlock86 6y ago
      By your definition getting anything from a git repository that's not the main branch is digging and saying "it's on git" to a specific branch or tag would be misleading. The article history of any article is literally available with just one click on Wikipedia. Well, make that two to show a specific version. Getting to the article itself takes more clicks and key presses than that ... so reading Wikipedia at all counts as digging already?
      • Dylan16807 6y ago
        Surely you know that's a strawman. You can do better.
        • numlock86 6y ago
          How is it a strawman? The whole concept of Wikipedia revolves around versioning.