4 ms·

On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.

by mansion7 5y ago

gaganyaan 5y ago
Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  They quote opinion pieces as fact.
  - gaganyaan 5y ago
    Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then. Conveniently, you can evaluate their cited sources for yourself.
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      That's what I did, their "sources" are opinions. That's not what "well-sourced" means.
      - gaganyaan 5y ago
        Scrolling around to a random place in the article: > Following the Boudreau incident, Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement after she threatened to sue, which included a nondisclosure agreement.[185] That links to https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html, which seems like a factual account to me. You should consider that facts that you don't like aren't "opinions", they're just facts that you don't like.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        > Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement Settlements doesn't prove anything
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        Settlements prove nothing about the truth of the litigious question. It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. Also the Wikipedia article begins by labeling PV as being "far-right", which is in and of itself an opinion and they proceed to quote opinion pieces. Why do I have to explain this tho? I feel like a high school teacher explaining yet another time to his students why they can't cite Wikipedia.
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        > It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks. Your previous statements are demonstrably incorrect and you've resorted to goalpost-shifting. "oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation, but that fact doesn't mean anything!!" Please consider that facts you don't like aren't "opinion", they're just facts you don't like. For real though, I know I'm repeating myself, but I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer for you to understand.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        Your whole argument is assuming that since some citations are factual and relevant than the others are and that makes the article Okay to cite as a source. Which just on its face is ridiculous. > oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation Don't you think considering "X thinks Y" as a fact is a bit disingenuous? > you've resorted to goalpost-shifting You started quoting Wikipedia as a source, and then shifted the debate about how not problematic it is. I "resorted" to nothing outside of common sense.

On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.

gaganyaan 5y ago

Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then.

TeeMassive 5y ago
They quote opinion pieces as fact.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then. Conveniently, you can evaluate their cited sources for yourself.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    That's what I did, their "sources" are opinions. That's not what "well-sourced" means.
    - gaganyaan 5y ago
      Scrolling around to a random place in the article: > Following the Boudreau incident, Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement after she threatened to sue, which included a nondisclosure agreement.[185] That links to https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html, which seems like a factual account to me. You should consider that facts that you don't like aren't "opinions", they're just facts that you don't like.
      - TeeMassive 5y ago
        > Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement Settlements doesn't prove anything
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        Settlements prove nothing about the truth of the litigious question. It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. Also the Wikipedia article begins by labeling PV as being "far-right", which is in and of itself an opinion and they proceed to quote opinion pieces. Why do I have to explain this tho? I feel like a high school teacher explaining yet another time to his students why they can't cite Wikipedia.
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        > It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks. Your previous statements are demonstrably incorrect and you've resorted to goalpost-shifting. "oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation, but that fact doesn't mean anything!!" Please consider that facts you don't like aren't "opinion", they're just facts you don't like. For real though, I know I'm repeating myself, but I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer for you to understand.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        Your whole argument is assuming that since some citations are factual and relevant than the others are and that makes the article Okay to cite as a source. Which just on its face is ridiculous. > oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation Don't you think considering "X thinks Y" as a fact is a bit disingenuous? > you've resorted to goalpost-shifting You started quoting Wikipedia as a source, and then shifted the debate about how not problematic it is. I "resorted" to nothing outside of common sense.