6 ms·

Boarded according to: https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1859132263746744367 https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1859132263746744367

bananapub 2y ago
worth noting that twitter account is not the most trustworthy or independent.
- hersko 2y ago
  What have they posted that was wrong?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegr%C3%A1d_24#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegr%C3%A1d_24#Content details a number of cases.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      It would be useful to have a site that logs all plausible issues of this kind, at arm's length from Wikipedia editors. Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" type of thing.
      - squigz 2y ago
        Why would that not be prone to the same issue you think Wikipedia faces?
        mistermann 2y ago
        Superior methodology (transcending numerous cultural / psychological / cognitive norms and obligations) is how I would go about it. For example: banning the conflation of opinion and fact, like what's going on (and always goes on) in this thread, a behavior that is protected (doing otherwise "is not what this site is for"). If an imperfection is noted: log it, investigate, improve. Rinse, repeat. Also: best prepare one's will, life insurance, etc before undertaking such a project.
        zelphirkalt 2y ago
        Maybe it would not, but putting all your eggs in one basket has never been a good idea either.
        squigz 2y ago
        I don't think that's what we're doing, considering Wikipedia points to other 'baskets' as sources.
      - LikesPwsh 2y ago
        If that list became popular it would be weaponised by military intelligence.
    - wslh 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
lukan 2y ago
Not confirmed by any mainstream newspaper. The danish forces only confirm, that they are there, but nothing more.
- usr1106 2y ago
  20 hours later they are cited that they cannot board without China's approval. Legally uncharted grounds whether they could or could not. Looks they take the cautious side for the time being.

bananapub 2y ago

worth noting that twitter account is not the most trustworthy or independent.

hersko 2y ago
What have they posted that was wrong?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegr%C3%A1d_24#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegr%C3%A1d_24#Content details a number of cases.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    It would be useful to have a site that logs all plausible issues of this kind, at arm's length from Wikipedia editors. Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" type of thing.
    - squigz 2y ago
      Why would that not be prone to the same issue you think Wikipedia faces?
      - mistermann 2y ago
        Superior methodology (transcending numerous cultural / psychological / cognitive norms and obligations) is how I would go about it. For example: banning the conflation of opinion and fact, like what's going on (and always goes on) in this thread, a behavior that is protected (doing otherwise "is not what this site is for"). If an imperfection is noted: log it, investigate, improve. Rinse, repeat. Also: best prepare one's will, life insurance, etc before undertaking such a project.
      - zelphirkalt 2y ago
        Maybe it would not, but putting all your eggs in one basket has never been a good idea either.
        squigz 2y ago
        I don't think that's what we're doing, considering Wikipedia points to other 'baskets' as sources.
    - LikesPwsh 2y ago
      If that list became popular it would be weaponised by military intelligence.
  - wslh 2y ago
    [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

lukan 2y ago

Not confirmed by any mainstream newspaper. The danish forces only confirm, that they are there, but nothing more.

usr1106 2y ago
20 hours later they are cited that they cannot board without China's approval. Legally uncharted grounds whether they could or could not. Looks they take the cautious side for the time being.