4 ms·

Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.

by jmclnx 2y ago

myth_drannon 2y ago
[flagged]
- Ar-Curunir 2y ago
  Absolute nonsense. Wikipedia is infinitely better than every source of “facts” out there.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    No, Wikipedia is no better than any other site which allows user edits and in many ways reliably biased towards certain narratives - which narrative depends on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles should always be read in conjunction with the Talk and Edit history pages and even then it is necessary to find original sources for any claims made in Wikipedia articles.
    - efilife 2y ago
      why is this downvoted? You call for verification of the claims wikipedia articles serve to us. Don't people agree we should verify info before accepting it?
- AlienRobot 2y ago
  I have never had a single problem with Wikipedia in 20 years, and I don't believe an alternative exists. All text written on Wikipedia is royalty free and so are most of the images. The meaningfulness of that can't be overstated. Wikipedia is the web's greatest website and a wonder of the world. You can't love the web without loving Wikipedia, so I'm wary of anyone who disrespects it.
  - jimt1234 2y ago
    In my 20-year experience with Wikipedia, I've seen one factual error relating to the Chicago Cubs, something really minor. But yeah, that's it.
Alupis 2y ago
[flagged]
- techpineapple 2y ago
  Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen. But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric.
  - jimt1234 2y ago
    There's always Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com https://www.conservapedia.com
  - nailer 2y ago
    Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience): The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. For example, the September 11 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi objectively happened - few people on the left or right would pretend they did not happen or that were not notable events of Barack Obama’s presidency (as the article discusses). This is not a matter of whether you watch Fox News or not.
    - techpineapple 2y ago
      Oh look! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack They creatively censored it under the title “2012 Banghazi Attack”
      - nailer 2y ago
        The article above that we are discussing discusses the omission of the Benghazi attack as an aspect of Barack Obama‘s presidency.
shmerl 2y ago
Probably: > We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?
BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
[flagged]
gwervc 2y ago
[flagged]
- spamizbad 2y ago
  If you call something gender fluid you lose tax exempt status? Good to know. I just feel that logically this doesn't make any sense. Having the view or even promoting the idea that a mythical creature is "gender fluid" isn't an overt political action. It doesn't help any political party or politician. There are numerous fully-compliant tax-exempt organizations that directly aid LGBTQIA+ individuals. How are these above board but having someone submit content to your organization that claims the Nure-onna might be genderfluid is crossing into the realm of politics by influencing election outcomes?
- miltonlost 2y ago
  Do you have the Japanese folklore monster article? Citation needed please. Because, if the monster can, you know, shift genders, then maybe gender fluid is an accurate term.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  I hope we don't ban Sci-Fi because someone reads all the 'current thing woke infected' 1960s sci-fi where gender switching was super common.
dang 2y ago
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  The shoe in this case (as with numerous others in recent months) fits exceeding well. Reality is shifting, rapidly; HN mod policies should adjust accordingly.
- computerthings 2y ago
  [dead]

Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.

by jmclnx 2y ago

Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.

myth_drannon 2y ago

[flagged]

Ar-Curunir 2y ago
Absolute nonsense. Wikipedia is infinitely better than every source of “facts” out there.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  No, Wikipedia is no better than any other site which allows user edits and in many ways reliably biased towards certain narratives - which narrative depends on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles should always be read in conjunction with the Talk and Edit history pages and even then it is necessary to find original sources for any claims made in Wikipedia articles.
  - efilife 2y ago
    why is this downvoted? You call for verification of the claims wikipedia articles serve to us. Don't people agree we should verify info before accepting it?
AlienRobot 2y ago
I have never had a single problem with Wikipedia in 20 years, and I don't believe an alternative exists. All text written on Wikipedia is royalty free and so are most of the images. The meaningfulness of that can't be overstated. Wikipedia is the web's greatest website and a wonder of the world. You can't love the web without loving Wikipedia, so I'm wary of anyone who disrespects it.
- jimt1234 2y ago
  In my 20-year experience with Wikipedia, I've seen one factual error relating to the Chicago Cubs, something really minor. But yeah, that's it.

Alupis 2y ago

[flagged]

techpineapple 2y ago
Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen. But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric.
- jimt1234 2y ago
  There's always Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com https://www.conservapedia.com
- nailer 2y ago
  Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience): The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. For example, the September 11 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi objectively happened - few people on the left or right would pretend they did not happen or that were not notable events of Barack Obama’s presidency (as the article discusses). This is not a matter of whether you watch Fox News or not.
  - techpineapple 2y ago
    Oh look! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack They creatively censored it under the title “2012 Banghazi Attack”
    - nailer 2y ago
      The article above that we are discussing discusses the omission of the Benghazi attack as an aspect of Barack Obama‘s presidency.

shmerl 2y ago

Probably: > We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?

BoingBoomTschak 2y ago

[flagged]

gwervc 2y ago

[flagged]

spamizbad 2y ago
If you call something gender fluid you lose tax exempt status? Good to know. I just feel that logically this doesn't make any sense. Having the view or even promoting the idea that a mythical creature is "gender fluid" isn't an overt political action. It doesn't help any political party or politician. There are numerous fully-compliant tax-exempt organizations that directly aid LGBTQIA+ individuals. How are these above board but having someone submit content to your organization that claims the Nure-onna might be genderfluid is crossing into the realm of politics by influencing election outcomes?
miltonlost 2y ago
Do you have the Japanese folklore monster article? Citation needed please. Because, if the monster can, you know, shift genders, then maybe gender fluid is an accurate term.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
I hope we don't ban Sci-Fi because someone reads all the 'current thing woke infected' 1960s sci-fi where gender switching was super common.

dang 2y ago

Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

dredmorbius 2y ago
The shoe in this case (as with numerous others in recent months) fits exceeding well. Reality is shifting, rapidly; HN mod policies should adjust accordingly.
computerthings 2y ago
[dead]