this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
7087 readers
1 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It really wasn't.
here's wikipedia's consensus still framing the government's wmd claims as 'assertions' while uncritically repeating them years after the iraqi invasion: https://wayback.qa-archive-it.org/all/20080911173302/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
The foia showed the government had doubts before the invasion -- wikipedia didn't.
Okay..?
Just because wiki says that doesn't mean that was the community consensus, millions of people protested that war. In my country it is still the largest protest in history.
We're not discussing the general public's consensus.
We're discussing Wikipedia's consensus driven decision process and why it makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.
Wikipedia said that there was consensus and anyone w eyes and ears knew that was bullshit -- as you've pointed out -- but people still want to use Wikipedia as a source anyways.
Facts hurt their feelings, that's why they resist wikipedia
Lying is all they have, facts hurt their feelings. That's why they remove comments that disprove their dogmas.
Lying is all Tankies have, facts hurt their feelings.