Re:English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
by hot_gril on Monday November 06, 2023 @06:23PM
(#38170694)
If I see "racist undercurrents" brought up as reasoning, the argument is instantly worthless to me. And yes, this article does read like an argument, which is unusual for Wikipedia.
Re:English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
by CamperBob2 on Monday November 06, 2023 @06:10PM
(#38170530)
I think what they're saying, though, is that constructive dialogue is impossible on this topic, making it a poor fit for Wikipedia regardless of one's personal opinions and beliefs on the subject.
Which, until the Chinese decide to be more forthcoming with the world, is likely true. We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk.
Re:English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
by nvm0n2 on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @03:58AM
(#38174687)
Of course it's possible, there are more heated and controversial topics than this one out there and Wikipedia tries to cover them all. But due to its wiki workflow Wikipedia never tried to stop the most maniacal editors from dominating its content through sheer bloody mindedness.
> We can't know, and we won't know, because they won't talk.
So no crime can ever be solved unless the criminal admits guilt? We do accept that things can be proven about events without the perp admitting directly they did it, and COVID's origins as a genetic engineering experiment gone wrong have long ago passed the threshold of all reasonable doubt.
Re:English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
by ckoerner on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @01:38PM
(#38180907)
Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to write an article. If the majority of sources were to claim X came from Y, then yes, but without that, we can't state it as fact.
Those terms were frequently used to shut down discussion when the Quebec government made the decision to prohibit certain public employees from displaying religious symbols a few years ago.