Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations
Technology
122
Beiträge
50
Kommentatoren
125
Aufrufe
-
Falun Gong is a Chinese qigong discipline involving meditation and a moral philosophy rooted in Buddhist tradition. The practice rose to popularity in the 1990s in China, and by 1998, Chinese government sources estimated that as many as 70 million people had taken up the practice.[42][43] Perceiving that Falun Gong was a potential threat to the Party's authority and ideology, Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin initiated a nationwide campaign to eradicate the group in July 1999.[44]
The above paragraph is from the page, and it is claiming truth.
So you're just lying, you never actually wanted evidence, you were just trying to waste peoples time by asking them to provide it even when you will just ignore it and lie when they provide it.
More to the point, they don't have pages for other false claims that just "about the accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations, not a page claiming to the truth". There's nothing like this for Pizzagate or Birtherism.
Did you copy and paste the wrong quote? That doesn't say anything about organ harvesting.
Also
-
Yessir, i do believe that the information on Wikipedia resembles the truth a lot more than anything that comes from lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml or hexbear.net. And you know why? Because Wikipedia gives me sources i can read up and decide myself if that's bullshit or not, and those sources are not some bizarre substack ramblings or youtube videos with 150 views. And also because Wikipedia leaves politics aside as good as they can - if your perception of reality has anything to with what the world at large has agreed on, but there i lost ya, didn't i?
Yessir, i do believe that the information on Wikipedia resembles the truth a lot more than anything that comes from lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml or hexbear.net.
Yes, I do: because it confirms the things you already believed
Because Wikipedia gives me sources i can read up and decide myself if that’s bullshit or not
And do you? Do you read all those books from Anne Applebaum and similar right wing pundits? Do you read all the reports from far right think tanks like Australian Strategic Policy Institute? Do you read claims of not just the publications, but the save individual people, who have consistently repeated every verified lie to come out of the US state department, from WMDS in Iraq to babies in ovens in Gaza? How exactly are you "deciding for yourself" if that's bullshit?
And also because Wikipedia leaves politics aside as good as they can
They really don't. Not that it's even possible to "leave politics aside" when talking about things that are political. Thinking they do is basically admition that you consider your politics "the default".
if your perception of reality has anything to with what the world at large has agreed on, but there i lost ya, didn’t i?
You really want to commit the argument "it's true because it agrees with the average political position of westerners?" (because by "the world at large", you, naturally, where only talking about westerners.)
-
Did you copy and paste the wrong quote? That doesn't say anything about organ harvesting.
Also
Did you copy and paste the wrong quote? That doesn’t say anything about organ harvesting.
You're really just going to play dumb on purpose? Why? What does that accomplish?
Calls it a conspiricy theory, not "accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theoriesThese both literally state that the claims are false in their openings
You have literally just shown my point because you couldn't be bothered to read past the headline.
-
This guy is a troll and he's going to keep asking questions as long as people keep answering them.
I'm just going to block him and move on; got no time to suffer fools like this any more.
Man, you people really loath anyone who doesn't just shut up and agree.
-
Someone is mad their sources got removed for not being credible.
What a shock that someone who pretends to be an anarchist would go to bat to defend the reliablity of far right western propaganda outlets like Radio Free Asia, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Remember, if it doesn't' have the Western Neo-liberal seal of approval, it's not credible and should be removed, that's the anarchist way!
-
How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?
Subject matter experts do still exist. They're dying off, and it's unclear how many more we intend to create. But we do still have some.
You can't be a subject matter expert on everything though?
-
Yessir, i do believe that the information on Wikipedia resembles the truth a lot more than anything that comes from lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml or hexbear.net.
Yes, I do: because it confirms the things you already believed
Because Wikipedia gives me sources i can read up and decide myself if that’s bullshit or not
And do you? Do you read all those books from Anne Applebaum and similar right wing pundits? Do you read all the reports from far right think tanks like Australian Strategic Policy Institute? Do you read claims of not just the publications, but the save individual people, who have consistently repeated every verified lie to come out of the US state department, from WMDS in Iraq to babies in ovens in Gaza? How exactly are you "deciding for yourself" if that's bullshit?
And also because Wikipedia leaves politics aside as good as they can
They really don't. Not that it's even possible to "leave politics aside" when talking about things that are political. Thinking they do is basically admition that you consider your politics "the default".
if your perception of reality has anything to with what the world at large has agreed on, but there i lost ya, didn’t i?
You really want to commit the argument "it's true because it agrees with the average political position of westerners?" (because by "the world at large", you, naturally, where only talking about westerners.)
To all of your points: i look at current behavior.
I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it.
Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.
I also do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the CCP is messing with their citizens, because they do the same every time it's
-time on Weibo.And i didn't need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think "i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already" and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i'm not debating you, i'm laughing at your impotence lol
-
To all of your points: i look at current behavior.
I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it.
Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.
I also do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the CCP is messing with their citizens, because they do the same every time it's
-time on Weibo.And i didn't need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think "i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already" and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i'm not debating you, i'm laughing at your impotence lol
To all of your points: i look at current behavior.
I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it.
Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.So by your own admition, you just base it on how much it agrees with your preexisting beliefs. Though I notice you still seem willing to believe US sources despite them being an autocracy.
And apparently literally any accusation against China is true by definition? Do you not believe it is possible for anything about China to be a lie? Do you also believe they deliberately released covid? Because the sources that Wikipedia uses do
And i didn’t need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think “i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already” and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i’m not debating you, i’m laughing at your impotence lol
It was like, 6 sentences man, are you remotely capable of not acting like a pouting baby? This kind of Pavlovian attack response to having your beliefs challenged is no different than the average MAGA chud.
-
To all of your points: i look at current behavior.
I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it.
Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.So by your own admition, you just base it on how much it agrees with your preexisting beliefs. Though I notice you still seem willing to believe US sources despite them being an autocracy.
And apparently literally any accusation against China is true by definition? Do you not believe it is possible for anything about China to be a lie? Do you also believe they deliberately released covid? Because the sources that Wikipedia uses do
And i didn’t need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think “i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already” and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i’m not debating you, i’m laughing at your impotence lol
It was like, 6 sentences man, are you remotely capable of not acting like a pouting baby? This kind of Pavlovian attack response to having your beliefs challenged is no different than the average MAGA chud.
you know what else screams Pavlov? the average length of .ml users responses
-
Either LLM or quality trolling
-
you know what else screams Pavlov? the average length of .ml users responses
Did that even make sense in your head?
-
To all of your points: i look at current behavior.
I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that the US are currently an autocracy, because they behave like it.
Similarly, I do not need Wikipedia to tell me that Russia is currently fighting an war of aggression, just like the last few wars they started, and we all know how the russian soldiers behave when on tour.So by your own admition, you just base it on how much it agrees with your preexisting beliefs. Though I notice you still seem willing to believe US sources despite them being an autocracy.
And apparently literally any accusation against China is true by definition? Do you not believe it is possible for anything about China to be a lie? Do you also believe they deliberately released covid? Because the sources that Wikipedia uses do
And i didn’t need Wikipedia to tell me to look at the wall of text you posted - which i only squinted at - or to think “i will not read that drivel, i fell for that trap too often already” and to tell you to stop wasting your breath, i’m not debating you, i’m laughing at your impotence lol
It was like, 6 sentences man, are you remotely capable of not acting like a pouting baby? This kind of Pavlovian attack response to having your beliefs challenged is no different than the average MAGA chud.
If you check sources like you count that will finally explain this whole exchange. Your reply literally covers an entire screen. If you can't even admit to something so tiny, how can anyone expect you to be reasonable and admit to anything? This is a .ml discussion in a nutshell. And then you wonder why people are tired of talking to you. Lmao.
-
If you check sources like you count that will finally explain this whole exchange. Your reply literally covers an entire screen. If you can't even admit to something so tiny, how can anyone expect you to be reasonable and admit to anything? This is a .ml discussion in a nutshell. And then you wonder why people are tired of talking to you. Lmao.
How bad has literacy gotten that that seems like a lot of text to you? My count was about right, by the way. And if you actually read it, the point was that I actually do check sources, unlike the rest of you.
-
How bad has literacy gotten that that seems like a lot of text to you? My count was about right, by the way. And if you actually read it, the point was that I actually do check sources, unlike the rest of you.
See what I mean? Ad hominems instead of just admitting anything. Keep insisting there's only 6 sentences there, that'll make it true. It definitely helped China some.
-
See what I mean? Ad hominems instead of just admitting anything. Keep insisting there's only 6 sentences there, that'll make it true. It definitely helped China some.
Mate, you were the one who started in with the "ad-hominems" (actually you just mean insults, but are too much of a redditer to just say that).
You can keep whining that reading a few hundred words is too much for you, but writing just as many words removed about it isnt
-
Mate, you were the one who started in with the "ad-hominems" (actually you just mean insults, but are too much of a redditer to just say that).
You can keep whining that reading a few hundred words is too much for you, but writing just as many words removed about it isnt
Yeah, keep going, this is entertaining, go full mask off. Do you have a channel called pirate software by any chance? You remind me of that dude.
-
This post did not contain any content.
& this cannot be abused by Admins with agendas ?
-
& this cannot be abused by Admins with agendas ?
Wiki deletions move articles to an archived status. You can appeal.
-
How are you able to determine matters of fact by pure critical thinking? Are you really claiming that you are immune to lies?
For research I put trust in peer review articles by reputable journals.
Great! I wish Wikipedia was held to that standard, rather than regularly using tabloids, think tanks, and literal propaganda outlets.
I'm genuinely curious, what are your standards for truth? What are your standards for facts?
Does Wikipedia use tabloids, think tanks, and literal propaganda outlets?
Is there anything that's not factual in Wikipedia that survives their current editing process?
-
How are you able to determine matters of fact by pure critical thinking? Are you really claiming that you are immune to lies?
For research I put trust in peer review articles by reputable journals.
Great! I wish Wikipedia was held to that standard, rather than regularly using tabloids, think tanks, and literal propaganda outlets.
Well none of us are immune to lies, but how is that a problem specific to wikipedia? Isn't that a much larger issue regarding humanity and our media ecosystem?
If you click on either of those wikipedia pages I sent to you, what citations do you believe are lies or used incorrectly ?
