Not everything on Wikipedia is factual, but enough of it is factual to be inconvenient to those on the right who use misinformation as a tool.
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
339 points (98.0% liked)
Wikipedia
3913 readers
136 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
- On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This. Facts are inconvenient to some people.
They have a left wing bias
To this day Wikipedia is the only source of information that keeps an equal distance to every major power in the world. Everyone else usually has a soft spot because they have some major donor that is affiliated to someone that is affiliated to an organisation that commits atrocities. That in itself is unique and hence why I am annual donor and anyone who has the economic means should be too. Unfortunately that is the only way we can have a shackle free source of information in this fucked up world.
not everything
...but nearly everything. It's pretty rare not to be, and you should fix it if you see it.
Of all organizations out there, I dare say hat wikipedia has one the best tools in place to try and be as factual as possible while at the same time being open.
Because of that, there are very few sources left that i trust as much as wikipedia
I agree. The community of editors take factual information very seriously and it creates an environment where misinformation is shunned and won't last very long before being taken down or replaced. It's a very good system and makes it very trustworthy.
I'm keeping this post up because it's relevant to the community, and I enjoy tear-down pieces about how Musk is a hack and everything he touches turns to shit.
(Look up how starlink ruined earth-based astronomy, if you need some additional anger today.)
It’s somewhat ironic that ancient humans had a more intimate and closer relationship with the night sky, despite how much more modern humans know about the universe.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Weird how the 'free speech(tm)' people seem to be very upset about speech such that they're buying or harrassing every single media outlet in existence.
Reality tends to make them upset. Information and knowledge are their enemies
Well, for starters, it's not the Right kind of freeze peach.
They only know the phrase "free speech" but not how the first amendment actually defines it.
...hey it's just like "socialism" , or reading the bible
They only care about hate speech and the ability to spread misinformation promoted by oligarchs/think tanks
The campaign seems almost comically inept. There are valid criticisms of wikipedia to be made, but the idea that it's full of left-wing propaganda is just so ridiculous that it's hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously. But then I felt the same way about a certain politician's recent election campaign. I guess it's the good old "big lie" tactic in action.
load more comments
(22 replies)
Conservatism really does have bad takes on everything.
I think now's the time to throw some of those millions of dollars in donation money around.
Good point. But then, if the project loses credibility, no amount of money will be enough to buy it back. Or to pay the editors who have fled. Credibility is priceless for a project with a mission as ambitious as establishing the truth. It's a dangerous situation.
So this is digital book burning?
Yes.
I’m not sure if it really is news?
They already made a conservapedia where they give their best positions for all their arguments. Their propaganda has been in full swing for some time no?
Donald John Trump, Ph.D.[2] (b. Queens, New York, on June 14, 1946), nicknamed "The Donald," is an American Republican patriot, statesman, and jobs-creator who, after a storied career as a businessman and media personality, served as the 45th President of the United States of America, after winning the 2016 presidential election, and now serves as the 47th President following his victory in the 2024 presidential election.
From conservapedia
I'm still not convinced conservapedia isn't an elaborate parody site.
It's not about them being able to tell their truth, It's really about them being mad that we can tell ours. (Ie you know the actual truth)
It's the tragedy of the commons. However, there are solutions to the tragedy of the commons, but for the solutions to work, we need to hold each other accountable. If we don't rein in these out of control, egomaniac billionaires, we will succumb to tragedy. No longer can we celebrate, indulge, or even tolerate the actions of people like Musk. There must be accountability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Commons_in_historical_reality
Wikipedia also recently asked AI companies to start using its paid API instead of scraping it, which would be management of its own commons, but that seems unlikely that anti-Wikipedia Musk projects would spend money on the very thing that it’s trying to destroy.
Anyway, I’m just agreeing with you.
can we stop lazy posting not that many more clicks and not that much more typing needed to get sources and or supporting links posted
OK but it wasn't lazy, it was intentional (see post text). Personally I'm not comfortable promoting free-for-all sharing in the case of professional journalism, which is needed in democracy and comes at a cost. Especially since the source in question uses a metered paywall, i.e. it should be free for drive-by readers. Anyway, off-topic debate.
view more: next ›