Comment Gardian Commie Idea of the day (Score -1, Troll) 42
Another Gaurdian fantasy staff at market economics. Really, who cares. Are they idiots racing to kill copyright laws?
Comment Belgium is just a junky little country (Score 1) 7
Ignore them and let them sue. I wouldn't even respond to them.
Comment Re:The Wales delusion.. (Score 1) 3
https://www.tandfonline.com/do...
ABSTRACT
This essay uncovers the systematic, intentional distortion of Holocaust history on the English-language Wikipedia, the world’s largest encyclopedia. In the last decade, a group of committed Wikipedia editors have been promoting a skewed version of history on Wikipedia, one touted by right-wing Polish nationalists, which whitewashes the role of Polish society in the Holocaust and bolsters stereotypes about Jews. Due to this group’s zealous handiwork, Wikipedia’s articles on the Holocaust in Poland minimize Polish antisemitism, exaggerate the Poles’ role in saving Jews, insinuate that most Jews supported Communism and conspired with Communists to betray Poles (ydokomuna or Judeo–Bolshevism), blame Jews for their own persecution, and inflate Jewish collaboration with the Nazis. To explain how distortionist editors have succeeded in imposing this narrative, despite the efforts of opposing editors to correct it, we employ an innovative methodology. We examine 25 public-facing Wikipedia articles and nearly 300 of Wikipedia’s back pages, including talk pages, noticeboards, and arbitration cases. We complement these with interviews of editors in the field and statistical data gleaned through Wikipedia’s tool suites. This essay contributes to the study of Holocaust memory, revealing the digital mechanisms by which ideological zeal, prejudice, and bias trump reason and historical accuracy. More broadly, we break new ground in the field of the digital humanities, modelling an in-depth examination of how Wikipedia editors negotiate and manufacture information for the rest of the world to consume.
Comment Dozens of Wikipedia editors colluded on years-long (Score 1) 3
Dozens of Wikipedia editors colluded on years-long anti-Israel campaign, bombshell ADL report claims
https://nypost.com/2025/03/18/...
If you are from a struggling ethnic minority of Jews, don't expect any truth from wikipedia which is flooded with a billion Muslims, many writing weakly peer reviewed papers in academia.
Comment The Wales delusion.. (Score 1) 3
Still, Wales said, the community takes criticisms about adhering to neutral points of view seriously and has a special working committee reviewing its practices. “The neutral point of view is nonnegotiable,” he said.
That quote would be funny if it was being serious
Submission + - Wikipedia and wokism is under attack (msn.com) 3
An anonymous reader writes: https://www.msn.com/en-us/poli...
For many people who have tried to participate in Wikipedia it has been long known to be run by a select few "volunteers" who has a mangle of rules and commitees that make it impossible for regular people, or even professionals in the area of expertise, to make an impact.
This has left it as a tool for select publicity hounds, and an echo chanber for a small segment of deveoped activists (Who Jimmy caled is nice nerds). One thing that will never get into wikipedea is the truth of any contraversal topic, or any comments against a well fundered interest.
At one point, for example, it was decided that every biography had to has a section on with idle speculation of the homosexual proclivities of every and any historical figure. Objecting to a section on Goerge Washington's, William Shaskepears, or King Alfred's sexual preferences would be relentlessly attacked.
And so it goes with many aspects of Wikipedea. Waves of political activism swap its pages.
Now the conservative right is taking aim at the process. They rightfully point out that opinions and interests that hold sway over the project distorts of any real truth. Just compare it to a real encylopedia with professional editors. It is no surprise that we have reached this point. Oversite of Wikipedea is long in coming.
For many people who have tried to participate in Wikipedia it has been long known to be run by a select few "volunteers" who has a mangle of rules and commitees that make it impossible for regular people, or even professionals in the area of expertise, to make an impact.
This has left it as a tool for select publicity hounds, and an echo chanber for a small segment of deveoped activists (Who Jimmy caled is nice nerds). One thing that will never get into wikipedea is the truth of any contraversal topic, or any comments against a well fundered interest.
At one point, for example, it was decided that every biography had to has a section on with idle speculation of the homosexual proclivities of every and any historical figure. Objecting to a section on Goerge Washington's, William Shaskepears, or King Alfred's sexual preferences would be relentlessly attacked.
And so it goes with many aspects of Wikipedea. Waves of political activism swap its pages.
Now the conservative right is taking aim at the process. They rightfully point out that opinions and interests that hold sway over the project distorts of any real truth. Just compare it to a real encylopedia with professional editors. It is no surprise that we have reached this point. Oversite of Wikipedea is long in coming.
Submission + - Wikipedia and wokism isn under attack (msn.com)
MrBrklyn writes: https://www.msn.com/en-us/poli...
For many people who have tried to participate in Wikipedia it has been long known to be run by a select few "volunteers" who has a mangle of rules and commitees that make it impossible for regular people, or even professionals in the area of expertise, to make an impact. This has left is as a tool for publicity hounds, and an echo chanber for a small segment of deveoped activists. One thing that will never get into wikipedea is the truth of any contraversal topic, or any comments against a well fundered interest.
At one point, for example, it was decided that every biography had to has a section on ideal speculation of the homosexualy proclivities of every historical figure. Objecting to a section on Goerge Washington's, William Shaskepears, or King Alfreds sexual preferences would be relentlessly attacked.
And so it goes with many aspects of Wikipedea.
Now the conservative right is taking aim at the process. They rightfully point out that opinions and interests sway over the project and it is a distortion of any real truth.
For many people who have tried to participate in Wikipedia it has been long known to be run by a select few "volunteers" who has a mangle of rules and commitees that make it impossible for regular people, or even professionals in the area of expertise, to make an impact. This has left is as a tool for publicity hounds, and an echo chanber for a small segment of deveoped activists. One thing that will never get into wikipedea is the truth of any contraversal topic, or any comments against a well fundered interest.
At one point, for example, it was decided that every biography had to has a section on ideal speculation of the homosexualy proclivities of every historical figure. Objecting to a section on Goerge Washington's, William Shaskepears, or King Alfreds sexual preferences would be relentlessly attacked.
And so it goes with many aspects of Wikipedea.
Now the conservative right is taking aim at the process. They rightfully point out that opinions and interests sway over the project and it is a distortion of any real truth.
Comment Oye - who would had thought it possible (Score 1) 10
Followed by the NSA, The Egyptians, Ukraine, Sweeden, James Comely, everyone one but Iran because nobody wants to play with Iran.
This article is from an Insurance rag... yet.
Comment You shouldn't run DRM junk on your computer anyway (Score 1, Interesting) 17
You can always depend on the guardian to give you useless news of the class warefare results from last nights match...
It is just what they do. This is not going to help or save online bookstores at all. Except for a few specialty shops, the retail format is a dead letter.
Maybe the Gardian can now report actacly who the "Hamas Health Department" they keep quoting is... like two guys without shoes and green scarfs on their head sworn to kill the infidels?
Comment suckers (Score 2) 61
anyone who buys these streaming services are suckers... and this one is more suckers than usual
Comment You can't sell yourself into slavery (Score 1) 34
You can't sell yourself into slavery and this should be illegal as well
Comment slaveware (Score 1) 29
The technology has been creative to be as addicting, intrusive and abusive as possible. The affects are turning up in our medical journals, politicals and the destruction of our social fabric. they should had been recognized as a public safety threat a long time ago and regulated.
Comment Binary is hard (Score 1) 215
At least they know their gender... or not
Comment Re:We would be more dangerous to it. (Score 1) 90
It's a perfectly symmetric relationship.
Our chirality would be just as dangerous to it, as it is to us.
These organisms sound less dangerous to us (because it's harder for them to digest us) than ones more similar to ourselves (that can eat us)
Bacteria don't kill us by eating us... usually.
Comment Where is the reception (Score 1) 51
It would help if digital over the air TV could pick up reception. In NYC the turn over from Analog signal to digital destroyed rabbit ears...
Slashdot Top Deals
I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil
