Democrats are editing Wikipedia in order to downplay the importance of the mathematical law the Biden campaign broke while cheating
(media.patriots.win)
🚔 PARTY OF CRIME 🚔
posted ago by JG_Wentworth
+4066 / -0
Comments (111)
sorted by:
1984 level shit. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.
Information warfare. Double plus good.
INFOWARS.COM
Look up what happened to the 86 wikipedia entry after whitmer's 86 45 debacle
Or the Webster's dictionary when Hirono said that sexual preference was offensive.
Wikipedia is a part of our ministry of truth.
You sound like an antiscience racist Please enroll in a 4 year university with a degree in africa studies for penence
New title for my save folder: 1984
LOL
Fellow AC shit poster I see
Why does anyone use wiki. Its shit you know it is.
Is it no longer open for anyone to edit? I haven’t been on fhere in a while. Used to be you could go on and fix stuff that was changed.
Similar thing to reddit. They gave a lot more power to leftist moderators.
You can edit articles as long as you agree with the leftist moderators. Otherwise they ban you.
Wiki is bullshit. My own company's wiki page got edited by, we suppose, a competitor, who put some half-true bullshit on our page about a product regarding an initial study that had some negative connotations to it. Of course they left out information about the follow-up study that disproved everything in the initial study and vindicated us. It's been years and we still can't get our own page fixed because wiki refuses to correct it or look at the evidence.
It is, but leftists are ruthless about changing things to their benefit and then defending their changes to the death with "yOu nEed tO geT cOnsEnSus bEfoRe yOu caN cHanGe tHat".
Any one can, but do you have time to monitor it 24/7 cause the left does. The rest of us have jobs or businesses.
ᴿᵃᶦᵈ. ᴾᵃˢˢ ᶦᵗ ᵒⁿ.
Once they removed their neutral point of view policy and began to get funding from Hillary Clinton and Soros-funded groups, Wikipedia turned into leftist garbage.
shrug Should've donated to keep it open source.
*Salty conservatives acting like you didn't do this to yourself. "Why is nothing free speech centric!" "Why are they all taking lefty money?"
Because no one wants to buy their knowledge anymore
It’s pretty good for a lot of basic sciency things, but I wouldn’t use it for much more than that in any serious way
I assure you no court would permit Wikipedia as a valid source of evidence for a mathematical theory. We are OK here.
Ya dude it’s curated by blue hairs on disability, dilating and seething relentlessly
That's not really the point. It's about undermining public trust and belief in the lawsuits. If Joe SickPack can go to wiki and see the information for himself then that gives him a 'huh, maybe the msm lied' moment.
They are attacking from every angle.
Leftists read 1984 and think: "Hum... not so bad actually."
I'm kidding, they don't read.
Had a leftist friend recommend some fantasy trilogy he read to me the other day and I was like wow can’t find it on Amazon for less than $40 bucks a book can I borrow yours and he’s like oh I just listened in audible. These bitches don’t read shit
They’re grown up but still remain children. They throw tantrums.
40 year old gay guy that graduated high school a year ahead of me posts anti-Trump stuff all day every day, like seriously at least 5 posts daily. Sometimes I jump on correct him or point out the hypocrisy if it's something he forgot about historically (like ACB not being experienced enough to be on SCOTUS... but his faggot ass forgot about Kagen having never even been a fucking JUDGE when Obongo nominated her... stuff like that). He won't shut the fuck up and apparently lives on FuckFace. You'd think Biden won and the Dems took the House, Senate, SCOTUS, and all state legislatures the way he's been thinking "good triumphed over evil". And yes he lives in fucking Los Angeles/ Hollywood.
Except Harry Potter
Trump is like voldemort! Buzzfeed told me!
Trump is Kingsley Shacklebolt!
"Working undercover within the Ministry, he fed the Order with information, and misdirected the Ministry's efforts to locate Sirius Black by saying he was spotted in Tibet. Forced into running away following the fall of the Ministry to Lord Voldemort in 1997, Kingsley continued to oppose the new regime. In 1998, he fought in the Battle of Hogwarts, and was finally named Acting Minister for Magic in the aftermath. When he was eventually officially confirmed in the position of Minister for Magic, he worked hard to change the Ministry. They eventually succeeded in greatly reducing the corruption and bias within the organisation. By 2019, Kingsley was succeeded as Minister for Magic by Hermione."
It was 1984
They thought it was an instruction manual.
😂🤣😁
I searched benfords law on YouTube to learn about it. It gave me a top news story paragraph at top saying Biden is going to immediately undo everything trump has done through executive action. Not sure what their goal is of that article in relation to the mathematical law but they know people are looking at it in relation to the election for sure.
FUCKING LOL, I JUST TRIED IT. They're so goddamn desperate
FUN FACT: Only in recent years was the label "far right" added to the Wikipedia entry for "Fascism". Go through the edit history for a good ol mind blowing! People used to be rational and balanced, can you believe it?
Anyone who uses "problematic" in an unironic manner should go for a helicopter tour.
“Problematic” is a red flag. Only commies use that word. Then they took it one step further and added the “al”. Only pseudo intellectuals do shit like make up words with other smart sounding words
Problematical? Good lord could they make it any more obvious?
Deleting election night coverage and now changing information regarding fraud. Yeah this is totally innocent guys.
Any time I see the term problematic I know there’s leftist fuckery going on.
Yeah, it can be misleading. With small data sets.
So it might not work...in one district, ONE state. But when you look in all districts, and also compare multiple states?
Yeah, it becomes pretty valid.
"Guys, 4, 5, and 6 seem less suspicious, right?" Human nature.
There are all sorts of agencies and countries that use it specifically for elections to zero in on where the fraud happened.
It depends on the span of magnitudes. If the dataset is relatively homogenous then yea it wont work. But you can clearly see from the other candidates' distributions that the law should apply
Absolutely.
The graphs are convincing but what I don't understand is why are low numbers more likely than high numbers, and creating that downward curve of probability? Why aren't all numbers equally likely?
If I'm understanding correctly, the data used is the number of ballots counted for a candidate and reported in each dump, right?
The number read is the first digit so it doesn't need to be a "low number" just a low first digit.
The reason has to do with how numbers scale. It's hard to give a great understanding in a short period but if a data sets potential range crosses over the threshold of having an extra digit (e.g. the range of possibilities is 50 -150) then all this possibilities that fall into that range with the extra digit will start with a 1. So in that example range half of the possible answers will start with the number "1".
This won't work with all datasets because sometime the potential range of data doesn't even include numbers starting with one. If you found that a machine cut something between 55 - 65 mm in length for instance then looking at the first digit wouldn't tell you anything.
Good explanation. Also can be looked at in terms of relative change:
900 + 25% = 1125 (9 becomes 1)
100 + 25% = 125 (1 stays 1)
When the range isn't enough for the first digit, there's a second digit test. The average of second digits should be 4.187. Milaukee is 4.3 for Biden and Trump so idk if that means anything. I just did it really quick and didn't double check, but it looks close enough unfortunately.
Because it's about the frequency distribution of LEADING digits. In real data ONE will be a common leading digit. Because you have the ones, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. all starting with "one". The frequency comes down in a nice curve because smaller numbers are just more likely to happen as the leading digit than larger numbers in sets of data.
lol. the desperation.
They're the only side that uses problematic that they have all their derivations for that word. It makes sense to them🤡🌍
They're all going to be mixed together at 3200fps at their current trajectory
Just like the Soviet Union. What a coincidence.
They want the USA to become the USSA.
"hey guys, lawyers only use wikipedia right?"
lmao "Wikipedia" lol
Stalin wished he had a wikipedia.
Propaganda machine is out in full force
"problematical"
lol, thats how you know a loony leftist made that edit.
This is so pathetic and desperate. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and instead of pulling their hand out they are trying to grab every cookie in plain view.
Voter ID, destroying commie big tech, finishing the wall, and bringing as much manufacturing home as possible sound like top term 2 goals to me.
Wikipedia. LOL.
I was looking at this last night. In fact this was edited in on October 22, shortly before the election. There was a back and forth battle adding-removing-adding-removing-adding and on and on. Like 30 or so swaps from Nov 5-7
facepalm these people can’t even organize a coup successfully and they think they should run our country? GTFO
They will show up in court and do common core math and we will use real math and immutable laws there within. Just saying.
"Problematical"
Yep definitely written by a leftist that's their favorite word...
The party of "science" calling math "problematical." How cute
They must think we're really stupid.
This is fake news you guys.
The wording was first added in 2011, and then quickly settled on its current wording.
There's an archive from 2016 that confirms it was already there.
Someone from our side deleted it first. This is gonna make us look bad if we accuse the other side of being the ones who started it.
Keep in mind though, this wording was added in regards to Iranian election fraud. So it could still be someone shilling about it. The shilling just happened initially in 2011, not 2020.
This, but no one's gonna listen. They've worked themselves into a frenzy about WE CAUGHT EM RED HANDED HAHA STUPID LIBTARDS.
No no no Biden ballot bitches. We will never be tired of winning
Party of deception.
They’re so confident they didn’t commit fraud that they have the MSM and big tech editing and trying to change the narrative. That means they definitely didn’t do it!
They're using that one article that was then immediately disputed by someone else on the same website, I think.
Wikipedia is maybe the dumbest invention the internet has ever created.
Worse than TikTok even.
Creepy.
It's been reverted.
I noticed this as well on thursday night. And not only articles about certain topics, but the ‘edits’ were scrubbed too.
So, how does Benford's law apply to the vote count? I am having trouble understanding the connection.
Put it all on the talk page.
Otherwise get creative and make an alias page.
I can't wait to be executed for being "problematic."
Every fucking time.
and this is exactly what makes wikipedia an unreliable source for information. why would anyone donate money to keep them online?
They also changed the definition of "President-elect".
https://thedonald.win/p/11PpU5Ctn6/they-changed-the-definition-of-p/c/
It’s actually well known that Benfords Law does not apply to elections - This is known as Biden’s Law /s
Mathematician here, there are credible challenges to Benfords law being applied here. It may or may not be evidence of fraud - but the critical point is that the Benfords law violations are at worst, suggestive of professional investigation, and at best, court permissible evidence of fraud.
Wait really? Source on the indictments? There's one other paper on it from Georgetown but I don't think it has any citations. Been to busy to go through the technicals on any of em
Benford is not a proof of fraud but an indicator of data that falls outside of the normal range of statistical probabilities warranting further investigation. Where's that smoke coming from?