482
Comments (32)
sorted by:
33
NoviceChovice 33 points ago +33 / -0

Damn. A wikipedia page that says they didn't do it. ROCK SOLID defense!

9
bigdickhangsright 9 points ago +9 / -0

Judge: do you have anything to say in your defense?

Dominion: Yes. (pulls up Wikipedia page)

25
streakybacon 25 points ago +25 / -0

Wtf did Q have to do with it?

29
QuestGiver [S] 29 points ago +29 / -0

Literally nothing. If they slap a spooky sounding label on there it scares the normies I guess.

19
DaveMastor 19 points ago +19 / -0

Ah yes, a conspiracy "theory" from a sitting US President and his 70m+ supporters.

6
bigdickhangsright 6 points ago +6 / -0

Even when you extensively prove it they still refer to it as a theory but when Salon writes a retarded hitpiece it is officially debunked.

4
NoviceChovice 4 points ago +4 / -0

80 m+*

17
Lord_Yeezus 17 points ago +17 / -0

I have really taken a new appreciation for printed media the last 4 years. You can’t rewrite a book that’s already been printed and published. But any fucking moron with a leftist ideology is suddenly the sole editor in chief of any wiki article of their choosing. Very sad!

5
AngryAsian 5 points ago +5 / -0

Some dumb, perpetually butthurt black cunt got the Merriam Webster dictionary to change the definition of racism to fit the leftist definition...so I wouldn't be so sure about printed media not being compromised

2
Lord_Yeezus 2 points ago +2 / -0

They can’t change the dictionary i already own.

2
AngryAsian 2 points ago +2 / -0

What happens when every other dictionary changes though? Just look at what happened with trannies, all of a sudden it went from a mental disorder known as gender dysphoria (explaining the high suicide rate) to let's transition children!

2
Lord_Yeezus 2 points ago +2 / -0

You’re missing my point.

Today I could read something on the internet and it would say one thing, and tomorrow it could say something different that is contradictory.

The same can’t happen to a book on my shelf.

1
AngryAsian 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, I got your point, I'm just pointing out that shifting definitions are an issue because of how these people work. At some point, you have to just say, you're an idiot, that's not the definition of the word, and if you want to change it, you can go fuck yourself.

11
yuugecrowds 11 points ago +12 / -1

Debooonked

5
acasper 5 points ago +5 / -0

Pack it up pedes. We’ve been outclassed.

8
10
MagaMattyIc3 10 points ago +10 / -0

It’s like they live in a cave together and when they come out of said cave they look at the sun and run back in because “ugh big ball of fire bad”. It’s a fucking cult.

5
m0r1arty 5 points ago +5 / -0

She does seem to consider herself knowledgeable in areas where she is not.

6
Ascervasc 6 points ago +6 / -0

Wikipedia is very biased and leans left heavily. Also look up George Soros donating $2 million to Wikimedia. So many lefty editors and what not on Wikipedia that anything regarding politics is full of lies and half-truths. Avoid it as a source for information regarding such topics unless your prepared to deal with that bull crap.

2
Hodiaa 2 points ago +2 / -0

there is a reason why all the professors tells you to not cite wikipedia as a source

1
Trump4WorldPresident 1 point ago +1 / -0

and the leftist bias is not it. Come think of it it's not like the average professor isn't a communist

1
Hodiaa 1 point ago +1 / -0

even the commies know wikipedia is a cesspool of trolls and biased editors, especially when it comes to history and politics

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
Noserotonin 5 points ago +5 / -0

That edit reads like it was written by a 9th-grader. I love how they added hyperlinks to give it an added air of authority, probably because their primary sources are shit.

5
verycute 5 points ago +5 / -0

wikipedia has always had little pockets of ferociously defended lies. The lies are increasing; eventually they are going to just become a joke.

3
pepe_sanchez 3 points ago +3 / -0

I like how Qanon has become the bigfoot sticker the left tries to slap on everything they want to debunk. Discredit via association, it's the oldest trick in the book.

Take any valuable data that counters MSM, compare the people studying it to bigfoot believers, suddenly people are scared to discuss it. No one wants to be labeled. If that doesn't work, burn a few cities in the name of social justice

3
Chuckwagon642000 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wikipedia is fiction on all political pages.

3
MeatloafFvck 3 points ago +3 / -0

Q never mentioned Dominion once

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
genghiskern 2 points ago +2 / -0

Did the CEO make the edit?

2
AllTheWayTrump 2 points ago +2 / -0

LOL

1
RaTSC 1 point ago +1 / -0

But your people are on the CISA board that released the claim it was all on the up and up.