469
Comments (43)
sorted by:
46
datahog1776 46 points ago +46 / -0

Oh, fuck off. Seriously.

I don't understand why any business which desires to remain neutral is immediately labeled a far-right extremist group. It makes absolutely no sense.

33
ManUp 33 points ago +33 / -0

Of course it makes sense. Our opposition is evil to the core, so they need to project that on their opponents.

21
deleted 21 points ago +21 / -0
8
datahog1776 8 points ago +8 / -0

While I don't support what they are doing as a company overall, that is a surprisingly based position to take.

2
unfiltered 2 points ago +2 / -0

Meaning acting as a crypto exchange? Not sure I follow.

6
mountnblade 6 points ago +6 / -0

Leftism only flourishes in censorship

1
bar_zangi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because when you are as far left as these scum everyone and everything is far to the right

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
35
Formerlurker92 35 points ago +35 / -0

Wikipedia's impartiality died 5 years ago, if it ever had any at all.

More slipped masks, everywhere you look

15
Pede 15 points ago +15 / -0

Remember after the 2016 election Google held that management meeting and they were all crying and saying how they're gonna fight against Trump, and we were kind of shocked that the whole company was in the tank for Hillary? Ah, those were the days.

20
dodgetimes2 20 points ago +20 / -0

Rob Monster is a fucking awesome name. Just sayin.

4
CanadianTrump 4 points ago +4 / -0

yep. You can start a drink company as a sole proprietor "Monster Energy Drinks" and would be good to go

15
Sheprecon31 15 points ago +15 / -0

Lawsuit

11
Libertas_Vel_Mors 11 points ago +12 / -1

You can send a C&D to Wikipedia, and they change it.

3 months later some other shitbird goes in and edits it again, prompting another C&D... and so the cycle goes.

5
Sheprecon31 5 points ago +5 / -0

Insanity big boss Jesus we need to rid of these organisations like yesterday nice 1 pede 👍

3
chambleepede 3 points ago +3 / -0

Uh, that makes your lawsuit stronger. When companies acknowledge something and then ignore it that is much worse.

2
Libertas_Vel_Mors 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yes and no. Point is, the whole system is passive - you have to notify them first. You notify them, they comply. But then, because Wikipedia can be edited by literally anyone on the planet with an Internet connection, you have to keep a vigilant eye on the page to ensure no one else libels you on it.

You can get a subpoena to see what IP addy keeps doing the libel (or just look at the changelogs which are publicly viewable), but someone using a VPN wrecks that option.

...and so we're back to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

2
easyonthefiber 2 points ago +2 / -0

Upvote for linking the fuckwad theory!

“SHITCOCK!”

11
PepePinochet 11 points ago +11 / -0

I edit random articles in Wikipedia and use incorrect information.

3
daneinmaine 3 points ago +3 / -0

Based and subversion-pilled

10
WalkFastGoHome 10 points ago +10 / -0

We need to start publishing outlandish shit so we can get "XXX has reported <insane bullshit>" into articles.

9
Texan1stAmerican2nd 9 points ago +9 / -0

This is why wikipedia isn't a source. I think my school actually started accepting wiki links as sources. We are all doomed if we send our kids to public schools.

6
Libertas_Vel_Mors 6 points ago +7 / -1

The proper attitude is that you should not cite Wikipedia directly, but you are allowed to use the cites it provides on a given page so long as you yourself have fully verified the cites.

A teacher requiring anything less is either lazy or incompetent.

2
chambleepede 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes. Wikipedia is a great place to start for most subjects. Want to know how steel is made or what kind of birds migrate and when? Start there. Want to know what are the top 5 highest mountains? or longest rivers? Again... good information. Does your kid have an assignment on mummies? Go to wikipedia and learn a bit.

The whole "wikipedia isn't a source" is misunderstood by many. No, it isn't a source, it is a great way to get an overview.

Are some articles politicized, sure. But much of it is still solid as a way to learn general information on a subject. Like everything..,. check the references and read original sources if you can.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
3
ff76 3 points ago +3 / -0

if this isnt defamation then..

3
EllemenoP 3 points ago +3 / -0

They have their little commie elves typing on Wikipedia all day long in order to do dumb shit like this - which is why it's not considered a credible source of information by anyone.

3
Josh-Man 3 points ago +3 / -0

No, it isn’t. This is business as usual. The left has professed that they want us permanently silenced. I believe them.

3
FractalSpaceTime 3 points ago +3 / -0

The same happened to Epoch Times, a newspaper founded by Chinese immigrants, mostly followers of Falun Gong religion, who came to the West running from persecution by the Communist Party. For supporting Trump, they were labeled "far-right". One can look up the edit history of the Wikipedia article, the original article does not have any of this vicious slander.

2
Mediumphone 2 points ago +2 / -0

Even if it was far right, then so what? All speech is legal. All speech should be allowed.

2
Xysten 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is open defamation with intent to harm business. I cant imagine a cease and desist order isnt already on the way.

2
Beat_to_Quarters 2 points ago +2 / -0

Really need to start suing these tech companies for libel.

2
DudePlayingaDude 2 points ago +2 / -0

They are prepping the battlefield.

1
OK_Citizen 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jesus. What the fuck is wrong with our country. Everything right of the far-left is now "alt-right" or "far-right" and "neo-nazis."

Can just put an (R) or (D) behind every service or product now so we can know who the fucking avoid? Certainly creates a BIG market for (R) services in tech.

Now I'd rather have a (P) for Patriot Party but you get what I mean.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
SBOJ_JOBS 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, if Vice says so then it must be undebunkable!

1
DeepMind 1 point ago +1 / -0

Let's edit.

3
777777777777 3 points ago +3 / -0

Doesn't work that way. The best example is Stefan Molyneux's Wikipedia page. Type his name into the Google search bar, the description which immediately pops up would make you think you accidently typed Adolf Hitler instead of Stefan Molyneux. He has stated that the page is locked and cannot be modified/edited. He has obviously tried to get it changed and it's simply impossible.

3
DeepMind 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah I just went to this epik wiki and it's locked.

1
Yakhechos 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh shit! If VICE said it, it MUST be true!

1
OK_Citizen 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here's the public profile of the little lefty activist twit who edited it. She also edited the CEO's wiki to match. Along with Gab and Parler. Also a big contributor to The Satanic Bible entry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare

1
Basehobo 1 point ago +1 / -0

At what point can Wikipedia be sued for defamation?

0
ztrich007 0 points ago +1 / -1

We need an alternative to wikipedia and their bullshit anti-Americanism. Please pedes tell me we have something already