Talk:Wikipedia

Jytdog is another problem user

Any time he's weighing in at WP:ANI, it's bad news. His usual strategy is to say, "Wow, you really fucked up. You better dig yourself out of this hole by apologizing while you still have the chance."

Then if you apologize, he says, "See, this guy even admits he fucked up. A penalty is warranted; maybe a topic ban." Or, if you don't admit that you fucked up, he says, "This guy is violating WP:IDHT; his error was even pointed out to him and he still doesn't see that he did anything wrong."

If you dissent from the party line, then to him, that means you have a COI. Etc., etc. The usual Wikipedia bureaucratic passive aggression. 2601:5CD:C000:21E3:B161:2B6C:3AAC:AA78 17:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-English Wikipedias + core tenet on truth

The current version of the article claims that non-English Wikipedias are less under Thought Police control, but as far as I know, this is not true for the French version — which may actually be even more politically correct (in general, but especially about IQ and so on). One key element (which could be a nice addition to the article) is that Wikipedia’s official core tenet about sources is to rely on an implementation of the authority principle: some sources are deemed admissible, and only those. All others can potentially be rejected, and the truth does not matter. I distincly remember reading an internal Wikipedia page about this principle, and the contributors gladly (!) asserted that if something was false but was the scientific (quasi-)consensus of the time (taking some astronomical example from the past), then it had to be the main view exposed on Wikipedia. Which is more than telling. (I wish I had the link… I guess you can find it, but I am unsure if it was in French or English; my guess is French.)

As a consequence, Wikipedia reflects the fakestream’s viewpoint. And as a corollary, non-English Wikipedias tend to reflect their own language area biases; and as a sub-corollary, the French-speaking Wikipedia tends to draw heavily from France’s main discourse, which is super PC (I would dare to say that on most topics, except Israel and maybe Third Wave feminism, France is more PC than the United States or even the United Kingdom).

I am unsure about the Esperanto Wikipedia, but since part of the Esperanto-speaking people are rather PC and the Wikipedia power structure is based on the same system (ie a select group of all-powerful administrators and moderators deciding how things are to be settled), I expect all Wikipedias to be PC at some serious level.

As a side note, on Rational Wiki’s attacks against Larry Sanger: the little I read on Rational Wiki in the past showed it had little to do with ‘rationality’ and way more about viciously attacking anything that dared depart from the mainstream, in various areas. It is rather ironic to quote it, because it is more or less an implicit sidekick to Wikipedia, with a strand of frankly attacking dissenters instead of merely pretending to be ‘neutral’. I am going to suggest some little changes just to keep it clean from gratuitous slander (possibly removing the Rational Wiki reference), but anyway, beware, as Wikipedia is not alone in its endeavour. (I also ponder whether removing the Alex Jones allusion, since referring to a COINTELPRO gatekeeper is precisely what the ‘Fakestream’ article warns about, ie giving the spotlight to false flaggers.)