>>1806780liberal child's understanding of the USSR
>>1806808OK. I did as you asked. :^)
>>1806894>Western state funded media: reliable<Russian state funded media: not reliableit's a fucking miracle al jazeera is tolerated
>>1806894I think the best interaction I had so far was one wikilib going "RT has received medals from Putler!", as if the CIA isn't heavily involved in pretty much all US mainstream media. but then again WP considers RFE/RL to be "reliable" so..
>>1807197if you look in the Talk page you'll see the problem is that the sources are a bunch of tweets
it isn't out of the ordinary for pages to have lackluster sources that only get discovered when their subjects gain sudden notoriety
>>1807394i do actually care that the information im spreading is true
>>1807385do you think the nyt or wapo are ever going to report on this? the only sources available are obviously going to be alternative media (which westoidpedia conveniently doesn’t consider to be reliable)
>>1807440and it being on bourgeois media makes it more reliable to you? lmao retard
>>1807440That's nice, but Glowpedia clearly doesn't.
That the burgers were Caught In the Act here isn't controversial.
>>1807442are you really arguing that unsourced tweets are reliable
>>1807444obviously, that is why im here in the glowpedia thread. IS-K also clearly glows hard as fuck, ive been noting that in a few threads for the past few days. i dont see why any of that should mean i defend unsourced tweets as good evidence, it just makes what i know to be a well-grounded position look like crank shit
>>1807445>unsourcedlmao you're such a fucking dog to capital, it's unreal
https://nitter.poast.org/AmrullahSaleh2/status/1463039531268120579#mhttps://nitter.poast.org/StateDeptCT/status/1462900194094116867#mpresident of the islamic republic of afghanistan (american puppet govt) and an official twitter account of the US state department, both from 2021
KILL YOURSELF FAGGOT
>>1807447Again,
Nobody cares, most people will just lap this shit up not think you're a crank.
>>1807448ok i was totally wrong, did not know that from the screencap of sources and i did not open twitter to check
>>1807456>did not know that from the screencap of sourcesit's literally written right there in the screencap, that's how i got the link to the tweets
>>1807394I'm going to agree with
>>1807440 . we should care that porky uses what presents itself as a bottom-up effort to collect and spread information, for spreading porkoid propaganda
>>1807441maybe, maybe not. make some noise about it at least
>>1807394>Nobody cares>>1807444>That's nice>isn't controversial.>>1807454>Again,>Nobody caresThis is a known, flagged hasabra tactic. Everyone itt thread clearly cares. Shut the fuck up.
>>1807456>ok i was totally wrong,Retardation or glow, the outcome is the same: disruption.
>>1807448>>1807458Based.
My favorite moments from Wikipedia is when they have to tell the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Harvest_of_Sorrow - under "background"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bukharin - under "Fall From Power"
>>1818333What should be known about that Conquest character? He is being referred quite a lot it feels.
>>1818333>The Harvest of Sorrow had a clear moral intent, namely that if the older Soviet leaders were direct accomplices in an artificially contrived famine and the younger leaders today still justify such procedure, then it followed that they might be willing to kill tens of millions of foreigners or suffer a loss of millions of their own subjects in a war. Conquest stated: "I don't think they want to blow Western populations to pieces. But if they came to America and imposed the collective farm system, then they might well organize a famine."Conquest just making shit up
>a variety of sources>Soviet fictionlol
>Conquest had 'adopted the Ukraine exile view [on the origins of the famine of 1932–33], and he has persuaded this reviewer.conveniently ignoring that Ukrainian exiles were largely fascists
>>1818348his WP page even admits his estimate for the number of dead in the purges are greatly exaggerated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest>By [Conquest's] estimates, Stalinist purges had led to the deaths of some 20 million people. He later stated that the total number of deaths could "hardly be lower than some thirteen to fifteen million."of course J. CHAD Getty disagrees with this nonsense
>>1818333To continue the trend of Wikipedia admitting open-secrets, here's a screenshot from the Angolan civil war page (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War ) basically admitting that they used Hollywood as propaganda. Here's the link to that Jack Abramoff guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_AbramoffAlso, I don't know if this counts, but it seems that on the history page of The People's Republic of Mozambique (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_Mozambique ), they keep using a source by João Cabrita, which was published by these guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palgrave_MacmillanIs João Cabrita the Robert Conquest of Mozambique?
>>1657962I find it funny that "Ukrainian
bourgeois nationalism" links to Ukrainian nationalism in general lol
>>1862484it's not like there's a postcolonial ukrainian nationalism
>>1820201that's called larping anon. just put in the work and stop trying to look like a 12 year old boy's idea of cool
>>1862357yeah you're allowed to use any dogshit source or shitfling on the talk page, unless it's about a contemporary geopolitical or economic topic, then the glowies will concern troll you about any source that isn't "trusted," mainstream, and secondary.
>>1862823I never understood the reasoning in not using a primary source
>>1549959he's probably some dude who's unemployed or works from home who uses wikipedia all the time. some wikipedians really focus entirely on one subject, like snooker or golf, and that's their entire editing history. it's autistic. he might be a glowie, or he might just be really dedicated to history
>>1872721Because otherwise "the truth" couldn't just be laundered through Western media outlets.
>>1862823i don't get the point in being all controlling on what source goes where. reliability and truthfulness should go first over whether a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary. what makes investigative journalism from nyt better than something from a blog? if they're both true, then why make a hubbub about it
>>1872797Liberals have few beliefs, but one of their most deeply cherished is that their credentials bestow upon them a superiority to "regular people." The sanctity of their diplomas is dearer to them than just about anything else and the only thing greater than the lengths they'll go to to defend it is the retribution against those that refute it. If some commoner's
blog is as valid a source as their column in NYT, then it calls everything into question. They're no longer an expert with the power (nay, the responsibility!) of arbitrating fact from fiction and determining the narrative arc and moral value of the universe, they're just some dickhead that wasted years of their life and tons of money to get a useless cat skin. They're no longer special, or essential. Worst of all, regular people don't need to submit themselves to their judgement and could interpret the world for themselves.
>>1872797>>1872818not even a source being secondary is enough for some wikilibs. see how treat Grover Furr (he's not a real historian!) vs hacks like Anne Applebaum
>>1872721>>1872797Because it's administratively easier and makes it harder to have you arguing about what constitutes truth. Primary sources often contradict other primary sources or, in the internet era, can be falsified. (if we cite /leftypol/ itself to describe /leftypol/, and i want to slander /leftypol/, i have a great incentive to hack it and say it's actually a nazi website or something… and hey, it'll be there in black and white for everyone to see. harder to do with a foreign policy article.) basically, you have to think not on the scale of the article, but on the scale of administering the website. for each individual article it makes sense to spend a lot of time verifying truth, for the website as a whole it's easier to verify the source than the facts.
Now I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's the reasoning. It makes a lot more sense in a pre-internet era of broad consensus reality driven by television, rather than the comical proliferation of micro-niche positions (many of which are true! many of which are not!) that come from people following hyperlinks on a whim, where even the journalists have utterly lost their minds and where reliable sources are clearly churning out utter nonsense.
>>1873252>Primary sources often contradict other primary sourcesthis is true of secondary sources also
>>1873252Idk man, the explanation of this anon here
>>1872794 rings closer to the truth from my experience.
>>1873252And because wikipedia is a 'ttertiary source', and that primary sources lend themselves to multiple interpretations. So the logic is to show what others have concluded rather than become a website of completely schizophrenic mess of Original Research.
>>1873281"Truth" doesn't mean anything unless it is recognized. Christianity's "personal truth" queered that whole pitch, so to speak.
>>1873293but then you run into the issue that is how bad secondary sources are. it's a good principle in theory to use secondary sources, but in practice often times it bogs down what you can put for an article and makes the time it takes for the NO 1 ENCYCLOPEDIA in the world to update a page based on new information because of sourcing conflicts much longer. if i take a blog post that sourced various scientific works and put them together to create a theory, then I can't use that. But, if some online only clickbait site like The Guardian paraphrases everything the blog says then it's fine to use? wikipedia is growing increasingly archaic and outdated, after all it's existed since 2002
>>1873349I agree mostly.
>it bogs down what you can put for an article and makes the time it takes for the NO 1 ENCYCLOPEDIA in the world to update a page based on new information because of sourcing conflicts much longer. I disagree with this. WIkipedia shouldn't have to be up-to-date with ongoing conflicts and such, in fact i would go as far as to say that time should be given between an event and an article creation, this kind of instantaneous event-driven article creation easily leads to abuse, Wikipedia is not 24hour cable news, there is no prescient reason that articles cannot wait until dust has settled most of the time.
I think most anons fall into a trap of assuming direct malice, but in reality it's often best to take people at their words and accept naivety.
Unique IPs: 24