He generally shows most of the signs of the misinformation accounts:
- Wants to repeatedly tell basically the same narrative and nothing else
- Narrative is fundamentally false
- Not interested in any kind of conversation or in learning that what he’s posting is backwards from the values he claims to profess
I also suspect that it’s not a coincidence that this is happening just as the Elon Musks of the world are ramping up attacks on Wikipedia, specially because it is a force for truth in the world that’s less corruptible than a lot of the others, and tends to fight back legally if someone tries to interfere with the free speech or safety of its editors.
Anyway, YSK. I reported him as misinformation, but who knows if that will lead to any result.
Edit: Number of people real salty that I’m talking about this: Lots
I don’t know exactly what is going on with WikiPedia right this moment, mostly because I am neither glued to the news nor to WikiPedia, and I have no idea who this user you talk about is or what they are saying. However, WikiPedia isnt exactly a 100% trustworthy source, and it never really was.
Calling WikiPedia a “force for truth” is kind of silly, in my opinion. It can be helpful with basic information or finding potential sources, but it is definitely not something you should just immediately take everything on the site at face value. Within the last maybe 10 years or so, the credibility of its sources have started to come into question, at least on some of their recently authored/edited articles. It certainly doesnt help that literally anyone can edit most pages, and that WikiPedia is not a verifiably neutral information source on most things. What I mean by this is that, WikiPedia might list both positive and negative reception about a certain film or video game, for example, but they usually wont mention whether the negative points are outliers or whether there is overwhelmingly more positive reception except if there is a controversy section. This gives a surface appearance of being neutral, but actually skews toward whichever side is the dissenting opinion. For video games and film, they at least list reviews which can kind of mitigate this, but on articles regarding history or art, you cant exactly put reviews on historian/artist opinions. This can lead (and has lead) to some instances of sources quoting themselves (which I think is against WikiPedia rules?) and other hilarity.
I have a different perspective. I do think they are a force for truth, because it is a forum for openly sharing information. Not all of the information that is shared will neccesarily be truthful or correct, but as long as it remains open and collaborative, the truth will prevail.
Another point is that the sources for the information are cited (or at least requested and notated when missing), and it must always be the responsibility of the reader to check and understand the sources.
but it is definitely not something you should just immediately take everything on the site at face value.
I don’t think this should ever be the expectation for any source of information, really.
No
There will always be issues with Wikipedia, but overwhelmingly it is a useful and reliable resource. Also, “its sources” are any reputable journalism from around the world.
Well as I said it, isn’t completely useless. I mean, sources aren’t always reputable. People make mistakes, people act in bad faith, things happen.
I was just saying that WikiPedia is not a “bastion of truth,” because it is very susceptible to wrong information. Sure, the information may be correct most of the time on popular high traffic pages, but on low traffic pages, or pages that used to be low traffic and suddenly became high traffic because of some topical issue, can you really be sure that you aren’t reading wrong or biased information? That is all I am bringing up. I think any person with a brain can realize this, but I wanted to be sure to mention it regardless, as many people seem to not meet that low specification.
It brings tons of information to the masses, all over the world, in every language, for free, without ads. Shut the fuck up.
And some people really don’t like that it does that.
Yes it does. But not all of that information is always true. Wikipedia pages are vandalized all the time, people quote sources that are later revealed as made up or not credible, these are all things that happen everywhere, WikiPedia is not immune to this. That is why I said WikiPedia is not a “force for truth.” It can be correct, but can you guarantee that every time you go to WikiPedia, the information on any given page will always be 100% correct? This is all I meant.
k
i would call being resistant to misinformation, being a force against misinformation, is that enough to warrant calling it a force for truth?
They do it for free, too, what more you can ask for? Well you can unreasonably ask them, these people, humans, fallible biological machines, to “be” correct 100% of the time, even when moderators may not be available, even when people didn’t yet report misinfo, something you’d never ask anyone else to do or be.
Oh wait you did ask that, so I think there’s a very good reason to believe you don’t really care for what you preach.
Do you ever go back to a WikiPedia article after you read it to check if it has been updated? Yeah, didn’t think so. Most people don’t. Thats why there is danger in just believing everything on WikiPedia because its on there and its free. Its not a bad resource, but it isn’t always a good source either.
But obviously you and others have some weird fetish regarding WikiPedia, so I guess this is where the conversation stops. People here be making it out like I am saying WikiPedia is evil and that is definitely not what I am saying, but I suppose on Lemmy it doesn’t really matter. People believe whatever they want to regardless.
I remember some guys in high school altered the wikipedia page for the high school or principal or something and it was up in its altered hilarious state for a few days before it got reverted. I always think about that when reading Wikipedia pages. I might be reading a Wikipedia page during a window where the information is maybe disingenuous. Always good to be on your toes.
I’ve heard from a few people that there are people that edit a lot of articles with a lot of bias and have been getting away with it. It’d be interesting for a journalist to really go into it.
I’ve heard from a few people that there are people that edit a lot of articles with a lot of bias and have been getting away with it. It’d be interesting for a journalist to really go into it.
This is definitely the case for certain niche topics. A few power editors can push agendas as long as they have a handful of reliable sources, no end of time, and a good knowledge of Wiki’s bureaucratic processes.
Love wiki, but don’t take it for more than a very useful encyclopedia - as the name suggests.
It can be helpful with basic information or finding potential sources, but it is definitely not something you should just immediately take everything on the site at face value.
This I definitely agree with. Some of the rest of your message is, in my opinion, not exactly how it works, but all of this is besides the point. What I am saying is misinformation is that WP doxxed its editors to an Indian court, kowtows to any fascist government that asks them to, or is protecting a genocidal cult. All of those were claimed and then when we tried to talk about the claims with the person posting them, that person either evaporated or dissembled about it.
If someone posted an article saying that anyone can edit Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt, I would never have cared and probably would have upvoted them.
People posting misinformation? On Lemmy? No. It can’t be.
People posting misinformation? On
Lemmythe Internet? No. It can’t be.👍👍
It’s likely this is a bot if it’s wide spread. And Lemmy is INCREDIBLY ill suited to handle even the dumbest of bots from 10+ years ago. Nevermind social media bots today.
To be fair, it’s virtually impossible to tell whether a text was written by an AI or not. If some motivated actor is willing to spend money to generate quality LLM output, they can post as much as they want on virtually all social media sites.
The internet is in the process of eating itself as we speak.
You don’t analyze the text necessary, you analyze the heuristics, behavioral patterns, sentiment…etc It’s data analysis and signal processing.
You, as a user, probably can’t. Because you lack information that the platform itself is in a position to gather and aggregate that data.
There’s a science to it, and it’s not perfect. Some companies keep their solutions guarded because of the time and money required to mature their systems & ML models to identify artificial behavior.
But it requires mature tooling at the very least, and Lemmy has essentially none of that.
yes of course there are many different data points you can use. along with complex math you can also feed a lot of these data points in machine learning models and get useful systems that can perhaps red flag certain accounts and then have processes with more scrutiny that require more resources (such as a human reviewing)
websites like chess.com do similar things to find cheaters. and they (along with lichess) have put out some interesting material going over some of what their process looks like
here i have two things. one is that lichess, which is mostly developed and maintained by a single individual, is able to maintain an effective anti-cheat system. so I don’t think it’s impossible that lemmy is able to accomplish these types of heuristics and behavioral tracking
the second thing is that these new AIs are really good. it’s not just the text, but the items you mentioned. for example I train a machine learning model and then a separate LLM on all of reddit’s history. the first model is meant to try and emulate all of the “normal” human flags. make it so it posts at hours that would match the trends. vary the sentiments in a natural way. etc. post at not random intervals of time but intervals of time that looks like a natural distribution, etc. the model will find patterns that we can’t imagine and use those to blend in
so you not only spread the content you want (whether it’s subtle product promotion or nation-state propaganda) but you have a separate model trained to disguise that text as something real
that’s the issue it’s not just the text but if you really want to do this right (and people with $$$ have that incentive) as of right now it’s virtually impossible to prevent a motivated actor from doing this. and we are starting to see this with lichess and chess.com.
the next generation of cheaters aren’t just using chess engines like Stockfish, but AIs trained to play like humans. it’s becoming increasingly difficult.
the only reason it hasn’t completely taken over the platform is because it’s expensive. you need a lot of computing power to do this effectively. and most people don’t have the resources or the technical ability to make this happen.
But something like Reddit at least potentially has the resources to throw some money at the problem. They can employ advanced firewalls and other anti-bot/anti-AI thingies. It’s very possible that they’re pioneering some state-of-the-art stuff in that area.
Lemmy is a few commies and their pals. Unless China is bankrolling them, they’re out of their league.
spend money to generate quality LLM output, they can post as much as they want on virtually all social media sites.
$20 for a chatgpt pro account and fractions of pennies to run a bot server. It’s really extremely cheap to do this.
I don’t have an answer to how to solve the “motivated actor” beyond mass tagging/community effort.
$20 for a chatgpt pro account and fractions of pennies to run a bot server. It’s really extremely cheap to do this.
openAI has checks for this type of thing. They limit number of requests per hour with the regular $20 subscription
you’d have to use the API and that comes at a cost per request, depending on which model you are using. it can get expensive very quickly depending on what scale of bot manipulation you are going for
openAI has checks for this type of thing.
Yep, any operation runs the risk of getting caught by OpenAI.
See this article of it happening:
https://openai.com/index/disrupting-a-covert-iranian-influence-operation/
Heuristics, data analysis, signal processing, ML models…etc
It’s about identifying artificial behavior not identifying artificial text, we can’t really identify artificial text, but behavioral patterns are a higher bar for botters to get over.
The community isn’t in a position to do anything about it the platform itself is the only one in a position to gather the necessary data to even start targeting the problem.
I can’t target the problem without first collecting the data and aggregating it. And Lemmy doesn’t do much to enable that currently.
Ur a bot. I can tell by the
pixelsunicode.Edit: joking aside you bring up a good point and our security through
anonymitycultural irrelevance will not last forever. Or maybe it will.Unfortunately it won’t, assuming Lemmy grows.
Lemmy doesn’t get targeted by bots because it’s obscure, you don’t reach much of an audience and you don’t change many opinions.
It has, conservatively, ~0.005% (Yes, 0.005%, not a typo) of the monthly active users.
To put that into perspective, theoretically, $1 spent on a Reddit has 2,000,000x more return on investment than on Lemmy.
All that needs to happen is that number to become more favorable.
This really could be any one of thousands of people on lemmy.
Honestly. Could be any user on any platform, Lemmy not excluded.
Is it space karen?
This seems like an attempt at vote manipulation or brigading. Reddit doesn’t allow it, is it allowed here or something?
Wikipedia is only a source for truth for people that either don’t know what it’s protecting or are in the genocidal cult it is protecting.
Oh yeah Op was really trying to get people to go and downvote a user without even telling us who they are…
I’m not even going to touch the insane nonsense you spouted in the second half.
It just so happens that they picked things to accuse me of, for no reason at all, which overlap with things I could get banned for.
Must be a coincidence.
A single issue spam account (Linux sucks is all they post) acting dodgy?
I can’t believe that they would ever try something so underhanded.
I guess you’re the person OP is talking about.
I’m in like 5 genocidal cults at this particular moment. You’ll need to be more specific.
What cult? And what is Wikipedia protecting?
are in the genocidal cult it is protecting
I’m fascinated. Explain?
The person you’re responding to has their own crazy agenda against Linux, so don’t expect a rational discussion.
They also found time to say, “Both sides of US politics are full of shit and balance each other out to distract us from our real problems.”
What a perfectly natural thing to say, in conjunction with suddenly hating on Wikipedia right at this particular moment.
“Both sides of US politics are full of shit and balance each other out to distract us from our real problems.”
If by this a person means something akin to, “No warfare except class warfare,” then I might agree. There are important differences between the Republicans and Democrats, but ultimately both take most of their funding from billionaires, and that’s at odds with what the working class needs.
If instead it’s an excuse to be disengaged from what’s happening or to excuse voting for awful people, then no, I can’t agree.
I mean Linux is fucking annoying or rather the users are annoying. Everytime the word windows gets mentioned there are dozens of people talking about Linux even if that has nothing to do with the topic
Why don’t you post some of your weird Linux trolling outside your sad little echo chamber?
Lol you will get roasted even worse than here, is the answer. Some people have the saddest lives.
You know what an echo chamber is and ask that question. lol
Honestly hilarious that this is the only reply you responded to. Hit a nerve?
Aw poor little baby mad about Linux made a he-man Linux haters club. Sad no one will join it 😭
This unactionable vaguepost is what suffices as a YSK?
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK
Why should I know this, OP?
Oh hello mr Russian-pretending-to-be-American.
You’ve never answered why you pretend to be American while at the same time clearly supporting Russia and spreading Russian propaganda.
Are you such a weak-willed American you’ve bought into Russian propaganda?
Isn’t it annoying when you can’t just delete my comment and ban me like you alway do, mr Pro-Russian?
(This guys has said things like “reality has a well known Russian propaganda bias”.)
He’s pro-Russian, and will never answer that particular question despite being ready to lie about everything else, because he knows even a clear lie of “I hate Putin” written by him in the context of him being American could be reason enough for him to accidentally fall out of a window. Because Russia is a shithole autocracy.
This guy never states shit, goes around spamming wannabe good looking lists of links of shit that’s incredibly easily shown to be utter shit, but because there’s so much, it’ll always just diverge from the actual point.
It’s got a name.
An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
Spreading FUD everywhere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
All you need to do to prove this is try to get him to answer whether he’s pro-Russian or not. Not a hard question, yet he just can’t manage answering it.
I mean, you can say all of this stuff… or you could actually post links to evidence.
Look at his profile.
Then look at my post.
Then look at the modlogs from the times on the screenshots of those posts.
It’s common knowledge lemmygrad.ml and lemmy.ml are complete tankies. D’you know why?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_disinformation
One of the easiest ways to spot Russians disinfo is when they pretend to be stupid to say that Russia doesn’t use disinfo, or that at least definitely not on Lemmy, no way.
And the exact same guys absolutely refuse to answer a simple yes or no question. Are you pro-Russian or not? Are you?
While claiming they’re American. Saying Russia is doing all the right things while criticising every Russian enemy and supporting China. Literally everything is in line with Russian propaganda. Yet they can’t say whether they’re pro-Russian or not. While clearly being pro-Russian, and adamantly claiming to be American?
That isn’t enough for you to figure it out? Alrighty then, let’s do it the way he does; just spam the ever living fuck out of anything tangentially related.
https://en.zois-berlin.de/publications/russian-state-sponsored-media-and-disinformation-on-twitter
That 404’s, but it’s on the wayback machine https://web.archive.org/web/20210916150314/https://en.zois-berlin.de/publications/russian-state-sponsored-media-and-disinformation-on-twitter
In particular, it needs to be established what messages are spread on social media platforms and under what conditions, and whether disinformation is shared more widely than objective reporting. Likewise, future research should consider investigating the effects of disinformation spread by RT and Sputnik on social media platforms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_disinformation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
https://www.state.gov/russias-pillars-of-disinformation-and-propaganda-report/
What’s your theory? That he’s an America hating American who loves Russia, hates facts and has made it his life mission to emulate Russian propaganda, but is still too ashamed of it to take a stance on whether he’s pro-Russian or not? And that sounds probable to you…?
Oh okay, so I looked at the post and the posted modlog. Looks like that’s all I need to know.
I’ve never spent so much time writing paragraphs and paragraphs about one Lemmy mod, and maybe you shouldn’t, either.
So you think it’s not good to expose Russian disinformation? Or are you saying he isn’t spreading Russian disinformation?
Because you’re saying one or the other with this “you’re being sad, stop being like that, you’re writing too much”. This is a forum. People write on forums. If a text long enough to merely have paragraphs instead of pages is too long for you, then I can’t help you.
The person claiming every piece of negative information about russia and china and other similar places is a usa psyop is now quoting rules against a post trying to make people aware of misinformation?! Color me surprised.
I replied to the person directly with why it isn’t true, and I reported them with an actionable report.
I wasn’t sure about the ethics of brigading or linking directly at the person, but presumably anyone who cares can find them pretty easily, and anyone who reads this and then also reads the misinformation, will be able to see the connection and make their own decision about whether I am speaking truly.
anyone who cares can find them pretty easily
I care, I have found nothing similar to what you’re discussing.
anyone who reads this and then also reads the misinformation, will be able to see the connection
I just read a post that said Wikipedia was the best website on the internet, was that the misinformation? Someone else donated, was that misinformation? People have shared a variety of thoughts around Wikipedia, most of them are positive, but some are negative.
Negative doesn’t mean wrong. Negative doesn’t mean misinformation. It might be, but it isn’t certain.
You are asking weighted nuance from Lemmy. You might as well squish rocks to get water.
This post just reads as it could have been a mod report and that’s about it. Looks like outrage for the sake of outrage
I just read a post that said Wikipedia was the best website on the internet, was that the misinformation?
No.
Someone else donated, was that misinformation?
No.
Wikipedia is only a source for truth for people that either don’t know what it’s protecting or are in the genocidal cult it is protecting.
And then I asked the person about this genocidal cult and got no response whatsoever, almost as if it was, not just a negative thing, but a wild and inaccurate thing said apparently with not even a little pretense that it corresponded to the truth. Was that misinformation? Yes!
Hope this helps.
So the “other” thread links here, so I’m going to link to them. https://lemmy.world/post/23535522
I think that thread would have been a much better thing to post. However this isn’t some secret project, this is a single account that is obviously labeled, so this whole post is just a silly.
YSK conspiracy theorists exist.
True, this tells us nothing
There are major issues with wikipedia, I say this as someone with thousands of edits. But I know exactly who you are talking about and they spread pure BS.
The last time I saw them their account was called “ihatewikipedia” or “fuckwikipedia” or something like that lol and they were just spreading conspiracies. Or useless drama. Like they were going on about how wikipedia “invades your privacy”, it IP blocks people and tracks IP’s linked to editing.
it IP blocks people and tracks IP’s linked to editing
Unless something changed, this part was at least partially true at one point. But only for anonymous edits iirc. Usually happened for IPs shared by a lot of people like from a campus or some VPNs, probably due to a lot of vandalism from such IPs.
Yes it does. That was my response to them. But this is pretty acceptable to prevent vandalism.
“PSA I reported an account because they have bad arguments in my opinion” seems like a terrible precedent of a post for this sub. Why are people upvoting this junk.
Where’s a better place to put it, do you think?
I think a related community would be https://lemmy.ca/c/fediverselore
I specifically didn’t pick that one because it’s discouraged to post about a situation you are directly involved with there.
I couldn’t really find a good place to post about it, to be honest. This community seemed arguably okay for this kind of random stuff, and I do think it’s worth talking about this kind of thing, if we’re going to have a social network which isn’t overflowing with propaganda garbage. Also, a bunch of the people upvoting this post seem to agree with me.
Sure. I didn’t know you already put some thought into this. And I’m not in charge here. We can leave this up to the mods of YSK. If they decide to keep this post around, it’s probably alright.
You should just report, block, and move on. If someone is a regular offender, their instance admin can just ban them. If they operate their own instance, they can be defederated.
It’s good to identify bad actors, but there’s no shortage of people with dumb opinions (even on Lemmy), and pointing them out like this only gives them more attention—exactly the kind of thing they want.
It’s good to identify bad actors
Couldn’t agree more.
Then why are you trying to be cute and not call out the username (or usernames if they are using alts)? This doesn’t identify jack, just says that someone exists doing something nonspecifically bad towards wikipedia.
As important as Wikipedia is, there are a ton of legitimate problems with the site and community moderators. Some of the drama that comes out of there is downright otherworldly. Without examples it’s hard to take what you’re saying seriously.
Edit: Either there’s enough direct screenshotted evidence that this needs to be a specific call for admins to ban this person, or this just comes across as absurd escalation of some stupid internet debate.
Second edit: it’s wikipediasuckscoop
Do we really need a warning for someone so obviously biased? Next you’ll be warning us that madthumbs might have some reservations about the usefulness of linux.
I think it’s useful to talk about. I’m not sure why so many people are coming out lecturing me that this should be a forbidden topic for discussion.
I’ve literally seen no one say that it’s forbidden. Maybe one of the comment chains from someone I already have blocked does, but there’s only
fourtwo of those.I see plenty of people saying this is a stupid post. A post that is uselessly vague. A post that is almost entirely purposeless.
I understand wanting to avoid brigading, but as it stands this post amounts to “You all should know that I reported someone (I won’t say who, tee hee) for posting something that I think is misinformation about Wikipedia (I won’t say what, tee hee). It’s really bad, but you’ll just have to take my word for it. This person I won’t name is just the worst. You need to know they’re the worst. But you don’t need to know who they are or what they said, that’s not important! Also I have vague consipiratorial feelings about anyone who would speak ill of Wikipedia after Musk said bad things about it, because no one could possibly have grievances or concerns with Wikipedia that are still valid despite Musk’s derangement.”
If you wanted to spread awareness, you should have named the problem user. If you wanted to force the admins into action you should have named the problem user.
If you are willing to give the admins time to handle things properly, especially during the fucking holidays where they likely have other things to do, instead of needlessly raising an alarm on something pitifully small… then you should have waited a few days for them to do something before running off to play vigilante with this post.
If you want to make people waste time trying to evaluate if you’re a nutter, thin skinned, or otherwise blowing smoke… you make a post like this one.
Either you had enough evidence to make this warning/call out post legitimately, and then you make it with names, screenshots, and fucking receipts… or you give admins time to respond and sit until they show they won’t do something.
This weak, vague post just says that you’re too impatient to let the admins work, you don’t trust them to do what you think is the right thing, but you’re also chickenshit that they might ban you for talking about it. Rather than post this from a throwaway made on another instance you make this useless thing.
TL;DR- People are telling you that this attempt to “warn” people is worthless without actionable info.
6 different people have reported my post, so presumably they think it should be forbidden, at least.
Hundreds of people have upvoted this post, so presumably they think it’s a worthwhile post. You are welcome to your opinion that it isn’t, of course.
a forbidden topic for discussion.
I’m not getting that from the responses. What I’ve seen is
- being vague is not effective
- bad opinions aren’t the same as objective misinformation
- the username checks out
- it’s pointless to platform these people
These all seem to reiterate the idea that “this is not a good post” and not “this subject is taboo”.
But, if you’re messing this up, does that jeopardize your own efforts?
OP doesn’t identify bad actors. They say bad actors exist which is next to useless
Fuck that approach. It just shields trolls and other bad actors from consequence
Notice how I said “report” as the first action. If you want to keep seeing their bullshit, that’s your business, but the Fediverse works by not giving those people an audience.
If you want to be their own personal poltergeist, haunting their every comment, that’s your choice, but I would never recommend anyone waste their sanity and emotions on a bad actor here on Lemmy any more than they have to.
If literally everyone did what you recommend, that would be a feasible approach. But for various reasons that’s obviously not gonna happen. What does happen when people try that is the troll continues to shit up the community for everyone else and a few people reporting them once sometimes does next to nothing. Hence you get someone like linkerbaan or universalmonk shitting in the pool for months without consequence. If you don’t block them, you can continue to report them and/or call them out, which leads to shit actually happening.
Like I said, “reporting” is the thing people should be doing first. But OP is so bothered by whatever person’s bullshit that they felt the need to make a PSA about it, and that to me says they need to just block and move on with their life. I would give the same recommendation to other people who are getting fixated on individual bad actors.
Trolls don’t deserve to live in your head rent-free.
The first step to solving any problem that takes cooperation to solve is raising awareness. A single report from a person here and there is not that.
I think you’re more hung up up on analyzing the psychology of those trying to raise that awareness. You may not be reading them accurately, but even if you are I don’t see that mattering very much. It’s not your call what is mentally healthy for everyone else.
Blocking shields you from seeing their comments. But others will still see them. You’ll be unable to call them out the second time they lie if you do it like that. Which is fair enough if that’s what you wanna do, but it’s not a solution to the current issue that op is describing.
And that’s why reporting is such an important step that we should all be doing. That’s why I mentioned it first. Blocking is for your benefit, but it’s not strictly necessary, and the spirit of my comment is to let the admins handle it without giving them engagement or more exposure.
So you can be a vigilante if you want, but with the number of people out there who have dumb opinions, it seems like a waste of time to try to play admin without actual admin powers.
in the garbage
Stay scratched
In a DM to the mods.
I’ve run across Wikipedia hate as well on Lemmy.
I have never. You are spreading misinformation now. MAAAAADDDSSSSS!
Wikipedia source of truth?
That’s pretty bold.
Blanket statement is the argument of the uneducated.
I agree, but that… kind of seems like a blanket statement.
Wikipedia source of truth?
That’s pretty
boldpeer reviewedFYFY.
I still want to have a copy of it when the world ends and I somehow survive. So I would say it is a decent source of truth.
tiny penises in your pants?
that’s pretty cold.
Wikipedia is an alien plot to get Earthlings to read more. DON’T FALL FOR IT!!! . . . ./s
Please donate to Wikipedia if you can.
I’ve heard wikipedia has alot of money anyway but i don’t know.
Many people say
What has that got to do with the price of fish?
did you reply to the wrong thing? or you specialize in bad jokes that are impossible for anyone to think funny?
Wikipedia financials can be found here under Finances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
Here’s another good summary: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
Musk is getting desperate.
if this was written by anyone else, I’d take it with a grain of salt.
I just don’t believe you.
Lemmy is too small to be a worthwhile target for musk-like campaigns. It’s usually just people escaping their echo chambers to get their rage fix. If you’re able to think for yourself, there’s really no negative impact and scrolling past is a great solution.
in a bot world no niche is too small to fill with digital garbage
Eeeeh, more debatable since someone would actually need to write the capability for the bot to talk to the platform. It’s still a much lower threshold, but it’s not a free ride.
It’s not and if anything the fact it’s small has advantages. Small is easier to turn into an echo chamber.
If you can push bullshit onto a small but passionate group of people online they’ll do all the hard work for you. They’ll recruit, polish/tailor the message for other audiences, and spread it across the wider internet.
And we know it works, because that’s exactly how the whole “Q-anon” thing operated. Some vague, crazy bullshit on an obscure imageboard became a nearly mainstream “movement”.
And his name is Elon Musk
