I wasn't even able to find the revision, it seems the person who made the meme just used the editor to make the edit, then took a screenshot of the preview but didn't publish it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago

It's real.

[–] Buffman 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I would generally agree with you, though there was one incident last year regarding Mike Graham and his comments about growing concrete that gave me a good laugh. Reading through the Wikipedia edits on his page from the end August 2022 is pure comedic gold.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:History/Mike_Graham_(journalist)&offset=20230221142746

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

Vandalizing Wikipedia is wrong. That being said, this is some of the funniest shit I've read this year. I think my favorite edit was the one that simply put "journalist" in quotes

[–] rockSlayer 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Wikipedia has a bias, don't fool yourself.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

Don't fool myself about what?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Reality has a bias

[–] rockSlayer 5 points 11 months ago

Yes, exactly. Anything perceived as "neutral" or "nonbiased" is just your bias being reflected.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How so?

[–] rockSlayer 3 points 11 months ago

The specific methods that Wikipedia uses to determine whether a source is reliable causes it to have a status quo bias towards capitalist neoliberalism. There's also a bit of consent manufacturing that occurs on sources and controversial topics.

Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is great in most situations. However when it comes to controversial (especially political) topics, look elsewhere.