Doesn't count politicians trying to rewrite their own pages to remove proof of things they did I guess
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
115 points (99.1% liked)
Wikipedia
1677 readers
229 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
- On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No. And the fact you think it does means you have no idea what it is to live in a dictatorship.
Or it means that I'm sick of people letting "democracies" slowly turn into dictatorships because "we're not north korea so don't complain".
Governments using their employees (=> taxpayer money) to try to alter information on media that should be independent sounds a lot like censorship.
Sure, there is much worse, but it doesn't mean that everything is fine.
Someone editing a Wikipedia page is exactly the same as not being able to say something under the penalty of torture or death /s
Dude count yourself lucky that the worst thing that happened to you or anyone you know is a politician telling an intern to vandalize Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_imprisoned_for_editing_Wikipedia
Bassel Khartabil was a contributor to a number of open-source projects including Wikipedia; his arrest in 2012 was likely connected to his online activity. He was executed at Adra Prison near Damascus in 2015. Several organizations, including the Wikimedia Foundation, established the Bassel Khartabil Free Culture Fellowship in his honor in 2017, for an initial period of three years.
That's a tiny bit different from vandalizing a Wikipedia page.
Please quote where I said that it's the same.
I love how when it comes to subjects like that the only argument is "it's worse elsewhere so stop caring".
Caring about such a "small thing" (is it, even?) is how you don't end up switching from the first half of your example to the second half.
A lone politician doing dumb shit on the internet has nothing to do with state sponsored censorship, let alone a drift towards a dictatorship. This is a moronic take.
When the politician is part of the government, it is the government's responsibility.
And considering that most democracies are currently seeing a clear shift towards fascism, they do drift towards dictatorships.
Saying it's it's moronic doesn't make your argument smarter.
When the politician is part of the government, it is the government's responsibility.
No, it is not. Unless the candidate brought forth a resolution to officially change the article by the government itself. Editing Wikipedia articles is not illegal so I'm not sure what you expect the government to do here. Making it illegal is certainly the move of a dictatorship though.
Saying it's it's moronic doesn't make your argument smarter.
Thanks for further proving my point.
You're not talking about governments but about laws. People in the government engage the responsibility of the government.
I'm talking about policy, which is how governments work. A lone politician editing a wikipedia article is not the work of the government.
So according to you, if members of the government agree to do something illegal or at least that shouldn't be allowed, without anything opposing them and let's say, the president covering for them, this is not the responsibility of the government because it's not a policy?
Going further, if all the government agrees to do something unofficially, without writing it down as a policy, then it is not the responsibility of the government.
So basically they can do anything they want, as long as it's not official, and it will never change the status of democracy of the government. A country like Turkiye then would be a perfect democracy since all their dictatorship-like actions tend to stay supposedly unofficial.
My guy... If you seriously cannot see the difference in your false equivalence of "one guy that's part of the government doing something" and "the entire government doing it", then I'm truly hoping you're not a voter. Speaking of moronic takes...
I never said it was equivalent, just pointing at the problem with your "logic".
You are too focused on your pathetic ad hominems to be able to read.
Have a good day
So you're using two completely different scenarios in a comparison and think MY logic is flawed? JFC...
Wow. You really can only see in extremes, that's fascinating. Or you're a bad troll.
I was extrapolating on your logic to point out its limits. That's a pretty basic thing.
Go find other people to fight online, this is getting pathetic.
I'm gonna guess you're projecting now, since nothing you've say make the slightest bit of sense. So, have a nice life, troll.
Sure, sure, very believable.
Pathetic.