1073
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1073 points (90.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
30392 readers
262 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted, clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts: 1
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah wikipedia has been taken over by politically motivated actors. I really enjoyed it when it was relatively agenda free. If you don't believe me go check the talk page of any controversial article.
"Taken over" is a little strong. Anyone can edit a page, but you can see the edit history. That doesn't mean wikipedia is compromised. It means you need to be media literate. If there's too many bad faith edits, the article gets reverted and locked.
Go look at some of the most active wikipedia contributors, they are mostly hyper political nerds. Wikipedia is heavily reliant on the social consensus of it's contributors. It's not a far out idea that there could be a slant among them.
Just so you know, you can check any claim by going to the cited source. If there is no source, you're free to ask for one or ignore.
That's far better then other systems. It's also an encyclopedia, not a news paper. You shouldn't be using it for current events anyway.
curation can still skew towards one side. you know this, everyone knows this. just saying wikipedia used to better before it was taken over by ideologues.
The problem is that the Wikipedia admins are arrogant. I suppose power corrupts
I'd like an example of what you're talking about.
There are tons. Use your favorite internet search tool and look for “Wikipedia editor controversy”. Happy reading!
So you favorite, uncited, pet political theory got deleted then?
I’ve never edited a Wikipedia page.
Ok, cause you sound like one of those facebook moms saying "do your research" when you question them on their bleach enema treatments.
Are you incapable of searching the internet? Do you need me to do it for you?
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=wikipedia+controversy+editor
And because I know how hard it is to click the link above, here’s a couple results, you dullard.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/wikipedia-fram-banning-editor-controversy.html
https://www.engadget.com/scots-wikipedia-230210674.html
I imagine you can figure it out from here. If you need, I can suggest a tutor to help you master the art of typing text into a text box and then clicking the button below it.