Yes, and I'm here criticizing "actually existing science". That's exactly my point. It's not "real science" when it's injected with politics and emotions like that. It's biased in a way science shouldn't be.

Wtf are you going on about? I'm talking about changing the name of a plant because it's discoverer was a racist. Nothing about politicians or pedophiles. Ffs, some of you have brain rot as bad as the MAGA. I'm literally saying that history should remain accurate and not try to whitewash away the negatives.

I think you're confusing "politics injected into science" with science. Science is data and analyzing it. Pretending someone didn't invent something is removing data points and I'm pretty sure science calls that fraud, just like we call the studies that found cigarettes healthy to be frauds, or the oil companies to be frauds. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Remember, it's only "revisionist history" if it's the history you don't like. Otherwise it's "because totally valid reasons".

"unless you're a part of the community fuck you"

I can see why it got heated....

Wasn't this more about taking away the names from a bunch of people who in hindsight were terrible people? I remember something awhile back about people getting upset because some groups had decided that if you had a shred of negativity in your past, you weren't allowed to discover and name things. I believe they were trying to change a bunch of names "to not honor the original person".

That didn't feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.

Gondor, stop burninating the countryside!

Ok fine, I'll give you a cookie too...

I gave 'em a cookie. Now they're happy :D

As a custodian who is often treated like I might as well be invisible, this can absolutely happen. Those who show even the tiniest bit of respect to us are often the only ones and it is greatly appreciated.

I'm so sick of this revisionist bs. Plenty of us were outraged then and warned of EXACTLY this. Y'all reaped what you sowed. Now micro transactions and paid early access are the norm. We screamed and yelled to "vote with your wallets", and by god, you did. "It's just a few bucks" is the most common one I hear. Well, now EVERYTHING is "just a few bucks".

You won.

Really fitting since usually the correct one isnt any of those. It'll be the non-flashy, plain text "download here" link.

As it stands now, you can download all of Wikipedia for offline viewing. It's not restricted in any way. And since Wikipedia is looking for objective truth, not opinions, I'm not sure what benefit federation would do. You want it centralized, not broken up. What happens when two instances decide that their version is the only correct one?

I just don't see any benefit. This feels like when everyone was slapping "blockchain" on things because it was the current buzzword. What is Wikipedia failing at currently that decentralizing it would make better?