• Ersatz86@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    252
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Alternate headline:

    “Massive shitcunt threatens to destroy the actual best part of the internet to the surprise of absolutely no one”

    is what they meant to say

    Incidentally, do you guys remember when this fuckhead was a darling of the left?

    These are strange times.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      135
      ·
      1 year ago

      He was a darling because he was a literally unknown person who introduced themselves with a controlled media profile who sold a way to approach the fossil fuel problem. The nice thing about the left is their views evolve rapidly to current events and Elon has been inescapable in media, so naturally he reveals his true neocon form.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The nice thing about the left is that they have some critical thinking abilities.

        Made it more broad and concise for you.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Incidentally, do you guys remember when this fuckhead was a darling of the left?

      And when was this? I cannot remember a time when a celebrity capitalist parasite was a “darling of the left.”

      • londos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I will admit there was a time when he was pushing electric cars while traditional auto manufacturers seemed to be dragging their feet. It felt like he was on the right side of a big issue and shaking things up. I think it’s important to admit when we get it wrong. And boy did I get it wrong.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          It felt like he was on the right side of a big issue

          No. No, he never was. Any leftist will tell you that the only solution to the car problem is public transport… not silly attempts to make individual cars more “eco-friendly.” That’s not leftism - that’s what we call “green capitalism.” And leftists have understood that loooong before Phony Stark skipped South Africa to avoid being drafted into the SADF to uphold the white supremacist state he benefited so richly from.

          • londos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            100% agree with you now. I wasn’t at that level of analysis at the time yet.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wasn’t at that level of analysis at the time yet.

              Me neither. They really did a number on us.

          • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you think you could be a little more careful in your angry smearing of conscientious objectors please?

            My brother dodged the draft. He’s a theologian who spent years in exile due to his refusal to serve the corrupt apartheid government.

            Give a fuck about Edolf Twitler or don’t but leave the rest of us out of this. Cunt is your problem now anyway.

            Just, mind the facts while you rant if you don’t mind. Please.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you think you could be a little more careful in your angry smearing of conscientious objectors please?

              Perhaps you need to stop smearing conscientious objectors by pretending Phony Stark was one - you might just as well pretend Donald Trump was a conscientious objector if you apply that label to Musk.

              It’s out in the open now - Musk is as much a white supremacist as any National Party goon. And, like a lot of rich white kids whose families got rich off the opportunities and impoverished black labor the Apartheid-regime provided them with, Musk felt himself too entitled to actually do the dirty work himself. It was common knowledge here in South Africa at the time - the rich white kids from rich families got to opt out of the war, despite the fact thet they benefited the most from the Apartheid-regime.

              It is true that some of those rich white kids actually were against the Apartheid-regime… but Musk wasn’t one of them. His blatant support for white supremacism and his enabling of right-wing ideology proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

              • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Exactly. If the reason you are “conscientiously objecting” is because you’re a rich Nazi shitheel who is too much of a pussy to fight for anything yourself, no one cares because you obviously don’t have a real conscience to be conscientous with.

                He is clearly fine with sending others to fight his battles for him. Can he be any more the Gen X version of Trump?

          • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            skipped South Africa to avoid being drafted into the SADF to uphold the white supremacist state he benefited so richly from.

            Wait, is this a bad thing?

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wait, is this a bad thing?

              No, it’s a Musk thing - he claims him skipping out on doing his bit for the Apartheid-regime (the true reason for his family’s riches) was based on his (alleged) “stance” against the Apartheid-regime - but his overt white supremacism and his enabling of far-right ideologies kind of disproves all of that, doesn’t it?

          • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re pushing a very niche view as if it’s universal, I get why you’re doing it but you’re wrong to. There is no single solution to transport requirements and while the vast majority of leftists of course agree public transport is vital it’s not a magic solution for everything and outside the car hate bubble is very rare for anyone, even a leftwing person, to be staunchly anticar.

            You might not like it but it’s reality.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re pushing a very niche view as if it’s universal,

              Oh, it used to be far, far more universal than it is now. They spent a lot of propaganda money to make it less universal.

              Considering how the rivets seem to be popping off the western propaganda model recently, I’m willing to bet that it might one day be a lot more universal once more.

              You might not like that, but that’s reality.

              • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t mean to be rude but you’re confused and delusional, there isn’t a transport authority in the world that thinks we can totally do without cars - I’m all for idealism but it should be at least grounded in some form of reality.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Riiiight… I’m confused and delusional because you want to live in a world where Big Auto’s profit margins are prioritized over the needs of the public.

                  Phony Stark might have a little blue check mark to sell you - he likes the way you think.

      • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When he was spending money on electric cars, solar, renewable energy storage and (relatively) low-cost space travel.

        Yanno, before he got addicted to Twitter and became terminally online.

        It honestly baffles me how many people have forgotten that Musk was heralded as basically being irl Batman because electric cars prior to Tesla were actual trash, there was little to no research being done on how to make space cheaper, and renewables only worked as long as the sun was shining and the wind was blowing (iirc the power wall was originally developed for renewable energy storage; Tesla also developed solar roof tiles so you could turn your roof into one big solar panel). He was using his money to actually help develop cleaner transportation, cleaner energy development and space travel instead of filling Olympic swimming pools with cash like most rich fucks.

        Then he started posting on Twitter and everyone realized he was an idiot with too much money who got lucky with Tesla and SpaceX.

        (Yes, I know he wasn’t the founder of Tesla; however it was his money and idiocy-induced stubbornness that made the company successful)

        • skyspydude1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tesla “developed” those solar tiles as a fucking scam to sell investors on the Solarcity merger to bail his family out. It only ever came to fruition to keep him out of prison for outright fraud rather than just “fibbing”. He bet the wellbeing of every employee and shareholder on that absolute dumpster fire of a company, literally scamming investors, just to save his ass, and it was nothing short of dumb fucking luck that kept it all burning to the ground, as he himself stated in a deposition.

          Like everything else Musk does, those solar tiles are a way for wealthy people to greenwash their decadent lifestyle, while also allowing them to stay NIMBYs who don’t want to ruin the look of their gaudy McMansions. Normal arrays cost fractions of what those tiles do, work better, and don’t require replacing your entire roof for them.

          Powerwalls were just a way to get rid of out of spec cells to people at 10x what their value is in an automotive pack. A home ESS is much gentler on them comparatively, so even out of spec cells work fine.

          You want to talk about clean transportation? He came up with the literal pipe dream of the Hyperloop to keep cities from funding actual high-speed and light rail projects, so people would have to buy his shitboxes.

          Literally everything he does is to keep his game as a greasy car salesman/government welfare queen going (see, SpaceX), and nothing more. Any positive benefits conferred from this are basically just a coincidence.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          When he was spending money on electric cars, solar, renewable energy storage and (relatively) low-cost space travel.

          You mean… all those things that came from public institutions (ie, universities) and not parasites like Phony Stark?

          It honestly baffles me how many people have forgotten that Musk was heralded as basically being irl Batman

          Yes… by a media completely given over to licking the boots of the wealthy. Soooo… no leftists involved at all.

          • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You mean… all those things that came from public institutions (ie, universities) and not parasites like Phony Stark?

            And how many of those people actually spent time implementing these improvements? Iirc, no one. Because the infrastructure wasn’t there for electric cars and developing the infrastructure was going to be expensive, making electric cars basically useless for anything except short drives.

            …which is where public transportation should be used.

            But public transportation doesn’t work in every situation, especially in a country where everything has been designed around cars, making public transportation retrofits obscenely expensive. Musk said, “I have a fuck ton of money, and that money is worthless if I’m not using it, so let’s build the infrastructure to make electric cars worth it”.

            And so he did.

            Yes… by a media completely given over to licking the boots of the wealthy. Soooo… no leftists involved at all.

            You know politics are a spectrum, right? There were a lot of people on the left who weren’t associated with the MSM who thought he was the hottest thing since sliced bread. I knew a lot of people ranging from moderate liberal to hardcore left who liked him. The reason why the hardcore lefties liked him was because they saw him as a necessary evil.

            The general opinion among the more hard leaning left was that the world is burning and something has to be done, if a rich person is taking steps in the right direction, then we’ll back him until he stops being useful. We don’t have the luxury to wait for the revolution or sit with our thumbs up our asses hoping oil and gas companies will just suddenly keel over and die. We need to do more to save our world and anything is better than nothing.

            The only people who couldn’t see that he was useful were idiots waiting for a perfect idol and were willing to sacrifice everyone for their personal, sky-high standards.

            Edit: fixed a bit where I had inserted a sentence and forgot to actually connect it to something.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              And how many of those people actually spent time implementing these improvements?

              Probably not much… and probably because people at universities are smart enough to understand that electric cars doesn’t fix any problems at all.

              in a country where everything has been designed around cars

              When you’re in a hole it’s best to stop digging. Continuing to rely on cars because fixing the mess that was caused for the benefit of capitalist parasites is “too expensive” is pure madness.

              There were a lot of people on the left who weren’t associated with the MSM

              Lol! Such as whom? I think you have a very weird idea of what “left” actually is.

              The reason why the hardcore lefties liked him was because they saw him as a necessary evil.

              Really? Leftists just up and forgot how capitalism worked because… why, again?

              then we’ll back him until he stops being useful.

              Leftists understand that capitalism will never fix the problems capitalism has caused. Period. None of this is new - this has been general knowledge amongst leftists for more than a hundred years now.

              • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Probably not much… and probably because people at universities are smart enough to understand that electric cars doesn’t fix any problems at all.

                No, people at universities typically understand that a better solution would be to use public transportation, however they also understand that doing so is a pipe dream and you have to fight against trillions of dollars to do so. Otherwise they wouldn’t spend the time and effort to try and develop the technology in the first place. Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn’t exist? In that situation you’re developing a technological dead-end.

                In the meantime, our world is still burning and cars are shitting out more greenhouses gases.

                When you’re in a hole it’s best to stop digging. Continuing to rely on cars because fixing the mess that was caused for the benefit of capitalist parasites is “too expensive” is pure madness.

                Yes, because tearing up millions of square miles of suburban housing while displacing millions of people to compress it into a smaller space so that public transportation becomes feasible is definitely a realitic solution. New developments should be higher density and should have public transportation systems, however existing areas are kinda fucked from that standpoint.

                Lol! Such as whom? I think you have a very weird idea of what “left” actually is. Really? Leftists just up and forgot how capitalism worked because… why, again? Leftists understand that capitalism will never fix the problems capitalism has caused. Period. None of this is new - this has been general knowledge amongst leftists for more than a hundred years now.

                The ones who were realistic did. You know people can believe something is bad, yet still engage in it or use it because the alternative isn’t feasible, right? How many people still use plastic containers? How many people still drive cars? How many people still use social media? How many people still consume food with high-fructose corn syrup? How many people still call the cops in an emergency? How many people still use Amazon and/or Google? There are so many things that are bad for us, yet we still do them anyway, either because there’s no alternative or because we lack the time, money and/or energy to cut them out of our lives.

                Ideals are great, but they aren’t grounded in reality and compromises have to be made. If you can’t understand this, then you’re dead weight for the people who are actually trying to make a difference.

                I know you’re trying to get a rise out of me, but c’mon, you can do better.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn’t exist?

                  Well hallelujah, friends… the right-wingers have finally found a pretext that none of us can beat - they messed things up so badly that none of it can be fixed, and nobody should even try. I don’t know why they just don’t go public with that - they already have one believer right here.

                  Seriously, what is the point of developing an electric car if you believe cars shouldn’t exist?

                  You do understand that there are more uses for batteries than cars, right?

                  How many people still use plastic containers? How many people still drive cars?

                  Plastic containers did’t fall out of the sky - neither did cars. The people who benefit from their production doesn’t live on Mount Olympus - we can strip them (and the political structures that enables them) of their power and fix these things. It’s not some pipe dream or an ideal - it’s literally the only way to guarantee humanity’s continued survival on this planet.

                  but they aren’t grounded in reality

                  The only thing you seem to have “grounded in reality” is that the destruction of literally everything should be “compromised” with. It seems the only thing you are willing to do is compromise - but I guess that’s where the money is, huh?

      • weew@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        it was before he was an actual celebrity and was only known for creating Tesla/SpaceX. He was also “only” a millionaire and well before Tesla stock went nuts, and he also wasn’t posting like crazy on Twitter so people only knew him via Tesla and SpaceX’s achievements, both of them legendary underdogs looking to overthrow the well-established big industry corporations.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Soooo… just the kind of person the left has despised for more than a hundred years now?

          • weew@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            what? The “left” has always been the side of revolutionary upstarts and underdogs. The right is the conservative, old guard, established players.

            you’re literally trying to rewrite history just to try to hate Musk a little more

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              The “left” has always been the side of revolutionary upstarts and underdogs.

              It’s okay… you can just admit you don’t have the foggiest clue what it is you are talking about.

              You can’t fix something if you don’t even admit to it, yes?

      • blueson@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think it’s important to distinct what part of the left.

        Most of the left on Lemmy? Probably not.

        A lot of liberals who align themselves with the US democrats? There was a lot of support until the famous pedo incident.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Along with pre-pandemic (roughly) Musk, Sam Bankman Freed was also buddies with the left and even had a second co-ceo to court the right wing politicians while he hung out with the left wing (those that were dumb enough to believe in crypto anyway).

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No offence intended… but this post has shown me just what a completely warped idea people have in regards to what “left” and “right” even means - very few people here seem to even know that anti-capitalism is where the left starts…

      • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Tbh I liked him when the whole GME thing happened, because when Robinhood screwed over all the GME holders Elon blew the lid off of Dogecoin and I basically made all my profits back. I also thought him poking fun at the SEC while all that happened was pretty ballsy and I respected that.

        But now he’s made it known that he’s a conservative bootlicker, transphobe, antivaxx, corporate shill… 🤷‍♀️

    • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m so tired of seeing mean gross old white men scowling all over my damn feed any time anyone shares an article.

      • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty sick of them wrecking the world, some of us will get stuck with clean/ survival because of them.

        • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I couldn’t say because it never really happens enough to make me sick of seeing them being such shitty people it regularly makes headlines.

            • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I am. I didn’t say it doesn’t happen just not enough to make me sick of seeing his face. Is this a test or something am I being tested for reverse racism or something because I mentioned white men??

    • meter_kilo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      THIS oh gawwwd, couldn’t agree more. Tired of reading news about this guy talking unintelligent crap. Dear people, for him even negative publicity is still publicity and for us it is a waste of our attention, 1 cent of which he doesn’t deserve.

        • AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not wrong but it’s also the people’s fault as well for engaging so much with this bullshit. I swear 90% of the internet exists simply to circle jerk about things people hate while the remaining 10% actually talks about things they like. I’ll never understand why people choose to talk so much about the things they hate, just fucking downvote and move on to something you actually like.

          All publicity is good for these pieces of shit, stop feeding into the rage cycle and they wouldn’t be covered so much. Or they’d have to pay more for their coverage at the very least.

    • Gamoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Twitter saboteur wanting to move onto sabotaging Wikipedia, the biggest reference source in the world that’s only accessible via the internet, on his crusade against truth and facts? Of course it’s tech news.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean the post has convinced me to donate to Wikipedia. It’s newsworthy. I hate Musk as much as you, but I can’t just stick my head in the dirt.

      There’s nothing wrong with wanting to unplug from it, but don’t begrudge others for not wanting to.

    • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      He runs a social media platform of influence. It’s tech.

      Don’t like it? Hide the post and move on.

  • waitmarks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    1 year ago

    Someone should tell Elon that an unprofitable website and a non-profit website are not the same thing.

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unless Wikipedia is a public company with fiduciary responsibilities, can’t they just say, “fuck you. No.”?

        EDIT: They’re a non commercial 501©(3). They can say “fuck you. No.”

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well I’m sure glad someone looked into that. Still, I’m anxious he might try to do Bad Things™ to it. Ya know, like he does whenever he gets some idea in his head about something, and then Bad Things™ happen to it.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s that, and the fact that Jimmy Wales might have a reverse uno card, as he is quietly developing a free and non profit social media platform of his own called trust cafe.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I completely hate how something that is a rare Bastian of maintaining free and reliable factual information for the world is just a silly game for him. It sickens me. This is the kind of cartoon character rich villain that throws money a people and shouts at them to dance for him.

    • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      77
      ·
      1 year ago

      reliable

      Wikipedia

      It’s literally a meme how you can’t trust anything you see on there except for the most objective, undeniable facts, because you never know what page has been camped by an editor with an agenda or just a possessive streak. On anything even slightly subjective. I know there’s good editors, I know it’s a majority of them, but the problem is that the bad ones exist and so you can’t trust any given page isn’t poisoned.

      Also, relatedly, the entire backend is an ever-growing morass of petty politics and tangled policies that serve mostly as a barrier to entry. They’ve been saying admin and power-editor retention is a huge problem for well over a decade, and yet they keep making it worse. At this point, the majority of their admins are from 2005, with only 10% from after 2010, because nobody bothers getting started when the prerequisites to making even a small edit can be learning the wikipedia legal system.

      • skulblaka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for subjective content. Just because you keep getting your opinion edits rolled back does not mean that that’s a bad thing. A Wikipedia page SHOULD be filled only with objective facts. Again, it is an encyclopedia.

        Also, you can trust that a given page is not poisoned by checking the sources yourself. They’re all right there at the bottom. Anything without a citation can be ignored but most things of substance are going to have a citation, because an encyclopedia is a place in which to collect objective facts with sources to back them up.

        • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I didn’t say subjective content, I said content about something subjective. Wikipedia contains a wealth of “one proposed explanation for”, or “a common theory is” on any event or phenomenon, (of which many are covered). Objective reports of subjective statements. And the choice of which to use, which perspectives to include, is a form of bias. The reporting of which proposed theories for causes of historical events or meanings for literature are included, and which are left out, is a form of bias. One that cannot be seen through simply by “checking the sources”. An article written with a slant is going to include sources that agree with its viewpoint and not include sources that do not, and checking the sources is going to show you those viewpoints, and not the ones that were left out.

          Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources, just because it’s their page or it doesn’t line up with how they want it to be seen. Checking the sources won’t show you that, either.

          • Hobo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources

            That might be the misunderstanding. Primary sources are not directly allowed on wikipedia without very careful consideration that no analysis was done. Wikipedia article are, and should be, mostly derived from secondary sources to avoid bias. The Wikipedia page does a pretty good job of describing the guideline:

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

          • skulblaka@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Alright, you do actually make fair points here that I hadn’t taken into consideration. I still stand by my statement but now I see that you aren’t really necessarily disagreeing with me. Guess I’m going to have to start checking the edit history as well as the sources now…

      • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just follow the sources then. Everything that should be credible is backed by sources, and if you can’t believe that source then ignore it , or admit your trust issues.

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is, on a controversial issue, one side is presented with sources, and the other side is not mentioned at all or given just a brief overview?

          This often happens on Wikipedia, even when the editors aren’t trying to be biased. Suppose there was a dispute between the British Empire and a small tribe in South Africa. The British side of the story will have a lot of sources, most in English. The tribal side will most likely be known only to locals, with maybe some articles in Zulu and one in Dutch. How do you think the Wikipedia article will look?

          To be fair, Wikipedia is trying to enact policies to address such biases, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

    • bunnyfc@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wikipedia is not the Achilles heel of free access to information. The Achilles heel are the sources: libraries, websites.

      Consider donating to the internet archive instead or as well. If the sources are poisoned, Wikipedia just repeats bullshit. It’s secondary literature.

        • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I believe they mean that if Wikipedia dies, we are still able to get proper information from the actual sources.

          Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

          Since we can still get the info, we don’t succumb. If the primary sources get altered, then nothing in reality can be trusted.

          • ram@bookwormstory.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

            Wikipedia actually much prefers secondary and even tertiary sources to primary sources. They have rules against original research, and follows the guideline that “secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic’s notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources”. It’s only with exception that primary sources are allowed, in which the primary sources “have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.”

            Not disagreeing with you, just a bit of nuance.

          • emberwit@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You don’t simply alter facts, logical reasoning and scientific standards.

            • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can: Ban books, burn papers, delete servers, hack articles, AI creations, talk louder than reality.

          • wagesj45@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

            Technically, I think they only allow primary sources to be referenced if supported by a secondary source. They have weird and complex rules around that,

            • emberwit@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but I think that is not what user Star meant by primary. Just the sources that Wikipedia itself works with.

              • wagesj45@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re right, but what would the internet be without a little pedantry and ignoring the point of the post? :D

        • jasondj@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          An Achilles’ heel[1] (or Achilles heel[2][3]) is a weakness in spite of overall strength, which can lead to downfall.

          Source: Wikipedia

    • UnknownQuantity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      A few years ago, I set up a monthly donation. Of all things I can use for free on the internet, Wikipedia deserves it the most.

  • sirdorius@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course the community driven, anarchic nature of Wikipedia is a threat to the status quo of capitalists dominating society. Musk can’t stand this, because it shows how ultra wealthy, incompetent dicktators like him are unnecessary.

    • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      and WireMin

      sorry this is not open source. Who is behind it, what is their gain and how do I trust whatever they claim in their website?

    • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bluesky is another alternative, whilst not decentralized, its been pretty cool over there. I also have a mastodon account though

      • Calavera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So what’s the point? enshitification will inevitably hit them as well and then people will have to migrate again and again

        • Staccato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I love the fediverse, but it hasn’t fully solved the migration need problem. If I open an account on an instance which I later discover I don’t like, I have to migrate for that as well.

          The point as I see it is just limited to who do I want to follow, and what platforms can I use to do so? If bluesky turns to shit in a decade, but I get value out of it for that decade, maybe that’s enough for my needs.

          (FWIW, I am not on bluesky)

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If I open an account on an instance which I later discover I don’t like, I have to migrate for that as well.

            For Mastodon there’s a feature for transferring your account from one server to another, with its history, etc.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    DON’T YOU THREATEN SOMETHING I ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT, FUCKER.

    But seriously, I can’t imagine the fine folks at Wikimedia seeing what happened to shitter and thinking there’s any value in having him in charge.

    You suck, Lonnie. Go away.

  • Gamoc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So he did get Twitter just to ruin it and take it away from the left. This proves it, because he wants to do it again to Wikipedia whilst calling it “Wokipedia” like a broken, right wing soundboard. Neither platform allowed lies and, since it’s the right and their only move is lies, in his view that makes them biased. Elon intentionally sabotaged twitter because it wouldn’t let him and his rich cunt friends lie and now they want to do it to Wikipedia. He genuinely doesn’t have a moral foundation, it’s just lies and manipulation all the way down to his shriveled, rotten core.

    • microphone900@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I found this interesting article when trying to understand why he’s doing what he’s doing with Twitter. What was Elon Musk’s strategy for Twitter? - NBC News

      On the day that public records revealed that Elon Musk had become Twitter’s biggest shareholder, an unknown sender texted the billionaire and recommended an article imploring him to acquire the social network outright.

      Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the 3,000-word anonymous article said, would amount to a “declaration of war against the Globalist American Empire.” The sender of the texts was offering Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO, a playbook for the takeover and transformation of Twitter…

      The text messages described a series of actions Musk should take after he gained full control of the social media platform: “Step 1: Blame the platform for its users; Step 2: Coordinated pressure campaign; Step 3: Exodus of the Bluechecks; Step 4: Deplatforming.”

      That pressure campaign is against the Anti Defamation League which Musk has been trying to do.

      So I guess he’s doing it all for far right adulation.

    • arc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can understand his anger, but only because of who he is and what Wikipedia is.

      Wikipedia attempts to have a neutral point of view (NPOV). It is extremely nuanced but it basically means being impartial, relying on the verifiable facts & sources and not giving undue weight or emphasis on fringe views. The site also has a lot of active maintainers who go in and strive for that NPOV, deleting vandalism or other acts meant to shift away from it. It’s certainly not perfect but it clearly works in the main.

      NPOV is a hard thing to take for someone like Musk. He says & repeats incredibly dumb things on a daily basis and is highly susceptible to misinfo. He also has a massive ego, narcissistic personality disorder and an incredibly thin skin. He doesn’t like it when somebody says something he doesn’t like to hear and he doesn’t like it when he can’t control the person saying it. I have no idea why Wikipedia is pushing his buttons but I imagine that their bio about Musk is not pretty and it riles him up no end.

      • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. I assume Wikipedia has the words “massive fuck up”, more than once, in the section covering Musk’s aquisition of Twitter.

        I could go read it, but I’ve read enough about that clown for a lifetime.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Wokipedia” should not be confused with Wookieepedia the star wars focused wiki. Though it isnt as abjectly insane as Transformerspedia though there is some cross-over.

  • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah. So this os the end goal - obtain very popular and influential things on the internet - in this case communication and knowledge/facts, and destroy them in such a way that only technofascists like himself can even find them remotely useful.

    It’s the ultimate way to fuck up any democratic society and plunge the world further into chaos. What a dumpster fire.